Jump to content

Talk:Quebec and Lónsöræfi: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
The Anomebot2 (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,038,185 edits
Adding geodata: {{coord missing|Iceland}}
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Lónsöræfi''' is a wilderness area in south-east [[Iceland]]. The region is characterised by its varied geological formations. These mostly date from a period 5-7 million years ago when the volcano Kollumúlaeldstöðvar was active. The glacier tongues of the eastern extreme of [[Vatnajökull]] also impose themselves on the area. Visible to the north-west is Snæfell (1833m), the highest peak in Iceland that isn't part of a glacier. The mountains within the area itself include Sauðhamarstindur (1319m) and Jökulgilstindar (1313 m).
{{WikiProject Canada|class=B|importance=Top|qc=yes}}
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=B|category=Geography|importance=High}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Archive box|[[/Archive1|Archive 1 (July 2006 - April 2007)]]<br>[[/Archive2|Archive 2 (April 2007 - August 2007)]]<br>[[/Archive3|Archive 3 (August 2007)]]<br>[[/Archive4|Archive 4 (September 2007)]]<br>[[/Archive5|Archive 5 (September 2007 - October 2007)]]<br>[[/Archive6|Archive 6 (October 2007)]]}}


Lónsöræfi, while less known and less accessible than areas such as [[Skaftafell]] and the Southern Highlands, is nevertheless popular with hikers. A transport service from Stafafell farm into the reserve via all-terrain bus is available. Alternatively, the recent construction of a [[bridge]] for walkers over the [[Jökulsá í Lóni]] river at [[Eskifell]] has improved access for hikers. There are mountain huts at [[Geldingafell]], [[Múlaskáli]] and [[Egilssel]] run by regional associations of [[Ferðafélag Íslands]]. A 4-6 day walking route from[[ Snæfell]] to Stafafell is possible via the [[Eyjabakkajökull]] glacier tongue. The area can also be reached from[[ Geithellnadalur]]. The nearest settlements of any size are [[Höfn]] and [[Djúpivogur]].
== 2nd paragraph (so large and reads badly) ==


==External links==
Well now that the first paragraph is dealt with, we can move on to other ones.
* [http://www.eldhorn.is/stafafell/index.htm Stafafell Farm and Lónsöræfi travel service]
1. «La belle province» is a cheesy nickname used by very few people. It could indeed be in a nickname subsection but certainly not as one of Quebec's fundamental attributes... Someone previously brought up that I had insufficient proof for this. However I feel the burden of proof was on whomever put the line in there in the first place. It has no business this close to the lead.
* [http://english.ust.is/National-Parks/Protectedareas/Lonsoraefi/ Lónsöræfi page of the Icelandic Environment and Food Agency]
* [http://www.horn.is/ferdafelag/ Ferðafélags Austur-Skaftafellssýslu (in Icelandic)]
* [http://www.fljotsdalsherad.is/ferdafelag/ Ferðafélag Fljótsdalshéraðs (in Icelandic)]
* [http://www.isafold.de/lonsoraefi98/default.htm Account of a trek through Lónsöræfi, with photos (in German)]
* [http://www.hi.is/~annadora/lonsoraefi.pdf Lengthy report into tourism in Lónsöræfi, with photos (in Icelandic)]
* [http://www.flickr.com/photos/gislos/187640145/ Photo] [http://pond.org.uk/galleries/Iceland,%202000/index2.html Photos] [http://www.pbase.com/orelime/lonsoerafi Photos] [http://public.fotki.com/Ellaosk/lnsrfi/ Photos] [http://public.fotki.com/gunnasteina/fer__lnsrfi/page3.html Photos]
* [http://www.islandsmyndir.is/html_skjol/halendid/Lonsoraefi-2007-07-21/index.html Gallery of Lónsöræfi from www.islandsmyndir.is]


{{Iceland-geo-stub}}
2. The bordering people and provinces/states. To say that NB borders Quebec to the East is technically false. Indeed, «most» of NB is «somewhere» East of Quebec, and only a couple of miles actually «border» in an East-West way. Most of the border between NB and Quebec is a North-South border. Technically we should say East of Quebec is Labrador and SALT WATER, to the SE is NB & Maine, and on the South border is USA(NY, VT, NH). We may be able to get skirt this issue by not using the word «borders». I'm from the [[Gaspésie]], 20 743 km² (half the area of Switzerland), too large to be considered a pimple of geography LOL, NB has always been my south border :)--[[User:Tallard|Tallard]] 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


{{coord missing|Iceland}}
:I don't think we need to ask everyone's opinions on each and every subject within the article. If you feel that saying NB is to the East can be said better, go ahead and make the changes. We've had discussion about ''La Belle Province'', and I believe that as a motto/statement of notoriety, it should be mentioned;however, it may not be ''affectionately known as'', so the present format may be reworded. As far as I can tell, the only significant debate was regarding the usage of the word nation. Therefore, make any changes you feel should be done, and if you feel others might not agree, leave a note saying what you ''have'' done. If there is a disagreement, it can be changed back again. <b><font color="003399">[[User:Andrew647|Andrew]]</font><sup><font color="0033FF">[[User_Talk:Andrew647|6]]</font><font color="0033CC">[[Special:Contributions/Andrew647|47]]</font></sup></b> 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


{{DEFAULTSORT:Lonsoraefi}}
== Quebec Referendum ==
[[Category:South Iceland]]

Very little reference is maid to the Referendum of 1995. This event had a great deal of impact on the private sector of Quebec and effected the jobs and products produced by the province. It is my opinion that it should be e mentioned in a seperate section. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/207.107.199.117|207.107.199.117]] ([[User talk:207.107.199.117|talk]]) 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Returning to the "Quebecois nation" issue. ==

The initial paragraph needs to be put within proper context as it appears to be written in a manner that would confound most people not in Canada. The Quebecois Nation was proclaimed in a Motion of the House of Commons. The House could equally pass a Motion to salute the King of Tonga on his birthday or a Motion to recognize the 125th anniversary of Yorkton, Saskatchewan. It did not confer upon Quebec any additional rights or alter Quebec's status as a Province of Canada. A "nation" in the English language is usually taken to mean a sovereign state with all the trappings that it entails such as legislative supremacy in all respects, reciprocity from other nations that recognize the inalieable sovereign character, the nationality of its inhabitants, the right to take part in transnational forums, a central bank, armed forces, having diplomats accredited to it and so forth. The proper noun "Quebecois" is without legal meaning outside of Canada, and arguably within Canada apart from being understood to mean a resident of the Canadian Province of Quebec. [[User:Daza ra|Daza ra]] ([[User talk:Daza ra|talk]]) 02:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:My understanding of the issue was that the "Quebecois" were declared a "nation", just like the Natives form a "nation". But the Natives also have treaties with the federal government that allow them extras (which was in exchange for the land), whereas the Quebecois do not. The ''people'' form a nation within Canada. To change the official relationship between Canada and Quebec, they would need to alter the Constitution, and unless I missed a Referendum or an important vote by every province, the Constitution has not been changed. It is basically business as usual, plus the Quebecois are unique (which we all knew before, but now it's "official"). I think that the opening paragraph distinguishes this. I've linked to [[nation]] to hopefully help people (honestly, people in and out of Canada are confused by the issue). As nation says: ''Members of a "nation" share a common identity", which is what we've basically said about Quebec. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 22:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

::User [[User:Daza ra|Daza ra]], please see Archives 5 and 6 where we held a ''lenghty'' discussion on the subject. [[User:Tomj|Tomj]] ([[User talk:Tomj|talk]]) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Also, hoping this may help, I would suggest Daza Ra compare the definitions of [[nation]] and [[nation-state]]. I believe therein lies the confusion, and it's quite obvious here that Quebecers represent the first, ''but not the second'' of these two terms, unless I slept through another referendum.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 23:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"... and the only one whose people have been declared a nation..." It's not quite clear how people can be declared a nation... Grade F to the people who revised and/or accepted the revision. [[User:Cristo39|Cristo39]] ([[User talk:Cristo39|talk]]) 07:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

:From [[Nation]] in Wikipedia: ''A nation is a form of cultural or social community.'' There are many sources that define nation similarily. "Nation" is a term which applies to a group of people, first and foremost. Did you by any chance have [[nation-state]] in mind?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Nation is rarely used in English in the same sense as in French. The United Nations, for instance, is an organization of only nation-states. The word nation carries the connotation of a political state having sovereignty over its territory. While the definition of nation in this debate has been expanded by Harper's declaration, it's not really native to the sense of the word in the English language. Just ask an American, like me.

From Merriam-Webster:

1 a (1): nationality 5a (2): a politically organized nationality (3): a non-Jewish nationality <why do the nations conspire — Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version)> b: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government
c: a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

''2, archaic : group, aggregation''

3: a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)

NOTE THE ARCHAIC REFERENCE TO WHAT IS THE SAME SENSE IN FRENCH.

G. Csikos, 25 November 2007

:You're going to have to make your point a little more obvious to me, G Csikos, because I don't understand what you're trying to say. We have endeavored to express that the term nation used in the motion applied to the people, and had no links to sovereignty in the province. Are you saying that we haven't sufficiently expressed the difference between nation and nation-state? <font color="003399">[[User:Andrew647|Andrew]]</font><sup><font color="0033FF">[[User_Talk:Andrew647|6]]</font><font color="0033CC">[[Special:Contributions/Andrew647|47]]</font></sup> 08:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I was just supporting Cristo39 in his valid point as to whether a group of people can be ''declared'' a nation by someone else. G. Csikos, 26 November 2007 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.239.88.199|216.239.88.199]] ([[User talk:216.239.88.199|talk]]) 11:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Wow, I definitely didn't get that from what you said. The argument came up regarding whether or not "outsiders" can declare a group a nation, and some editors (who I would believe associate themselves with the Quebecois nation) argued that external acknowledgment is unnecessary. Quebecers have called themselves a socio-cultural nation for years. At the same time though, perhaps ''declare'' is not the right word to use in the sentence. I'm certain there is an alternative. <font color="003399">[[User:Andrew647|Andrew]]</font><sup><font color="0033FF">[[User_Talk:Andrew647|6]]</font><font color="0033CC">[[Special:Contributions/Andrew647|47]]</font></sup> 12:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

::May I suggest ''recognize'' as a possible alternative?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

:::I '''support''' the use of recognize- England didn't suddenly proclaim Québec a nation as some writers/editors would like it to be. Excellent suggestion! [[User:Monsieurdl|Monsieurdl]] ([[User talk:Monsieurdl|talk]]) 13:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

:::I '''support''' as well. <font color="003399">[[User:Andrew647|Andrew]]</font><sup><font color="0033FF">[[User_Talk:Andrew647|6]]</font><font color="0033CC">[[Special:Contributions/Andrew647|47]]</font></sup> 06:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Recognize is a better word since nations exist on their own, not to mention it was the word used in the actual motion in Parliament. The Québécois form a coherent community with a defined government and territory.

I think saying it's nation being used in the "sociological" sense is silly since that sense doesn't exist in English (see above). The regular definition of a nation being a community with a government and territory is fine. G. Csikos, 26 November 2007 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.239.83.200|216.239.83.200]] ([[User talk:216.239.83.200|talk]]) 03:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Perhaps being an American, you haven't had the experience of dealing with Quebec nationalism and sovereignty issues. It is ''absolutely'' necessary to define what form of nation the people of Quebec compose because any ambiguity can be twisted into referring to Quebec as a nation-state. I accept your definition of nation from Merriam-Webster, and I would argue that the Quebecois nation is really in the second definition, what you have highlighted as archaic. Likewise, the Wikipedia definition fits, describing the people as forming a social and cultural nation. What edition of Merriam Webster did you use, by the way? <font color="003399">[[User:Andrew647|Andrew]]</font><sup><font color="0033FF">[[User_Talk:Andrew647|6]]</font><font color="0033CC">[[Special:Contributions/Andrew647|47]]</font></sup> 06:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've lived in Montreal for six years now Andrew. My point about being an American is that I grew up in a unilingual English-speaking environment so I don't have problems with ''faux amis'' (words that sound the same in two languages but are really different in meaning). That was the latest version of Merriam-Webster's dictionary at m-w.com. G. Csikos, 27 November 2007 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.239.83.200|216.239.83.200]] ([[User talk:216.239.83.200|talk]]) 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I didn't mean any insult when I commented on your being American, just to clarify the situation. My argument was that both the definition you provided and the definition [[nation|here]] discuss a sociological sense, since a group or aggregation is a social context. <font color="003399">[[User:Andrew647|Andrew]]</font><sup><font color="0033FF">[[User_Talk:Andrew647|6]]</font><font color="0033CC">[[Special:Contributions/Andrew647|47]]</font></sup> 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
::Is it ''all'' the people of Quebec or just the francophone Quebecers? Clarify please. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Truthfully, I believe it is just francophone Quebeckers as they are the distinct community in question that has a government governing a defined territory, and are hence a nation. English-speaking Quebeckers self-identify with Canada more than Quebec.

:::Just for background, I don't subscribe to the two-nation view of Canada's origins legally (in that Quebec ''has'' more powers than the other provinces, like a constitutional veto, since it represents the French-Canadian (Québécois) nation) but I do politically (as in Quebec ''should have'' more powers for the same reasons). G. Csikos, 13 December 2007.

::GoodDay, there doesn't seem to be a clear answer to your question. When the Harper government made their declaration, they said that "...the Quebecois form a nation..." and dodged clarifying whether Quebecois meant "all Quebeckers" to reporters who asked your very question immediately afterwards.

::In a province where, by law, the majority '''must''' send their children to schools to be instructed in their mother tongue; where immigrants cannot choose which language schools their children attend, and children of parents from the U.S., U.K., Australia, Jamaica, or any other English-speaking country (except Canada), cannot send their children to one of Quebec's publically-funded English schools, there certainly is the appearence of a stratified society. You can be fined for having unilingual commercial signs in a language other than French. There are even plans afoot to prevent Quebeckers who fail to meet some standard of French-language proficiency from running and even voting in elections!

::I have not heard any outcry from Quebec's majority critical of these policies...have you?

::So, if the Quebecois Nation is substantially defined, and self-identify, by virtue of language and/or linguistic roots, how can members of the cultural communities be considered full members of the nation?

::To address G. Csikos' response to your question, I don't believe that English-speaking Quebeckers self-identify more with Canada than they do with Quebec. I think that it is not a matter of choice for them. I lived in Montreal for 45 years and it wasn't a matter of "either/or" for me. I was a Canadian, Quebec was my province, Montreal my city, and TMR my hometown. It would be silly to ask an Ontarian to choose whether he/she self-identifies more with his/her province or country. The fact that this even comes up in Quebec is evidence of a jingoistic political climate where people are lead to believe that Canada, multi-culturalism, and multilingualism are threats to their way of life and that the best defense is to build walls. It produces an "us against them" mindset that rallies the population behind ideas like separation and suppression of minority rights in the name of preservation of cultural identity. [[User:CWPappas|CWPappas]] ([[User talk:CWPappas|talk]]) 08:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

:::You are partly right, CWPappas. There is indeed a politicizing in Quebec of the issues at hand, and it does go too far a lot of times, but you must remember that Quebecois are a proud people- heritage is everything. The French language ties Quebecois together, and traditions are supremely important. Those who are not will never understand because they cannot relate to the heritage- they only see the language and the flag and Parti Quebecois and a referendum. It does not prevent Quebec from being a recognized nation, however. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 14:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

:I assumed Quebecois was 'Quebec francophones', which is why the opening sentence caught my eye. I didn't think Quebecois nation ment the entire provincial population. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree CWPappas. For English-speaking Canadians, including Anglophones in Quebec, Canada is their "nation" while their province of residence is a secondary attachment (much like in the US with states instead of provinces). This ranking of affiliation is the opposite for most French-speaking Quebeckers: Quebec is their "nation" and Canada is just what's on the money and passports. Separatism aside, most Québécois are much more passionate about Quebec than they are about Canada and understandably so since it is where they feel most in control.

In this context the word Québécois in the Commons motion really must be interpreted as being French-speaking Quebeckers who would have been called French-Canadians a half century ago. It was just politically expedient to avoid explaining this to the media and remain ambiguous in intent. G. Csikos, 13 December 2007.
:I've corrected the opening sentence, so that it shows who's the Quebecois nation. It's the Francophone Quebecers. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
::No, I strongly disagree with this correction, as when asked to clarify who was included in the Quebecois nation, Harper was very specific that it was those who identified themselves as such. One doesn't need to be born in the Province of Quebec nor to have French as a first language to identify as a Quebecois (as can be seen if any one of you has been following the Bouchard-Taylor commission?). Furthermore, yes, it was recognized as such by the Canadian House of Commons, but it was earlier (2003, I believe) proclaimed by the Quebec National Assembly, thus there is no need for this overspecification or this restriction that's arbitrarily imposed on membership. The Quebecois nation is ''not'' limited to just French Canadians.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 13:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::I guess my whole point is that saying that the recognition only applies to francophone Quebecers is either [[WP:NOR|original research]] if it isn't supported by references, or [[WP:NPOV|favouring one specific POV]] if you side with one set of references as this interpretation is far from being unanimous (I don't even think it is predominant).--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:Well, it's certainly not the entire provincial population that's a nation. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::The way Harper put it, it's the personal choice of every single resident, period. No one is ''de facto'' excluded. So, if every single resident wants to identify him or herself as a Quebecois, yest the whole population is potentally included. Why do you thnk anyone would be excluded who doesn't want to be?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:I disagree; the ''nation'' is the Francophone Quebecers. However, since I've no source to back that claim, I won't revert. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::Exactly; when you have a reliable source that says that the motion was only intended to recognize francophone Quebecers, then we can change the text. However, this would need to be something directly from governmental sources, not just from some political analyst on the scene. However, I personnally don't see how someone either not born in Quebec or not having French as ther first language could be prevented from identifying as part of the Quebecois nation (assuming they live in Quebec, if nothing else) if they so wish. As far as I know, that's the way it's been with every single nation on earth: you can be born to it, or you can adopt it. Let's be clear that I agree that francophone Quebecers are at the core of the nation; that doesn't prevent anyone else from adopting the Quebecois nationality if they so desire, and thereby also becoming "Quebecois" in the process.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 17:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:OK, that makes sense, ''nation'' goes beyond borders (in this case Quebec's borders). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::I agree that there was no specific limit placed that stated only Francophone Quebecers where to be deemed part of the "Quebecois nation." However, was there anything that restricted the Quebecois nation to just Quebec? To my mind, Harper's motion spoke about a people as opposed to geography (similar in notion to the King of ''the Belgians'' as opposed to the King ''of Belgium''). Therefore, one can be part of the "Quebecois nation" outside of Quebec, while the text here seems to imply otherwise. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:Interesting, the Quebecois nation. They do indeed live outside of Quebec aswell as inside. Thus Quebec isn't the ''only province'' to have this ''nation'' within Canada. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::That is your interpretation. My interpretation is that Quebecois form a nation under the auspices of the Quebec province- you are confusing the idea of a named group versus an actual nation. If I pointed out there is a "[[Red Sox Nation]]", this doesn't mean the Boston Red Sox form an actual nation within New England- that would be silly. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::And the current text is, I assume, ''your'' interpretation. Where are the cites, then, to support the assertion that the "Quebecois nation" is one formed of those who personally define themselves to be, but ceases at the borders of the province? --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

::::In the traditional sense, a "nation" defines a people, not a geographic region. Since this article is about Quebec in the broader sense (its territory, its people, its history, etc.), it is correct to include in the article that this notable fact (recognition) has happened. Now, the wordng ''the only province'' exists because no other provincially-based people (with the collective exception of the First Nations) have been recognized as such, neither the Ontarians, the British Columbians, or whatever. Outside of the First Nations, possibly the closest you'll come to another nation within Canada are the Acadians, and these aren't specifically associated with a single province, but rather to a defined region (the Maritime Provinces) that econpasses several provinces.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::I can agree with you in part; but, the present wording states that all the people of Quebec are recognized as a nation, not just those who personally identify themselves as Quebecois. Perhaps the sentence needs to be reworded so as to say Quebec is the only province with a segment of the population who have been recognised as a nation within a united Canada. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 19:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::My point is this, and '''only this''' the ''very same'' can be said of ''any nation'' on Earth; would that prompt you to put a qualifier in every single statement of nationhood in every article on Wikipedia? I would think reasonably not. There will ''always'' be residents in ''every'' nation on Earth who do not identify with the nation in which they reside, for whatever reason (remember the song: ''An Englishman in New York'' by Sting?) In other words, Quebec's people can be a nation, and the province be the nation's homeland withiut the needs for every Quebecer to identify as a Quebecois, or for every single Quebecois to live within the borders of the province.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::As "nation" is a term that's open to interpretation, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
:::::::It is clear here that: 1) Quebec - the province - was ''not'' recognised by the HoC as a nation; 2) Quebecers - the population of the province of Quebec - were ''not'' recognised by the HoC as a nation. So, those two facts already show the previous wording of the sentence to be misleading. The reality is, something called "the Quebecois" was defined as a nation. We can only say that "the Quebecois" are a certain population of people, based in Quebec, who define ''themselves'' as such; the status of "Quebecois" has never been conferred on individuals from any governmental body.
:::::::The wording of Harper's motion in the HoC was purposefully vague; we should not now go about setting our own parameters on the decision reached by parliamentarians. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

:So you're saying there's ''no'' members of the Quebecois nation living in the other provinces or territories? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::''"In other words, '''if you recognize that the Québécois form a nation, you have to vote yes in a referendum on separation.''' The attempt by the leader of the Bloc to persuade Quebecers of good faith to support separation despite themselves brings to mind what his mentor, Jacques Parizeau, said about lobster traps. Quebecers are not taken in by these clumsy tactics."'' -[http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/motion-quebecnation.html Stephen Harper, November 2006]
::You cannot vote on a referendum of separation if you are outside of the borders of the province of Quebec. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that the PM adopts my interpretation of his words. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 19:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::To [[User:GoodDay]]: I'm saying that it's irrelevant. Does the fact that there are (insert natinality here) people living outside of (insert national territory here here) detract from the fact that it's a nation? (whether sovereign or non-sovereign isn't relevant here either). '''Every nation''' has nationals living outside its territory, and non-nationals living within its territory, and that doesn't detract from their being a nation, and the territory being considered as that nation's homeland, whether sovereign or not.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 19:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:I still have a problem with making this geographic. Sorry guys. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

:PS- ''segement of the population'', now that's more accurate. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

::No, it's not more accurate. Membership in the nation was never meant to be restrictive; if you want the article to say that there are restrictions, please bring a reliable source that defines the restriction(s). Otherwise, you're putting conditions on the existence of the nation which aren't put on other nations. Whether you have problems with this is irrelevant; whether you can supply reliable sources that back up your position is ''the'' relevant point.
--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 19:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::Saying that ''a segment of the populaton'' consitutes a nation means that some are excluded. Can you find reliable sources that say who's excluded and on what grounds? If you can, we'll change it.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Some are excluded: those who don't define themselves as "Quebecois." If you have a source that states the entire population of the province of Quebec has been defined as the "Quebecois nation," then please bring it forward. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::''Quebecois'' is simply the French word for Quebecer, and inferring that its use in English means that it is a subest of Quebecers rather than the category being open to whoever wants to identify as such is [[WP:NOR|original research]] unless you can back it up with reliable sources. And the fact that the word isn't identical to ''Quebecer'' cannot be taken in and of itself as proof that it has a different meaning: ''cerulean'' and ''blue'' both mean blue.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 19:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::No, no, no. If you read the motion, and even the Hansard transcripts of ensuing debate, the term "les Québécois" is used quite apart from "the people of Quebec." As was already pointed out above: "When the Harper government made their declaration, they said that "...the Quebecois form a nation..." and dodged clarifying whether Quebecois meant "all Quebeckers" to reporters who asked [the] very question immediately afterwards." So, inferring that Harper meant the population of Quebec when he said "les Québécois" is equally [[WP:OR|original research]], unless it can be backed up by sources, as I already asked you for. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

:By living outside Quebec, one's not a ''nation member''? Isn't that restrictive? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::Céline Dion lives outside of the borders of Quebec; but I very much think she defines herself as a Quebecoise nevertheless.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 19:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:So there are ''Quebecois nation members'' living in the other Canadian provinces? If so, Quebec isn't the ''only province'' to have this distinction. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::But to the ''Quebecois nation members'' living outside of Quebec, Québec (the province) is their homeland, not whatever territory they happen to reside in. Ontario (to name one), that I'm aware, isn't the region Quebecers call their homeland. There are French people living in many countries outside of France; does that mean that France s comprised of all these other countries? I'd hope not!--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
<s>:If a person decides to leave Quebec and live in another province (say Ontario), is this person (who's now an Ontarian) still a 'Quebecois nation member' if he/she chooses that identity? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)<s>
:There lay the big question: Did the Harper government describe the 'Province of Quebec' as a nation within Canada? Can anybody fully interpet what the resolution says? Was the resolution deliberatly vague? Perhaps the ''nation'' thing should be removed from the lead, as it's open to interpetation. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::Indeed, that is the crux of the matter. The motion most certainly did not define the "Province of Quebec," or even specifically "the people of Quebec" as a nation. It was "les Québécois," without clarification as to what "les Québécois" means.
::I too was tempted to remove the sentence from the lead; I almost did, but thought it was worth while to explore other alternatives here. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Again, not everyone living in Quebec needs to identify with the Quebecois nation for the nation to exist. And I don't think it is reasonable to doubt that indeed Quebec is the homeland of the Quebecois. If we were talking about ''any'' other nationality, would you raise the same issues? Would you doubt that indeed France is the homeland of the French, even though not everybody in France self-defines as French, and even though some French people live abroad? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think we're testing this issue much further than we would if we were speaking about any other nationality.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Ramdrake, you're still operating on the assumption that by "les Québécois" Harper meant "the population of Quebec." There is, so far, no proof of this. Your comparisons to France are non-applicable; France is a country, Quebec is not. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::My contention is that, in the absence of definite proof one way or another, the appropriate logical assumption is that "Québécois" means what it's supposed to mean in its original language, which isn't a leap of faith. You can't assume by default that Harper ''did'' mean anything else than the people of Quebec. And if you dislike my analogy with the French, here's another one about a non-sovereign people: Would you doubt that indeed Flanders is the homeland of the Flemish, even though not everybody living in Flanders self-defines as Flemish, and even though some Flemish people live abroad?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::Assumptions don't work; they're [[WP:OR|original research]], and [[WP:V|unverified]] OR at that. If we can't assume a default one way - and I agree we can't, or, shouldn't - then there should be no assumed default the other. Thus, if the sentence is not to be removed all-together, then it should be reworded. I think your Flemish example is more appropriate, and if you want the sentence to say "Quebec is the only province that is the homeland of a people recognized as a nation by the House of Commons," then I'd agree to it. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Well, I personnally think it's clunky, but if it's the only way to keepit there, I'll settle for that compromise. May I suggest, however, that we give it a few days for other people to chime in, maybe even bring other sugegstions?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This is why I feel the 'Quebecois nation' should be removed from the opening (and put somewhere else in the article). It invites assumptions. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:Well, there were several discussions preceding this one, and the consensus was that the fact was significant and notable enough to be in the introduction of the article. No other provincial people in Canada have been recognized as such, and until someone finds me a reliable source that says otherwise, I maintain that logic should dictate that Quebecois==Quebecer.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
When are you gonna show us a source that backs your claim? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:Right after you show me a source that says they have different meanings. Seriously, any French-English dictionary will show you.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Since neither of us can provide a source, the sentence should be moved to another part of the article. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:It doesn't work that way. I've provided you with a source, (actually a whole class of sources) that says Quebecois means Quebecer, just in another language. So far, it's the only tangible evidence either way, and it's a fact.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not talking about Quebcois being the french version of Quebecer (which it is), though. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:OK, here's a reference: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Quebecois]:
:''A native or inhabitant of Quebec, especially a French-speaking one.'' Thus, it is defined that "Quebecois" means someone either born or living in Quebec, ''especially'' a French-speaking one (especially since they constitute by and far the majority), but it doesn't say anything about the definition ''excluding'' anyone.
:Also, please note that it also offers this alternative definition:
:''Que·bec·er -noun a native or inhabitant of Quebec, esp. one who is from the city of Quebec and whose native language is French.''
:and
''Québecois or Quebecois -noun A native or inhabitant of Quebec, especially a French-speaking one.''
So, here you have reliable sources that say that there is basically '''no''' difference between the definitions of either word, except perhaps that "Quebecer" would be more appropriate than "Quebecois" to designate the inhabitants of Quebec City proper, which is totally outisde the purview of this debate.
:I rest my case.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::The term used wasn't "Quebecois"; it was "les Québécois," and Harper specifically refused to answer questions about whether this term "''the'' Québécois" means the entire population of Quebec or not. Dictionary definitions aside, we just don't know what he meant by the words he used; and I suspect it was composed the way it was for just that reason.
:::If my above proposal is acceptable, then let's insert it; clunkiness can hopefully be smoothed out. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Further: its very interesting to note that, in the Hansard transcripts, the term "les Québécois" is ''not'' translated into English, as is common for all other French spoken in the House (for the English version of Hansard, of course). --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 22:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually, the Hansard transcripts say: ''That this House recognize that ''the'' Québécois form a nation within a united Canada'', not "''les'' Québécois".--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 22:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::The version of Hansard used for a reference in this article doesn't; it clearly says "les Québécois." Regardless, the word "Québécois" isn't translated into "Quebecer." --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::If you read above, you'll find that reliable sources (dictionary.com) say they mean the same thing. I included the link and my findings above.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 23:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I read what you posted, but it is irrelevant. "Les Québécois," as used in this motion, has never been clarified as being the people of Quebec; Harper pointedly refused to do so. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the current version is based on an assumption/interpritation of the resolution meaning. This isn't acceptable. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:I say ''please'' let's wait a few days for other editors to chime in, as the three of us here today isn't nearly as large a consensus as the one that hammered out the previous version (about ten editors or so).--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still concerned about having this symbolic & vague resolution mentioned in the opening; but I'll wait. Ya gotta hand it to Harper, this resolution certainly isn't clear. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:After four days, it doesn't seem as though anyone else wants to weigh in on this matter. I'm going to insert the proposal I made above, that seemed to be met with some acceptance. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it's acceptable. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:I've been inactive for a while, so I missed the discussion. The proposal was the addition of "the homeland of," correct? <font color="003399">[[User:Andrew647|Andrew]]</font><sup><font color="0033FF">[[User_Talk:Andrew647|6]]</font><font color="0033CC">[[Special:Contributions/Andrew647|47]]</font></sup> 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, that's right; as the sentence reads now. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Good, just wanted to be certain. For the record, I half-heartedly agree with this change: the motion is about the people and this article is about the province. <font color="003399">[[User:Andrew647|Andrew]]</font><sup><font color="0033FF">[[User_Talk:Andrew647|6]]</font><font color="0033CC">[[Special:Contributions/Andrew647|47]]</font></sup> 23:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

===Mediation?===
:Here we go again. The Harper government did not draft the Quebecois Nationhood Motion over a quick power breakfast the morning of the announcement...it was a carefully crafted piece of purposely ambiguous political gibberism meant to be interpreted to mean any number of things. Why else would Harper and his boys use the French word "Quebecois" in the English version when this French word is open to interpretation in English and the English word "Quebecker(s)" is all-inclusive? Then, to my knowledge, during the Q&A period following the announcement all of Harper's entourage were equally vague when asked to clarify whether the motion meant that all Quebeckers were recognized as being part of the Quebecois Nation. Certainly the choice of a word in a language another than the language in which the statement to the press was given is significant. In Quebec, the primacy of the French language and culture are central to this nation's identity, aren't they? Self-identification in the Quebecois nationality must involve more than simple desire, it involves commitment to the primacy of the French language and Quebec culture, doesn't it? Aren't the restrictions on access to English schools, the language of commercial sign laws, and toponymy policies in place to preserve this national identity? Could a person that self-identifies as a member of the Quebecois nation but doesn't speak a lick of French, believes in the absolute equality of all cultural groups, and had a freedom-of-choice position on access to English schools be considered a true and full member of this nation?

:Because Harper's Motion refers to "the Quebecois", i.e. people, and this article is about the province, I feel that mention of the Quebecois Nation should not be in the lead. If it is to remain in the lead, I would prefer something to the effect of "...is a province in Canada, and the only province that is the homeland of the nation of the Quebecois people, as recognized by the House of Commons." with the word "Quebecois" linking to the WP Quebecois article ''or'' the words "nation of the Quebecois people" linking to the WP Quebec nationalism article or a brand-new article where the vaguaries and ambiguities of the Harper Motion can be presented to the readers at length an in all its gruesome, but balanced, detail.

:In the middle of October we had a unanimous consensus to bring in an administrator to mediate the phrasing and placement of the Harper Motion but edits were pushed through without mediation. If we are going to open up this can of worms again, I vote to bring in an impartial mediator. [[User:CWPappas|CWPappas]] ([[User talk:CWPappas|talk]]) 08:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

::CWPappas, I would appreciate your not conflating the language laws (and your sentiments towards them) with the issue of the Quebec nation. If I were to move to Port Coquitlam, BC, and complained about the fact that I can't send my children (if I had any) to French school, what would you say? Of course, BC doesn't have a regulation about this, but the mere fact that it has hardly any French-language schools drives the same results: assimilation into the language of the majority, which is something that is considered normal pretty anywhere else (ever heard of the ''American melting pot''? Please also be aware that those language laws apply ''equally'' to every one, so your insinuation that somehow it creates some sort of second-class citizenry doesn't hold too well. Again, you are free, as is everybody else living in Quebec or who was born there, to consider yourself -or not- a "Quebecois". ''Nobody'' denies you the right, either way. Now, the fact remains that we can say that the people of Quebec in general form a nation, without the need for every single individual to define him- or herself as a Quebecois (they all have that choice), but you can't say by any stretch of the imagination that anybody who ''wants'' to be included in the definition is forcibly excluded, thus ''potentially'' everybody who's a Quebecer can claim to be a ''Quebecois'' if they so wish.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

::Very well, bring in an impartial mediator. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::For the record, I'd agree with mediation too.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
::::What is the dispute now, though? Whether or not to even include mention of the Québécois nation issue in the lead? --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
::Yep. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'd like mediation so that we can have a sentence that everyone agrees with and which could have some sort of backing rather than being questioned all over again every time a new editor drops by the article. This last round is the '''third'' such ''unofficial mediation'' I've sat through, and I'd like some sort of stability to this part of the intro, while keeping there what I think is a very important fact about Quebec and its people.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 22:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I don't see much of a disagreement over the current sentence; I have no objections to any tweaking, as was alluded to above. The only issue I could see right now is that which I just mentioned: whether or not to actually mention the nation of people in the lead of an article on the province. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
::Perhaps removing the mentioning of the resolution will work, since it's already (properly) mentioned at [[Quebecois]]. -- [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::It's also mentioned [[Quebec#Quebec as a nation|further on in this very article]]. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::The reason why why I think I'd like mediation over this is that while ''you'' personnally may be swayed to agree that it is indeed important enough to make it in the intro, I don't want to have to repeat this exercize again every month as a new editor comes in. Being able to say that we went through mediation to forge (whatever) compromise is needed would, in my mind, give more weight to the result in case it gets questioned. And personnally, I believe it very much belongs in the intro. There are several precedents, such as with the [[Scotland]] article.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, I don't particularly care if it's in the lead or not. My reworking of it was merely to put forward the proper information ''if'' the sentence was to remain.
:::::::I wonder, though: will mediators involve themselves if there's no conflict to mediate? --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
::On a lighter note, perhaps we should add [[Leafs Nation]] to the lead of [[Ontario]], ha ha. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::And Don Cherry as its Premier? ;) --[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My point in bringing together these two issues is that if the Quebec governments over the years, and the laws they have created, are instruments of the people of Quebec and, presumably, of the Quebec Nation and if these laws remove freedom to choose English as the language of instruction for one's children because it is at odds with their notion of the common good, then what does this say about the anglo and allo communities' places within the Quebec Nation? What differentiates the Quebec Nation from the rest of the Canadian population? What defines it?

You are right, the francisation laws apply equally to everyone, as would a law that states '''everyone''' must hit people with blonde hair in the head with a stick. Blondes would spent a lot of time wearing hats (or helmets), but bare-headed brunettes would walk away unscathed. The brunettes might not complain about such an egalitarian law, but the blondes might. Would the brunettes fully accept blondes into their ranks if they didn't wear hats or dye their hair, just for who they were? Are the brunettes setting things up so that the blondes just give up and move to Ontario where hats don't come with a bottle of aspirin? Would blondes who self-identify with the brunettes still get hit in the head? Would all the blondes moving to Ontario end up being detrimental to the hat and stick industries?

Levity aside for a moment, the situation is not the same in Montreal and Port Coquitlam. In Montreal, English school boards exist right now and people are not being admitted because laws are being enforced, not because it is not possible to accommodate them. I don't know if you are old enough to remember the early 80s when at the end of the school year the newsreaders would list the English school closures and the English schools that were being turned over to the French sector. People did not suddenly begin to want to send their kids to the French schools—laws were forcing families to send their children into the French schools to produce a more desirable demographic a generation down the road. Why not let Quebec residents who are non-Canadian anglophones and allophones be maitres chez eux? Let the people decide. My family has about 200 years history in Quebec and it really hurts to see my community is being legislated out of existence, and The Nation has no problem with it. The anglo community's existence relied on immigrants (from English and non-English speaking countries) entering the community via the school system. You combine this with efforts to have just one language visible on commercial signs, toponomy policies, etc. and it looks like there is a concerted effort to mould Quebec into a certain social form.

Just as I am for freedom of choice in Quebec, I am certainly for French schools elsewhere in Canada. Not because one meets some qualification, but just because you want it. If there was a francophone community large enough to support a French language school elsewhere in Canada, are they prevented from doing it?

Look, don't get me wrong, Ramdrake. I love Quebec. I live in Ontario now and my wife and I would move back to Quebec at the drop of a hat (no reference to the "Blondes & Sticks Paragraph" to be inferred!)... even anglos are a different animal in Quebec than they are elsewhere (maritimers are different too, as are Torontonian, Niagarans, prairie people, westcoasters, etc). My argument with the phrasing of the Quebec Nationhood blurb is that it is not specific enough and that there is some debate over who the Quebecois are, as stated in my previous rant. "The Quebecois" are not even mentionned in the lead, or who they are. Just whose homeland is Quebec? Let's include the words "The Quebecois" and link them to the WP Quebecois article where people can sort things out for themselves.

I would prefer not going to mediation but we have been arguing since the summer over the tweaking of that one phrase.

Also, I support Don Cherry for Premier with Ron MacLean as first lady or Speaker of the National Assembly. I promise I won't complain either way...I just want to see Ron in there somewhere. [[User:CWPappas|CWPappas]] ([[User talk:CWPappas|talk]]) 10:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:Ron can be Governor General; he does currently work for the CBC, after all. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::OK you guys, let's end this comedy break (which I started); now, what's CWPappas complaining about? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:GoodDay, I'm complaining about this constant bickering over the phrasing and placement of mention of the Harper Motion and the definition of the Quebecois Nation in this article. We've been debating these issues since at least August and in the first half of October we had a consensus to bring in a mediator but then changes were made without mediation. This resulted in relative calm (and I remained relatively silent) but now discussion has started up again. I would prefer ironing this out by ourselves but, as Ramdrake stated in both of his entries on December 19, I don't want to have to argue these things forever. Failing a mutually-agreed upon solution by the editors (where serious opposition is not swept under the consensus rug), I'd much prefer to have someone come in, give us a deadline to present our arguements, and then decide on how the facts are presented in the article. [[User:CWPappas|CWPappas]] ([[User talk:CWPappas|talk]]) 07:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
::I'll go for anything that'll settle things. IMHO though, this 'resolution' should be removed from this article, since it's placed at [[Quebecois nation motion]]. -- [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
:What I would like to see is a phrase, prefererably in the [[Quebec#Quebec as a nation|Quebec as a Nation]] section of the article, that resembles the following...
::''On Monday, November 27, 2006 the House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada approved The [[Quebecois nation motion|Québécois Nation Motion]], a Parliamentary motion tabled by Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper, that read "That this House recognize that the [[Québécois]] form a [[nation]] within a united Canada."''
:Please note that this phrasing is true to the wording of the original motion and links to WP pages that explain The Motion, the Quebecois, and the general concept of nationhood in greater detail. I don't feel that The Motion merits mention in the lead because it accords no special legal status or rights to the Quebecois. [[User:CWPappas|CWPappas]] ([[User talk:CWPappas|talk]]) 07:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it should be removed from the lead. It's not a constitutional amendment & it's also vague (what's the Quebecois? is it limited to Quebec?). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
:I totally disagree that it should be removed from the lead. The equivalent sentence is in the lead for many other-language versions of the article (among others, if I remember correctly, French, Spanish, Italian and German) The motion doesn't need to change any law to have societal importance, and it ''does'' have a lot of importance to Quebecers.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
::It has a lot of importance to Quebecers? How can you proove this? Which Quebecers - all of them? If so can you proove that aswell? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm speaking from personal experience, and no, I haven't conducted any polls myself. Also, I would appreciate if you could avoid this "which Quebecers - all of them?" line of questioning, as it is only divisive, and not very helpful. Conversely, I'd like to ask your sources for saying that it is in fact "not important"? For my part, I would say that the fact that it ''is'' in the intro for this article in many foreign-language versions of Wikipedia (among them many of the more important languages in existence) would vouch for the fact of its importance. Please take note that ''all'' these versions incorporated this fact in the lead ''before'' it was introduced to the English-language Wikipedia article.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
::Regretfully, there may never be an agreement on this topic. Also, the resolution has an underlying 'seperatism' stigma to it (even though all editors involved are not seperatist). I'll let others figure this out, good luck folks. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Funny part is, to a lot of Quebecers, this recognition is possibly the best move the Canadian government has done in years to counter separatism.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
:So, I take it there's to be no mediation? --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 02:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
::Apparently, the Quebecois Nation motion has been removed from the lead (see discussion below). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

===Recognised by whom?===
I have to raise another issue (sorry): the wording of the text implies that there has been some kind of official national status conferred on the Quebecois, when this is not the case. There was a motion in the House of Commons, and it was agreed upon by the majority of members, but this does not create any law or even real national status for the Quebecois. Even declaring "themselves" (whomever "they" may be) does nothing to create anything officially recognised. So, though what I've since done may not be the ideal solution, the sentence had best somehow make this clear. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:I think this brings up a good point. Even though some may use "nation" as in "country", Quebec is ''not'' recognized as independent by ''any'' country in the world. Even Canada says that the Quebeois form a nation (in the social form) within a united Canada. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::No, Quebec isn't recognised as independent; but nor is it recognised as a nation by "Canada." The House of Commons, and perhaps the National Assembly of Quebec - some years ago - define "les Quebecois" as a "nation." --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Please re-read the introduction. It doesn't say that "Quebec is recognized as a nation"; it says the "'''people''' of Quebec are recognized as a nation". There is a major distinction here. The only question remaining is whether "Quebecois" means the people of Québec. I say that's a safe enough assumption.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::We can't allow assumptions. Does the resolution cover all Quebecers (not just Francophone Quebecers), is open to debate. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Why don't we do something productive then? How about we ask a lawyer, or maybe a professor in constitutional studies, or maybe email Harper and ask him. ''We'' don't get to interpret legislation, that is the courts job. Nor can we "assume" was Harper's motivation was behind the bill (for all we know, it was so the government presented it and not the Bloc, who were coming out with their own bill like the next day). The issue is open to debate, but definitive answers can only be given by people who have the right qualifications (a judge, lawyer, professor, Harper). Besides partisan politics and Quebecers ego, this legislation has absolutely no effect on anything. We mine as well debate how Canadian the [[Dali Llama]] is now that he has [[Honorary Canadian citizenship|honourary citizenship]]. We are collectively wasting our time here. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 23:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::It isn't even legislation. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The motion doesn't have any legal effect, just a political one. A nation or country doesn't have to be sovereign (for instance, the UK is made up of four constituent nations) or to have any special powers by virtue of its mere existence. A motion that the Québécois are a nation does not and cannot confer on Quebec any sort of legal benefit. G. Csikos, 15 December 2007 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.239.84.227|216.239.84.227]] ([[User talk:216.239.84.227|talk]]) 20:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I'm not certain I understand the purpose of this discussion. The motion is purely symbolic, as stated somewhere in the archives, and it does not confer any national benefits. Although it is ambiguous as to who is included, Ramdrake has provided some intelligent points on who is included in a nation, regardless of territory. Since that fact is backed by the wording of the motion (the ''people'' descriptive), what is the issue here? <font color="003399">[[User:Andrew647|Andrew]]</font><sup><font color="0033FF">[[User_Talk:Andrew647|6]]</font><font color="0033CC">[[Special:Contributions/Andrew647|47]]</font></sup> 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
::The discussion pertains to a previous incarnation of the sentence in question. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

== Montreal ==

I've noticed several areas in the article calling Montreal the ''francophone capital of North America'', and the cultural capital of Quebec. I would argue against that, but I cannot back up my argument with anything other than discussion with my Quebecois friends. I would call Montreal a multicultural centre (of Quebec or Canada), but Quebec City is the true cultural capital of Quebec (to Quebecois at least, I'm not certain how English Quebecers feel). It's somewhat a rant, but that's the information I get from discussion. <font color="003399">[[User:Andrew647|Andrew]]</font><sup><font color="0033FF">[[User_Talk:Andrew647|6]]</font><font color="0033CC">[[Special:Contributions/Andrew647|47]]</font></sup> 06:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

:Well, no slight intended to my friends in Quebec City, but Montreal is a larger cultural capital than the "Old Capital". Yes, Montreal is a multicultural centre, but it remains very much a francophone city, and a cultural pole for Quebec, Canada and indeed all of North America (not saying it is ''the'' cultural pole of North America, just one of them). So, while Quebec may indeed be more typical of the Quebecois culture specifically, I'd say that doesn't prevent Montreal from being the francophone capital of Norht America. This from a French-speaking Quebecois, but hey, that's just my opinion. Or, laet me make an analogy: Paris is today very much a cosmopolitan city, but would you say that because of it, it's not the francophone capital of Europe? I'd say that wouldn't make much sense.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

::There is no question that a majority of Quebecois would tell you that Quebec City is indeed the francophone capital of Quebec. Larger does ''not'' necessarily mean better or stronger, and you can say that Montreal is the most diverse city in Quebec, and the largest, but as far as the cultural and linguistic capital, Quebec City shall never lose that distinction. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Never say never, but your point is well taken. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::::OK, well let me preface it- it will never lose it unless Quebec is overrun by a horde of invaders, is swept under by a natural disaster, or ceases to exist. :) [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Okie Dokie. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


It's also worth noting that 'the Francophone Capital of North America' is a title that would imply Montreal's centrality to *all* the francophone peoples of the continent: the Cajuns, Metis, Acadiens, etc. While Montreal may be an important, central hub in Quebec its influence as a linguistic/cultural capital does not reach so far as to be central to the other peoples mentioned.

==Flag==
The following line seems misleading: "The "Fleurdelisé" has seen many transformations since it first arrived on the shores of the Gaspésie in 1534 with Jacques Cartier." The "Fleurdelisé is today's flag, is it not? I don't know what Jacques Cartier brought with him in 1534, but it certainly was not the Fleurdelisé. If it were anything close, I would guess it was the French Royal Standard which has fleur-de-lis on it; still, the connection to today's flag is far removed from that. [[User:AnthroGael|AnthroGael]] ([[User talk:AnthroGael|talk]]) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

:I fixed the wording problem. I sure hope everyone finds this correct:

:"The fleur-de-lis, the ancient symbol of the French monarchy, first arrived on the shores of the Gaspésie in 1534 with Jacques Cartier on his first voyage."

:[[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup>
:18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks. I thought it was so good I put it as the first line! (That, and chronologically it seemed to make more sense to put it there.) [[User:AnthroGael|AnthroGael]] ([[User talk:AnthroGael|talk]]) 06:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

==Quebec Fertility==

In the demographics section it states that Quebec has among Canada's lowest fertility rates at 1.62 children. How is that true? Canada's fertility rate as a whole is 1.5 children per woman, higher than Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, PEI, new Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, and the Yukon. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.150.154.247|24.150.154.247]] ([[User talk:24.150.154.247|talk]]) 16:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I didn't see a reference, thus I went to Statcan and found a table for 2005 information. That, I believe, is the latest available year for fertility rates. The figures there list Quebec at 1.52, not 1.62. As such, Quebec is slightly lower than the Canadian national average, which is 1.54. Nevertheless, you are correct to point out that it is still higher than rates for most other jurisdictions in Canada, although you incorrectly included Manitoba which, along with the other prairie provinces, has a substantially higher rate.

:I have thus made the necessary changes in the article. IF there more up-to-date references, please make the necessary corrections.[[User:AnthroGael|AnthroGael]] ([[User talk:AnthroGael|talk]]) 06:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

==Official language (fair compromise)==
Blaikie et al, in two subsequent hearings, merely ''clarified'' Section III as meaning that official documents must be published in both English and French. However, French is still ''the'' official language of the province, regardless of how many languages are required to be produced by provincial government entities.

I understand the objection, but Section I has not been amended or stricken, and therefore it still stands. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 03:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I restored everything, but added a notation that English is unofficial but used in courts and legislature. Now that should be a fair compromise as Section I is clear and yet English is obviously used just as much. I didn't notice the '''alternate name''' revision and restored the previous version- that should have never been revised. Sorry :) [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

::Look, you're simply incorrect. Read the Blaikie opinion. English and French were made co-official under section 133 of the BNA and Quebec can't simply amend the constitution in this area on its own. Laws (and regulations) in both Canada and Quebec have to be enacted in both English and French to have the force of law and the English versions are equally authoritative. If that's not the description of an official language I don't know what is.

::Moreover, any person has the right to address, plead, and receive judgments in the courts of Quebec in either French or English as well as debate in the legislative assembly in either language. The books and records of the legislative assembly also must be kept in both languages. English isn't "unofficial" but fully co-equal in all legal aspects.

::As for the striking of parts of the Charter of the French language, as any lawyer knows, laws printed in a statute book do not always have the force of law. For instance, good chunks of the Criminal Code are non-operative because of court decisions. G. Csikos, 1 January 2007.

:::No matter what you may say, I read the Blaikie opinion and the judgements and the analysis, and I is ''still'' in force as French being the only official language of Quebec- just because English is used in various government functions ''does not'' make it an official language. It has '''not''' been declared an official language, and if it is not official then it must be... that's right- unofficial. English is not the official language of the United States, and yet... that's right... it is used throughout all government institutions.

:::By the law, it is stated that French is official and English is not given this status in the province of Quebec- therefore, French is the only official language. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 16:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

:::'''Section 133 of the BNA:'''
:::Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec.

:::The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages.

:::In '''no''' form do I see that English is made an official language- it is used ''"in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec''", as stated above. English is used, even though it is not official as I expressed above. Blaikie merely upheld this section, and did '''not''' make it an official language. Why is this so difficult to see? I am at a loss... [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Blaikie judgement declared sections 7 to 13 (Language of the Legislature and the Courts) of the Charter of the French Language to be ultra vires the Quebec leglisature, which means they are invalid and of no force.

I just think the term "unofficial" is deceptive and insulting since English is co-equal with French in every legal respect. The only difference is that French is the sole language of government administration. Consequently I suggest using "quasi-official" instead.

By the way, the majority of US states have designated English as official in one way or another. In the rest of the states and for the federal government English is the de facto official language. G. Csikos, 3 January 2008. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.130.199.4|66.130.199.4]] ([[User talk:66.130.199.4|talk]]) 18:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Sounds perfectly fine by me. I'll accept ''quasi-official'', even though we may disagree on the status of English in the province. :) [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::Actually, I don't think we disagree on the status of English but rather the definition of official! :) G. Csikos, 3 January 2008. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.130.199.4|66.130.199.4]] ([[User talk:66.130.199.4|talk]]) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::This is ridiculous. The official language is whatever the law says it is. All the law has to do is just say "this language is official". Every jurisdiction will have different interpretations of what "official" means exactly. We just have to go by what they call "official". Obviously Quebec is constrained to grant English equal status in the courts and the legislature, but if you look at all of the requirements for provincial and local government bodies to operate in French, for businesses to communicate with the government in French, and at a host of other privileges for French, it's pretty clear its legal status is much higher than that of English. I would describe the situation as one of English enjoying significant legal protection in Quebec, not of it being official or quasi-official. More to the point: what quotes from reliable, academic sources describe English as being "quasi-official" in Quebec? [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 20:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Really I have to tend to agree with Joel here. As far as I know 'quasi-official' is not anywhere even a quasi-official term !? not even on Wikipedia !? Besides Quebec is officially and overwhelmingly described in Quebec by Quebec and by Quebecers as having only one official language and often also as being (officially?) unilingual (with quite a few bilingual individuals bien sur) and also as practicing (generally) a policy (usually) of official unilingualism - although sometimes a little bilingualism does manage to to creep back in again but almost always only to be met with general uproar and more oficial unilingualism - and even if the Quebec authorities do feel politically constrained enough to still oficially have to officially appear to officially respect some of the offically federally mandated and officially 'protected' (?!) 'official-language-minority' 'rights' (!?), Quebec does not itself officially use the term offical-language-minority and Canada does not see fit to discuss the official status of the official language(s) in Quebec, so that consequently the quasi(?)-official unilingual status of Quebec is officially unchallenged. Besides has anyone ever heard of any other situation where use of an official or quasi-offiial language is actually officially restricted? And while one might officially have the right to use English in court when was the last time anyone actually dared to speak English in the Assemblee Nationale ? I think a fair compromise would be to describe Quebec as officially having only one official language and as being officially unilingual with official restrictions on the use of other languages, but with some exceptions to the official policy being officially provided for. Or a more concise fair summation of that fact. Unless and until the Canadian government does officially say anything about and/or do anything about the official status of English in Quebec I think using the term quasi-official to describe the status of English in quasi-independent Quebec is a gross exaggeration. I hope that does not sound too much like a rant because I am actually trying against all odds to be strictly accurate here. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paulalexdij|contribs]]) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Well, I think it's clear English is an official language of Canada, so in that sense nobody disputes that anglophones are an official language minority, as long as ''official language'' means "''federal'' official language". Also, I have heard English spoken in the National Assembly - it's just not used often because there's no translation. I agree with all your other points, especially that so much is made of French being the official language that we should have really good reasons before contradicting that. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well if I allowed myself to be overly pedantic I might quibble about the 'coequal' standing but I think overall you have found a fair compromise--[[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]]) 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because you say what has been changed is right doesn't mean we all agree. We had a fair compromise to reflect the use of English within the province, and then it gets all mucked up again. Using the term 'quasi-official' satisfies both the official language of French and the quasi-official status as only PART of English is official in Quebec. Just because you arrive on the scene and change it does not make it consensus. We HAD consensus here, and until another consensus is reached, the quasi-official must stay with a disputed tag. I don't see enough participation in this new change to warrant a revert of the old consensus. Does this linguistic war ever end? Mon dieu!!! [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:If you want more opinions, here's mine: I too have misgivings about the label "quasi-official" (it's either official or it isn't), and I much prefer [[Paulalexdij]]'s wording, in that it doesn't establish a non-existent class of linguistic status ("quasi-official"), for what is the second most commonly used language in the province.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::I undid my revision, but be warned- this is not the last time you will hear about this. By removing English, this same issue will invariably come up over and over again. ''I fought originally to leave it as French only'', so that is not the issue. What is the issue is that no one will truly be happy, and even the fairest and most logical of compromises cannot be sustained here, which is unfortunate. It is a true national nightmare that will never end, for someone is never happy. Huge sighs... [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to realize that English has nearly every status the word "official" implies. From Wikipedia's own page on "official language":

<I>"An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other territory. Typically a nation's official language will be the one used in that nation's courts, parliament and administration."</I>

If you read the two Blaikie judgements you will know that acts and regulations must be passed in English as well as French (not merely translated, but enacted), the books and records of the National Assembly must be kept in English and French, and one has the right to plead in court (both in writing and orally) in English or French. English therefore has what most people would consider is an official status in Quebec. Just because Quebec gave sole official sanction to French doesn't mean this in any way abrogates English's status as an essentially official language. Consequently, <I>quasi-official</I> is a good compromise. G. Csikos, 27 January 2008. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.239.79.187|216.239.79.187]] ([[User talk:216.239.79.187|talk]]) 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:What's wrong with the ''original'' wording that it is ''co-equal'' in the in the courts and at the National Assembly? It nicely avoids the obvious objection that English is ''not'' an official language.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::That was my original wording but Joedl removed it from the paragraph. I think coequal is a good compromise for both the paragraph and the infobox. G. Csikos, 27 January 2008 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.239.79.187|216.239.79.187]] ([[User talk:216.239.79.187|talk]]) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Hi, the "quasi-official" wording was first removed by 207.236.193.195, but I agreed with them. By that time, my criticism of the infobox had been here for some time without getting a reply. Monsieurdl keeps talking about a compromise, but I don't know how broad that consensus was. Who exactly was involved? What do you do when what appears to be a small group of people say they've reached a "consensus" before others have really noticed what was going on? I think the people involved in this compromise still need to defend their position to others.
:::Before really thinking about it, I would have agreed that the statement "English and French are coequal in the legislature and in the courts" was accurate. After all, Section 133 of the Constitution guarantees that you can use either language in debates and pleadings, and that statutes are enacted in both languages. The question is, does this cover everything? For example, does this mean that the internal operations of the Legislature and courts must be bilingual? Does it mean that when you walk in the door of the Legislature, all the signs are in both languages? That political commentary on the National Assembly channel (which I think is run by the National Assembly) should be in both languages? The fact that the Charter of the French Language makes French the "official" language of these bodies suggests that whatever operations of these bodies are left out of Section 133 have the potential to treat French and English unequally.
:::The sources provided do not seem to mention the word "co-equal", so I would like to know what quotes precisely are being relied on. Because of what I wrote above, I think the content of Section 133 of the Constitution does not, by itself, mean the languages are co-equal in the legislature and the courts, unless an academic source can be found describing them that way, or a legal source that unambiguously has force of law. (As I've said, I was unable to find this statement in the sources.)
:::Finally, and most importantly, all of this is not important enough to go in the infobox. "Official language" is a word which in many jurisdictions has a symbolic meaning different from "administrative language". It's true we've identified some ways in which English is used administratively by the province. But they remain too minor overall for inclusion in the infobox, and they definitely fail the test in terms of what status Quebec gives English ''symbolically''. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Joeldl, as anyone with sufficient legal experience can tell you, the internal operations of the courts and the National Assembly are bilingual in Quebec. Moreover, and although this is a ridulous objection, when I last visited the National Assembly in 2004, the signage is in both languages. The only sphere where French is exclusive is in the government ministries because the constitution is silent on the issue of the language of government administration. You should note that there is a distinction in parliamentary systems between the government administration, i.e. the Ministry, cabinet, etc., and the legislature and courts. In fact English is not an administrative language in Quebec. G. Csikos, 28 January 2007 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.245.242.195|99.245.242.195]] ([[User talk:99.245.242.195|talk]]) 05:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Good, then you should have no trouble finding a reliable source describing English and French as "co-equal" in the legislature and the courts, rather than forcing us editors to impart our own interpretation on an array of facts including the description of French as the language of the courts and the legislature in the Charter of the French Language. See [http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/title1chapter3.html articles 7-9]. Also, that does not address the issue of the excessive prominence given to these facts in the infobox. That is more a matter of opinion, granted, and we can see what people think about that. And my point in using "administrative" was to distinguish that from the symbolic character of an official language, not to get into details about whether it concerns the executive branch.[[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 06:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:For clarity, could I ask you to pick one of the IP addresses you've used, and on its user page list all of the IP addresses under which you've contributed recently to the article on the issue of the status of English? I'm positive you're not trying to trick anybody, but that way there will be no confusion as to whether those contributions come from a single user. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 07:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)<br />

I think it is fair to say that English has 'official legal standing' in the courts and in the Assemblee Nationale and that laws are required to be promulgated in English as well and not just in French (although these same laws also normally state that if there is a conflict between the interpretation of the French and English versions then the French one takes precedence although how legally valid that clause is I couldn't say), but I challenge anyone to find the terms 'quasi-official' or 'coequal' used anywhere in any kind of official or quasi-official way (even on Wikipedia)!

Anyway, legal quibbles aside, most of the world understands the term 'official language' to mean the language(s) in which an administration habitually, normally, and regularly conducts its business ... perhaps we should get the opinion of dictionaries on the meaning of this term rather than just relying on another Wikipedia article.

In any case the 'problem' here is that English is not an official language of Quebec and it is not an unofficial language of Quebec and it is not a quasi-official language of Quebec (although I acknowledge that at least two people like that new term even though its meaning is entirely nebulous :)) so we need to find an accurate way of describing the actual factual status of English in a more commonly accepted current form of the English language, notwithstanding the noble yet frantic desire for consensus.

I propose simply amending the current wording of 'However, English has a constitutionally entrenched status coequal with French in the legislature and in the courts', by striking the words 'coequal with French' so that it just reads 'However, English has a constitutionally entrenched status in the legislature and in the courts'. This easily remedies the problem of trying to find some acceptable accurate fair clear justification for the term 'coequal' while also recognising the fact that every government of Quebec since at least 1948 has gone out of its way bending over backwards in its efforts to make English '''not''' coequal--[[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]]) 08:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I also propose changing the wording in the infobox to:
Official language: French <br />
(English has legal standing in the courts and the legislature)

And I propose changing 'many government services are offered in English' to 'many government services are often also offered in English' since those many services are not always thus offered and if they are, are done so in a clearly secondary manner. --[[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]]) 08:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::No, just because successive governments (usually UN or PQ) have tried to erase the co-equal status of English in the legislature and courts does not make it valid. Please READ the Blaikie judgements (1979 and 1981). G. Csikos, 28 January 2008. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.245.242.195|99.245.242.195]] ([[User talk:99.245.242.195|talk]]) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::I don't think you could possibly have missed the part where I asked for the specific quotes you're relying on. Only then can we begin to judge whether they say what you say they say. Better yet, please provide the quotes in the body of the article in the footnotes. I believe that Articles 7-9 as amended are in force, and that they make French the language of the legislature and the courts ''subject to'' the provisions of section 133 of the Constitution, which at least suggests that when they wrote that, they thought there was something left open by section 133.[[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Ask and you shall receive:

::::"... s. 133 is not part of the Constitution of the Province within s. 92(1) but is rather part of the Constitu­tion of Canada and of Quebec in an indivisible sense, <I>giving official status to French and English in the Parliament and in the Courts of Canada as well as in the Legislature and Courts of Quebec</I>."

::::G. Csikos, 28 January 2008 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.245.242.195|99.245.242.195]] ([[User talk:99.245.242.195|talk]]) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Actually I do agree with you that legally speaking in legal terms the English language does still have legal standing in the courts and the legislature, but my concern is with the use of the word 'coequal' and whether or not that word should be used in this article. I have read the Blaikie judgements and nowhere in them is the word 'coequal' used at all although those judgements do appear to make it abundantly clear that English is still to be regarded as coequal (in the strictly legal sense of the word).

However, my main objection to the way things are worded now is just that it conveys a false impression of the 'facts on the ground'. Blaikie et al make a good point in saying that it is overly technical to hold that derivative tribunals do not fall under the ambit of the original act. And it would surely seem also overly technical to imagine that policy has no effect on the overall status of English.

So, I do happen to agree with you that the Blaikie judgement does convey 'coequal legal standing' to English, but only if we use the word 'coequal' in its purely legal sense. My objection to the use of the word 'coequal' here is that it also has a wider more general better known sense beyond the narrow range of its legal definition. So I think that a fair compromise would be to specify that we mean coequal in the legal sense of the word only by inserting the word 'legally' in front of the word 'coequal' as follows:

In the infobox: ''(English is legally coequal in the legislature and in the courts but not in the administration.)''

In the text: However, many provincial government services are often also offered in English as well as in French, and English does have a constitutionally entrenched status which makes it legally coequal in the legislature and in the courts [7][8][9].

Do you think that wording is a fair compromise? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paulalexdij|contribs]]) 01:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
--[[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]]) 01:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:Actually I am still having severe misgivings about using the word 'coequal' since we as Wikipedia contributors do not really have sufficient legal standing to be making such legal interpretations even if they do appear to be quite clearly meant in the judgement. But I don't know how I would further refine my proposed edits (see above please).--[[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]]) 01:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::Why don't we brainstorm on a list of words?

::Official in the legislature ...
::Coequal in the legislature ...
::Recognized in the legislature ...
::Official status in the legislature ...
::Official standing in the legislature ... <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.245.242.195|99.245.242.195]] ([[User talk:99.245.242.195|talk]]) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::G. Csikos, 28 January 2008
:::Why not provide the whole quote:
:::*'''He found that''' s. 133 is not part of the Constitution of the Province within s. 92(1) but is rather part of the Constitu­tion of Canada and of Quebec in an indivisible sense, giving official status to French and English in the Parliament and in the Courts of Canada as well as in the Legislature and Courts of Quebec.
:::That's a lower court. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::You obviously haven't read appellate rulings before. They're affirming the original ruling from the Superior Court judge.

::::<I>In holding that s. 133 of the B.N.A. Act applied to delegated legislation, Deschênes C.J.S.C., whose reasons for judgment were adopted by the Court of Appeal and by this Court, did not undertake to define the extent of the delegated legislation affected. </I>

::::G. Csikos, 28 January 2008
:::::Having "official status in..." does not necessarily mean "being an official language of". It could mean ''some'' official status. If it is true that English is an "official" language of the legislature and the courts, it should be mentioned somewhere ''that way'' in secondary sources. Certainly, the current version of the Charter doesn't see things the way you do.[[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 05:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I would go with 'recognized'. (Actually I would prefer 'recognised' but that would raise another question about what form of the English language is officially official in various jurisdictions which we really needn't get into here). And I might also suggest using the word 'concurrent' in place of 'coequal'. But perhaps not.

Anyway my proposed versions are now:

In the infobox:
Official language
French[2]
''(English is recognised in the legislature and in the courts.)''

In the text:
However, many provincial government services are often also offered in English, and English does have a constitutionally entrenched status which provides it with concurrent standing in the legislature and in the courts [7][8][9].

Although actually I have to say that I tend to agree with Joel that the status of English has been effectively sufficiently diminished to make it seem like a bit of a stretch to actually mention this recognised concurrent standing in the infobox at all.
--[[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]]) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:Let's sort out what is true enough to go in the body of the text first. Then we can deal with the issue of emphasis. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:: okay, well based on the finding of the lower court mentioned further above regarding the status of s. 133, and taking into consideration the evident ambivalence of the rewritten articles 7 and 9 and the absence of a higher court ruling, a reasonable person would have to consider both s. 133 of bna and articles 7 and 9 to be in force, which means surely that a) english has concurrent standing in the legislature and courts and b) that french is the only official language of quebec; unless there is some judgement or finding or opinion contradicting this!? --[[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]]) 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::In the body of the text, I would write:
:::*''However, many provincial government services are also provided in English, and English has constitutionally protected legal status alongside French in the courts and in the legislature.''
:::We can have links to section 133 of the constitution and articles 7-9 of the Charter, which establish this fact.[[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::This is how a federal government webpage [http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0638-e.htm Language Regimes in the Provinces and Territories] summarizes the situation:
:::*''French is the official language of Quebec.''
:::*''The English-speaking community is entitled to services in English in the areas of justice, health and education. Services in English are offered in municipalities in which more than half of the residents have English as their mother tongue.''
:::*''The use of French and English is permitted in legislative proceedings, before the courts, and for the printing and publication of Acts of the Legislature and records and journals of the Legislative Assembly.''
:::The first two are provided for by the Charter, the last by Section 133. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Why didn't we just prevail in 1759 and avoid all of this nonsense? *SIGH* Quebec never agreed to the Constitution of Canada.

::::What you just posted from the Language Regimes does in fact support the usage of ''quasi-official''- who cares if it is a legal term or not? It is a ''description'' of how English is used in Quebec, and quasi meaning "having some resemblance", which it '''does'''. English is required in areas of services, legislative proceedings, before the courts, and publications of various documents. Therefore, it is used as an official language in some matters- it is not ''suggested'', it is not ''tolerated'', but it is '''''required'''''!

::::And to respond to the earlier questioning of consensus- what makes two opinions carry more weight than two other ones who discussed this very same topic? I did defend my support for quasi-official, and still do, because the objection you raised is over the use of the term in academic sources, which is silly. This game of semantics and hunting word choices among different sources deviates from the discussion and is a red herring. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Monsieurdl|mon talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Monsieurdl|mon contribs]]
</sup> 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I am not saying that two opinions carry more weight than another two, though by now I think more than two people have expressed disagreement. By the same token, the two editors involved in the original "consensus" do not carry more weight than any other two. I think choice of words and the prominence given to this is an important issue. If not, then why are you defending your preference tooth and nail?
:::::Note that for New Brunswick, the federal webpage says ''explicitly'':
:::::*''French and English are the official languages of the Legislative Assembly, legislation and the courts.''
:::::It does ''not'' say the same thing for Quebec. That is because the law does not ''say'' that English is an official language of the legislature and the courts unless you go putting interpretations on one sentence buried in a court ruling referring to another court ruling. If it had been perfectly clear that English was an official language of these bodies, I don't see why the webpage would not have said the same thing about Quebec that it says about New Brunswick.
:::::Also, this does not resolve the issue of the infobox, and on that issue, I think we'll have to appeal to a larger number of editors.
:::::Personally, I think the federal webpage summary could be adopted practically as is, subject to copyright, I guess. It's neutral and says exactly what it means directly instead of using the word "official" in an opaque and perhaps misleading way. And certainly, "equal" is not supported by he quotes given.[[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 05:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::I second the use of quasi-official. G. Csikos, 29 January 2008. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.245.242.195|99.245.242.195]] ([[User talk:99.245.242.195|talk]]) 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::The use of 'quasi-official' has been proposed and seconded. But there are more than two people who are opposed to using this unclear inexact invented word which conveys a false sense of the importance of the English language in Quebec. I agree with Joel that the best solution is to adopt the wording of the federal webpage summary practically as is and not to use words like 'coequal' which has a general more wider meaning outside legal circles nor 'quasi-official' which is an invented word with little precedent in either legal or general circles. <br />The main problem here is that those words '''exaggerate''' the status of English in Quebec and I don't know why anyone would want to pretend that English is more important than it is!? And incidentally the federal webpage summary does not support the use of the word 'required' although the Blaikie judgement clearly does. <br />'quasi' may well mean just 'bears some resemblance to' to some people but to most people it means the same as it does in the original Latin ( ''quam'' = as + ''si'' = if ) or in colloquial Canadian "azif" and I really don't think that most people would describe English as having a status '''as if''' it were official in Quebec. <br />This is '''not''' an objection related to the use of 'quasi' in academic sources but related to the use of the word 'quasi' in ordinary English. <br />The discussion about this important issue related to the proper use of language in an important article has in any case appeared to overlook the fact that no adjective is necessary here at all. We do not need to replace the adjective, but rather merely to describe accurately the status of English without the misleading use of these or any other misleading adjectives. I will now state my proposals and I would appreciate it if people would kindly comment on these proposals specifically and refrain from making general comments about the use of languages in Quebec that are outside the scope of this discussion about the best way to write this article. Please. Thank you. <br />''However, the English-speaking community is entitled to services in English in the areas of justice, health and education, and services in English are offered in municipalities in which more than half of the residents have English as their mother tongue. The use of French and English is permitted in legislative proceedings and before the courts, and is required for the printing and publication of Acts of the Legislature.'' <br />We would of course have to put a link to one of the Blaikie opinions after the word 'required'. I will leave the question of what to put in the infobaox for now.--[[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]]) 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I agree entirely with Paulalexdij. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Since nobody objected to the proposed change presented five days ago I have gone ahead and implemented the revised wording on the status of English. Although perhaps this detail is too long for the intro and should be relegated to the section on languages?--[[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]]) 01:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::: You're right. Too much detail for lead. I think it's enough to say that there is a sizeable English-speaking population and that many government and private-sector services are available in English, especially in Montreal. --[[User:Soulscanner|Soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 06:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

==French (the only official language in Québec)==

Why you made by linguistic racism ?? The only official language in Québec is French !
In effect the Quebec speaks French, furthermore as others provinces Canada and Alberta speaks English ainci that of other one provinces of the Canada! What makes that the Canada is a bilingual country (French, English).
[[User:Lipton1995|Lipton1995]] ([[User talk:Lipton1995|talk]]) 15:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:See the topic right above this for the compromise. Please just don't change thing unilaterally here. We try to operate this page on at least some consensus (and lots of compromise). It works a lot better than just pushing your version over [[m:wrong version|other's]]. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the charter of the french language states that the official language of Quebec is french so I don't know why some people insist to put english as an official language since it is not the case. Having a special treatment in legislature and courts does not make it official. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.94.92.164|65.94.92.164]] ([[User talk:65.94.92.164|talk]]) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in canada: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#languages[http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#languages]. [[User:Bentheadvocate|'''<font color="8800FF">BE</font>''']][[User_talk: Bentheadvocate|'''<font color="0000FF">TA</font>''']] 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Title 1, Chapter III, Section 7 of The Charter Of The French Language clearly states: "French is the language of the legislature and the courts in Quebec", and the use of English in the courts of Quebec is legislative courtesy only. http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/title1chapter3.html [http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/title1chapter3.html] [[User:Bentheadvocate|'''<font color="8800FF">BE</font>''']][[User_talk: Bentheadvocate|'''<font color="0000FF">TA</font>''']] 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:You said it, not us. English can be used, which makes it a ''de facto'' quasi-official or coequal language. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::Certain election materials are distributed in Aboriginal languages. If you don't recognize that there's an issue of where to draw the line, then we might as well include that in the infobox too. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] ([[User talk:Joeldl|talk]]) 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== Quebec or "Province of Quebec"? ==

May I please ask [[User:ArmchairVexillologistDon]] to please provide citations that the "official" name of the province is "Province of Quebec" as opposed to just "Quebec"? If such is indeed the case, all the articles fr every province in Canada should also be changed accordingly. However, for starters, I've put up a "citation needed" tag so that he can provide the appropriate, authoritative references. Failing that, we should just revert to "Quebec", IMHO.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 00:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

==Long-form name of "Province of Quebec", ou "Province du Quebec" en francais==

Hello Ramdrake.

'''long-form name:''' Province of Quebec, Province du Quebec

'''short-form name:''' Quebec.

These are facts.

[[User:ArmchairVexillologistDon|ArmchairVexillologistDon]] ([[User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon|talk]]) 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Please provide citations to this effect; also, please stop reverting the incorrect statement that the Quebec naùtion is specifically restricted to French-speaking people.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Try the [[British North America Act]]s (1867-1975).

[[User:ArmchairVexillologistDon|ArmchairVexillologistDon]] ([[User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon#top|talk]]) 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Which has been to most intents and purposes been replaced by the Canadian Constitution. Do you have anything more current on which to base your assertion? In all its official documents, Quebec refers to itself nowadays as just "Quebec".--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The [[Canada Act 1982]] consolidated the [[British North America Acts]] (1867-1975) into its body of statutes. The citation of '''Province of Quebec (or Province du Quebec)''' is still in there.

[[User:ArmchairVexillologistDon|ArmchairVexillologistDon]] ([[User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon|talk]]) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Just took a look at the full text of the Canada Act (1982) [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#VI here] and "Province of Quebec" isn't mentioned even once, but "Quebec" is mentioned two, maybe three times. From this, I would be tempted to believe AVD's mistaken.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:A quick skim of the [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html Constitution Act, 1982] shows every reference to Quebec is "Quebec". There is no reference at all to "Province du Quebec". The postal code was PQ a while ago, but is now also [http://www.canadapost.ca/personal/tools/pg/manual/PGaddress-e.asp#1382088 QC]. So, who went and invited the Quebec Nationalists to come edit today? -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 01:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Royalguard11. You do know that the ''long-form name'' of your home province is the [[Province of Saskatchewan]], and its ''short-form name'' is [[Saskatchewan]] right?

[[User:ArmchairVexillologistDon|ArmchairVexillologistDon]] ([[User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon|talk]]) 05:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, and Canada is officially the Dominion of Canada, but no one has called it that for 150 years. It's "Canada", just Canada. Nobody uses long form names anymore. Lived in Saskatchewan all my life (minus the last couple months), never ever heard anyone call it "Province of Saskatchewan" because it's ludicrous. No province in the country prefixes their name with "Province of" anymore. It's old fashion, out of date, and basically unused. The english of the country call it Quebec, not Province of Quebec (and we use [[WP:COMMONNAME]] here -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Royalguard11. So the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]] is really just [[Great Britain and Northern Ireland]]? As well, the [[United States of America]] is really just [[America]]?

[[User:ArmchairVexillologistDon|ArmchairVexillologistDon]] ([[User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon|talk]]) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)



:The last (and only) time that "Province of Quebec" was the official name of a geographic location was in 1763-1791. The Province of Quebec was a small fraction of Quebec as we know it today. [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006531 The Canadian Encyclopedia]. [[User:Tomj|Tomj]] ([[User talk:Tomj|talk]]) 01:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


No. The original [[British North America Act 1867]], explicitly refers to the [[Province of Nova Scotia]], the [[Province of New Brunswick]], the [[Province of Quebec]], and the [[Province of Ontario]]. That 1867 statute was re-titled the [[Constitution Act 1867]], and consolidated (BNA Act 1867-1975) into the [[Canada Act 1982]]. What do you think the re-titling schedule is for? For fun?

The LONG-FORM TITLES of the BNA Acts 1867-1975 were changed, but the CONTENTS (i.e., the references to the [[Province of Nova Scotia]], the [[Province of New Brunswick]], the [[Province of Quebec]], and the [[Province of Ontario]], etc.,) remain.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/sched_e.html

[[User:ArmchairVexillologistDon|ArmchairVexillologistDon]] ([[User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon|talk]]) 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Hello AVD. Can you please cite the exact passage of the BNA Acts which specifically refers to the "Province of Quebec"? (I can't find it, so maybe I don't know where to look) Also, can you supply a cite which would verify that the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] of the province is indeed "Province of Quebec"? Also, a contemporary cite would be much preferable. Also, it would be much preferable if you waited until we settle this on the talk page and we have consensus over a position before you make your changes again. Insofar as I can tell, so far nobody seems to agree with you, therefore chances are you'll only keep getting reverted.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::[[s:British North America Act, 1867#6.|Section 6 of the BNA Act]]: "The Parts of the Province of Canada (as it exists at the passing of this Act) which formerly constituted respectively the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be deemed to be severed, and shall form two separate Provinces. The Part which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada shall constitute the Province of Ontario; and the Part which formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada shall constitute the '''Province of Quebec'''."

::Both the short and long-form names are equally valid, and as with nearly all cases of short-form/long-form names, the short-form is generally used in common speech, and the long-form is generally limited to formal settings.--[[User:T. Mazzei|T. Mazzei]] ([[User talk:T. Mazzei|talk]]) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

:Oh, and for what it's worth, the French form would be "Province ''de'' Québec" rather than "Province '''du''' Québec".--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 01:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ramdrake. The [[United States of America]] is the long-form name of [[America]]. The [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]] is the long-form name of [[Great Britain and Northern Ireland]].

There is no reason for the long-form names of the country of [[Canada]] (i.e., the [[Dominion of Canada]]) and its Provinces and Territories (e.g., the [[Province of Quebec]], the [[Province of Ontario]]) to be suppressed.

Why do all large portion of the Canadian Wikipedians here seem to want to throw away ''all of our past''?

Where does this idea come from?


'' '''Province of Ontario''' reference''

Here is an everyday press release from May 2006, from the [[Province of Ontario]] regarding Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.gov.on.ca/mgs/en/News/Print/053311.html

It would seem that the [[Province of Ontario]] sees fit to refer to its ''long-form name'' in ordinary press releases.


'' '''Province of Saskatchewan''' reference''

On January 10, 2008, they refered to themselves as the '''Province of Saskatchewan'''.

http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=3e92407c-6b8c-487b-9a2d-74fb4dfc7d27

<font color="blue">''"This is a historic time in our history with Canada and the '''Province of Saskatchewan''' where the three levels of government have successfully negotiated and ratified this long outstanding Muskoday First Nation Treaty Land Entitlement Settlement Agreement," Chief Bear said. "Canada has now met her legal obligations with respect to Treaty 6 land provisions owed to the people of the Muskoday First Nation. With the additional treaty land and compensation we have the opportunity to further create economic development opportunities now and in the future."''</font>

If you go to the [[Government of Saskatchewan]] website, and type in term words [[Province of Saskatchewan]] you will get multiple (I mean multiple hits!) in the Search box.

Hmmm, Royalguard11 ... I thought you said such things (i.e, the '''Province of Saskatchewan''') were '' '''ludicrous''' '' right?

[[User:ArmchairVexillologistDon|ArmchairVexillologistDon]] ([[User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon|talk]]) 06:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:And I consider political BS to be political BS. So lets stop with the BS and get to the point. This isn't about history or throwing away history. The US doesn't have a short name, neither does the UK. Quebec does. You have shown no proof that it is the common or preferred designation. Government communiqués are 99% political BS and 1% information. Find me 10 articles in the [[Montreal Gazette]], or the [[Toronto Star]], or the [[National Post]] that refer to any province like that. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 00:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Here we go eh ...

'''Province of Québec/Province de Québec''' Reference(s)

(English) '''Province of Québec'''

http://www.hema-quebec.qc.ca/anglais/menubas/condiutilisation.htm

<font color="blue">''"These Terms of Use will be governed and interpreted pursuant to the Laws of Québec (Canada). Any litigation related to these Terms of Use will be submitted to the exclusive juridiction of the Courts of the '''Province of Québec'''."''</font>

(French) '''Province de Québec'''

http://www.msp.gouv.qc.ca/prevention/prevention.asp?txtSection=publicat&txtCategorie=table_ronde&txtNomAutreFichier=annexe1.htm

<font color="blue">''"Fédération des comités de parents de la '''Province de Québec'''</font>

<font color="blue">''Membre : M. Marc Arnold, 1er vice-président"''.</font>

[[User:ArmchairVexillologistDon|ArmchairVexillologistDon]] ([[User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon|talk]]) 12:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:Your citations go to prove that the expression "Province of X" is ''an'' appropriate designation for the name of the provinces. There is no proof whatsoever that it is the ''preferred'' designation, and even less '''the''' (only) appropriate designation.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

== About the accent ==

So that means '''war''' ! , just kidding , you convinced, me you will no see this text again. Thanks for explaining --Alex 8194 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:) I took your lesd and linked at the top to the well-written article about Quebec French and relegated the link to the faulty poorly-written article about demolinguistics to the bottom
--[[User:Paulalexdij|Paulalexdij]] ([[User talk:Paulalexdij|talk]]) 03:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

== POV in lead ==
There are several things about Quebec more significant than the symbolic motion referred to in lead
* French-speaking majority
* Seccessionist movement
* Civil Law
* Official language
* Laws disallowing yellow margarine
This tag will not go until someone can show that the [[Quebecois nation motion]] is a more significant fact in Quebec than any of these. --[[User:Soulscanner|Soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
:The French language and the secessionist movement are already mentioned in the lead and have been for a while. I think most users will find it self-evedent that national identity is more important to an academic view of Quebec than their margarine laws. That only leaves the civil law, and I agree that it should be mentioned. I'll add it and take down the tag. --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 21:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
:: I put the tag back. I'm afraid I was somewhat unclear about my point. Referring to the [[Quebecois nation motion]] in the lead sentence implies that it is more consequential than, say, the [{Quiet revolution]], the 1980 and 1995 referenda, the [[Clarity Act]], etc., which appear later in the lead. This puts an undue emphasis on it. In proper context, it belongs in the paragraph on the the ''Question nationale''. It pushes POV in the first sentence. It is unusual to put politically contentious issues in the lead sentence. It invites vandalism and edit wars from those more interested in political debates than writing good articles. --[[User:Soulscanner|Soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 06:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:: Secondly, mention of the of meaning "Quebecois nation" cannot be mentioned as an absolute fact, like the fact that Quebec is a province or that the majority of Quebecers are francophone. The meaning of "Quebecois nation" is a very contentious subject, and some significant public figures in Canada even deny that it exists. I'm not here to argue one way or another on that subject; I'm pointing out that you need to mention those viewpoints (even briefly) if the topic is to be mentioned. A statement like ''"Quebec has a strong nationalist movement that considers Quebec a nation within Canada."'' That is a fact nobody can deny, even if you disagree with Quebec nationalists. It gets to the point of Quebec nationalism without getting into awkward issues of who is Quebecois, what's meant by "nation", etc. --[[User:Soulscanner|Soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:: Speaking of awkward, the word ''homeland'' is unfortunate too. It conjures up images of Black South African townships during the Apartheid era that Quebec doesn't deserve. The words ''foyer'' and ''patrie'' just do not translate well to English. I think the above statement would also work around that awkwardness. --[[User:Soulscanner|Soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I tried to have the 'Quebecois nation motion' removed from the lead months ago, but gave up. Good luck, Soulscanner. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Arctic Gnome, you removed the ''nation motion'', thanks. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of Etymology and Territorial Expansion ==

Hi all. I'm not sure what the rationale is behind collapsing this section into the lead. I'm not opposed to this, its just that most feastured articles on contries/provinces/cities feature such a section. See the [[Canada]] [[Australia]] article for good models here. I also think that this makes the lead too long. I also think the picture of Samuel de Champlain, who is responsible for the name, made the article more attractive. Please discuss this change here. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Soulscanner|Soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Soulscanner|contribs]]) 10:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== A hint ==
The english term for "Québecois" is: Quebecker


Well, not for Soulscanner !! And his 1980's references AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
== A hint 2 ==

Hello everybody !

Quebec is a nation too, so I added it up.

Thank you very much, and keep up the good work !<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.83.226.185|70.83.226.185]] ([[User talk:70.83.226.185|talk]]) 02:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Mention of Quebec nation question is mentioned later in lead. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 07:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
::The province itself isn't a nation. The francophones, anglophones, inuit, natives (for example) are nations within the province. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Edit reverted once again for the third time. Please, not this again. Look carefully in the history of the talk page and you'd see lengthy and tiring discussions whether we should put the "nation" term in the intro or not. Please don't put it back in again without talking this matter up...but first, please read the history. If you have no new arguments that are not POV, then it is best to leave it be because this has been discussed ad nauseum and there is no consensus agreeing to include this. Quebec nation issue is already mentioned further down in the article if you haven't really bothered reading that far. And please don't get into an edit war. You already put it twice after two reversals. It's not included for a reason. And do not delete other people's comments off the talk page. Continue this behavior and I'll have to report you. You'll achieve nothing from this. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 07:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: I requested semi-protect. It was granted. That blocks out anonymous IP's and new users. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:: I think we can add on word to the introduction since the full explanation is later in the article.

Thank you and merry xmas <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pgsylv|contribs]]) 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

It's all there, Soulscanner. Your revert is thus illegal. Seriously. There was a consensus we reached after discussion. You broke it. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
: The consensus has placed mention of Quebec nation question in the fourth paragraph of the lead. The edit you have been making has been reverted countless times in the past few days due to anonymous vandals, and the page is now in semi-protection because of it. Please do not continue this vandalism. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 22:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake, if ''Quebecois nation'' is added to the introduction one more time? I'm gonna request adding ''Leafs nation'' to the [[Ontario]] article's introduction. The province itself ''is not'' a naton. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:Thank you for this comment. [[Special:Contributions/70.83.226.185|70.83.226.185]] ([[User talk:70.83.226.185|talk]]) 00:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, please stop your vandalism and use of bad faith. You have changed the article since the consensus was reached, and you know it. So please remain civilized democratic in your actions. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::: A discussion about the same matter took place moths ago. It was concluded, with evidence, that even [[Steven Harper]] acknowledged that Quebec is a nation within Canada. I originally opposed the addition of nation into Quebec was not necessary and faulty, however, after a statement from the a person like [[Steven Harper]] my opinion changed. It seems that this same problem is taking place again. There is citation from BBC calling Quebec a nation within Canada and therefore it should be included into wikipedia. Clearly this notion is substantial and is backed by [[WP:RS]]. With that being said a compromise can be achieved if the sentence in the current lead is taken out. It would work better if maybe the last paragraph of the lead is can have the "Quebec is recognized as a nation within Canada". [[User:Watchdogb|Watchdogb]] ([[User talk:Watchdogb|talk]]) 00:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: Harper acknowledged the Quebecois as a nation within Canada, not Quebec. This means that not all Quebecers are included int he definition. We've been through this. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 00:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::::: Actually, what is the problem then ? You admit that "Quebecois as a nation within Canada". We are assured, by you, that we can add that to the lead then. Resolved. Good doing discussion with you [[User:Watchdogb|Watchdogb]] ([[User talk:Watchdogb|talk]]) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I don't think this motion is very important. It was a symbolic motion of no legal consequence. It already says in the 4th paragraph of the lead that Quebec nationalists consider Quebec to be a nation. The motion is a reflection of this long standing fact. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 04:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I think the way it is written now is not pleasing the "other" side. I think it would be best to include something that reflect that "Quebecois as a nation within Canada". [[User:Watchdogb|Watchdogb]] ([[User talk:Watchdogb|talk]]) 04:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: This isn't about pleasing sides. It's about stating relevant facts. There is a strong nationalist movement in Quebec. It believes that Quebec is a nation. Why would anyone dispute that claim? It is standard practice on wikipedia to solve POV disputes by simply ascribing POV statements (i.e. Quebec is a nation; Quebec is not a nation) to those holding the opinion. As for the Quebecois nation motion, it is not a significant enough law to mention in the lead. Why not start by mentioning the Clarity Act or The Quebec Language Charter? Both are far more important than a symbolic motion. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 05:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::: Then you should start to follow that. There is RS claiming what I wanted to add. According to you, then we can add it per wikipedia own policies. Thank you [[User:Watchdogb|Watchdogb]] ([[User talk:Watchdogb|talk]]) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::The resolution had the House of Commons recognise that the [[Québécois]] (i.e. people keeping the language and culture of the pre-Conquest Quebec) form a nation within a united Canada. The province is not recognised as a [[nation]] in any sense of the word. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 22:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:This had to be in the intro and you changed it:

:On November 27, 2006, the House of Commons passed a motion moved by prime minister Stephen Harper declaring that "this House :recognize[s] that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."[16][17][18] although there is considerable debate and :uncertainty over what this means.[19][20]

:Put it back and we won't write that " Quebec is a province and a nation ".

:Thank you. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::He recognized the Quebcois (the francophone majority in Quebec) as a nation; ''not'' the province itself. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::If ''nation'' is gonna be added into the introduction (and kept). Then please people, do it correctly. It's the [[Quebecois]] (Quebec's francophone majority) that the HoC recognized as a nation within Canada; not '''Quebec''' (the province) itself. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::PS- I figured the ''Leafs nation'' bit, might give everyone a chuckle (loosen everyone up). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should go and take care of your Leafs Nation, or the USA II , or whatever, but I suggest you leave Quebec politics because you don't seem to understand much of it. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:It's been a pleasure, trying to reason with you. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll meet GoodBye GoodDay ;) "chuckle" [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 01:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend full protection on that page. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 02:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:You need to control yourself as well. Ad hoc attacks and constant revertals will not make you look better. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 04:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:: « Quebec operates North America's largest and most extensive civil service. » '''reference ???''' I don't understand what you're talking about here ?!? And if it's the case, what the author wants to imply ? That Quebec is more social-democrat than the rest of North America ? It's probably true, but that's a point that need to be developed somewhere else than in the introduction of this article and not only by the point of view of the number of civil servents. Another sentence : « However, there is a significant English-speaking minority and English is widely spoken, especially in Montreal. » The 2006 census says : 7,9% of the Quebec population is anglophone. Significant ? Plus 50% of the 12% of allophones mostly speaks English (though most of them knows French). Is this a ''significant'' (!?!) minority ? That's not the way I would phrase it. Plus, '''English is not widely spoken'''. In fact, 56% of the Quebec population speaks only French, 5% only English, 38% are bilingual. [http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/regions/PDF/Eco3_99_extrait.pdf] (1996) The Canadian Press (La Presse Canadienne, 04/12/2007) says 42% of the francophones can stand a conversation, 33% consider themselves bilingual. Optimistically, I would say. Most of them don't use it often and have a hard time watching English TV for example. '''So English is not widely spoken, it has to be rephrase.''' In large part of Montreal, you'd have a real hard time finding somebody to speak English with. The anglophones are concentrated in the west of the island, the allophones in the north, the est and south are francophone. So the author's phrase is not neutral. It sounds like the author wants to tell the reader that the assimilation is on the way, don't give up !!! An other phrase : « Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of civil law, also remain strong in Quebec. » Civil law ''remain'' strong ?!? Like if it was to go away, like if the author which it goes away ! French civil law is and will be the civil laws in Quebec. In fact, it has been revised lately and it is ''Quebec civil law'', based a long time ago on French civil law. An other wrong sentence : « Quebec has a strong and active nationalist movement that advocates for greater autonomy and considers Quebec to be a nation within Canada. » It's not only the nationalist movement that considers the Québécois people as a nation, the House of Commons and the National Assembly have officially recognize this fact. Quebec is the homeland of the Québécois nation (the people). The nationalist movement doesn't advocates for greater autonomy, it strongly advocates for independence, for the creation of a country for its people. Neutrality, please. velero --[[Special:Contributions/96.20.5.166|96.20.5.166]] ([[User talk:96.20.5.166|talk]]) 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::: Be careful of he wording. It is Quebec nationalists that consider the Province of Quebec to be a nation. All provincial parties in the National Assembly are nationalist. Jean Charest and Mario Dumont are both nationalists, and they advocate for more autonomy without independence. It's only the PQ (some of them anyways) that advocate for independence. The Québécois nation can refer to old-stock Quebecers only, or those who identify with the culture. The Cree of northern Quebec, the Inuit of Northern Quebec, and English-speaking Quebecers would mostly not be apart of this nation because they are not francophone. Many nationalists would oppose this definition. All three political parties maintain that all Quebeckers are Quebecois.
::: As for widely spoken, if you have a 40% chance that the person you talk to will speak English (about every second person), that's widely spoken in my books. I should point out that if someone wrote that mosy francophones were unilingual and couldn't speak a second language, he'd be accused of trying to make the Quebecois look like racist morons; I've had that one too. You can't win. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:Quebec is a ''province'' of Canada. The Quebecois (Quebec francophones) are a ''nation'' within Canada. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:: You're right, Québécois, not Québec. Thanks. I corrected my text. velero --[[Special:Contributions/96.20.5.166|96.20.5.166]] ([[User talk:96.20.5.166|talk]]) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::: Many Quebec nationalists would disagree. All political parties in Quebec consider all Quebecers (anglos, natives, immigrants) to be Quebecois. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::::The HoC and National Assembly's motions wrote "Québécois", even in English. And Harper has never said it's only the "old stock Quebecois" (''Québécois de souche'') form as a nation, but all of those who consider themselves as Quebecois. He was specific it is not up to him to make a definition who are Quebecois, but up to the person to identify himself as Quebecois and if that person does, he is Quebecois. It boils down how you identify yourself and that's what Harper wanted to imply in that motion. If you still think it's still unclear, you could mention this further down in the article on Harper's original intent about the motion. ([http://www.thestar.com/article/168352]) As for the language mention. It is true that only 36% of the Quebecois population consider themselves as bilingual ([http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=PR&Code1=24&Geo2=PR&Code2=01&Data=Count&SearchText=Quebec&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Language&Custom=]), but a majority (56%) of Montrealers is ([http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=2466&Geo2=PR&Code2=24&Data=Count&SearchText=Montreal&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Language&Custom=]). In this context, "significant" meaning "considerable influence", though it's not clear enough. So I suggest adding "However, English has a significant role in Quebec because of its English-speaking minority, especially in Montreal, and just over a third of its population is bilingual. [http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=PR&Code1=24&Geo2=PR&Code2=01&Data=Count&SearchText=Quebec&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Language&Custom=]." I know the wording is not perfect but I'm hoping you could finetune it more. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 09:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::::: The point is that most nationalist parties in Quebec consider all Quebecers to be Quebecois, whether they want to be included or not. That is their interpretation. Harper's interpretation is that only those who consider themselves Quebecois are Quebecois. That's mostly (but not exclusively) French Canadians living in Quebec, and most anglophones do not identify as Quebecois. With the nationalists parties it's a question of citizenship (as in Manitoba or New Brunswick), with Harper (and Dion) it's a question of cultural identity (as in the Metis or Acadians). The nationalists use this interpretation to try to get more autonomy for the Quebec government, while the others have their definition to deny it. It's a cheap, semantic game on all sides. The Quebcois nation motion is itself meaningless legally. The Clarity Act, Bill 101, the Constitution Act, referendum laws,etc. are all of greater consequence.
::::: Now, as for the prominence of English in Quebec, I think it does need more quantification "About half the population speaks English, and here is a significant English-speaking community concentrated in Montreal." Very simple; it's imortant to avoid over analysis in the lead and to keep it short. It doesn't exaggerate, it doesn't diminish. Perhaps widely spoken is too relative. My experience is that Americans tend to be surprised at the large amount of French in Quebec (they think it's like Spanish in Florida, Texas or California), and Canadians outside Quebec are surprised by the large amount of English. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::It's true those parties will say that, but they wanted to say that all groups are included. That's politics. And you would be surprised there are many anglophones that consider Quebec as their home and consider themselves to be Quebecois as well as Canadians. This is not 1975 any more. Things have calmed down a lot and a majority of anglophones and allophones have embraced Bill 101 (I don't have a source but I read it somewhere last fall!). You could suggest the three Quebecois parties' interpretation about the National Assembly motion and Harper's in the House of Common motion if you think it's worth pointing out the slight difference.
::::::And where did you get "about half of the population" from? If you mean Montreal, that's true, but this is a Quebec article, so I think it's enough to mention Quebec's portion of bilinguals only. We can mention the importance and greater presence of Montreal's bilingualism compared to Quebec down in the language section because I think there are enough paragraphs in the lead.
::::::Actually I am thinking about expanding the "Language" in the article to explain a little more and include the percentage of francophones, anglophones, and allophones in the population plus the significative numbers of bilinguals with first Montreal compared to the rest of Quebec and then Quebec compared to the rest of Canada. What do you think? I won't make it too big, but just report the key infos. [[Special:Contributions/24.37.113.206|24.37.113.206]] ([[User talk:24.37.113.206|talk]]) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)(That was me: [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]])
:::::::I added more infos in the language section. I hope it looks good and let me know if something looks wrong.[[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Having grown up in PA "all your life," how come you seem to say "informations" and "homeworks" as an imperfectly bilingual Québécois would. Information and homework are singulare tantums (mass nouns) in English. It's just bizzare. G. Csikos, 18 February 2008
:::::::::Please keep my personal life out of the Wiki talk pages except my own userpage. No one is perfect with grammar, not even for the native speakers. Ok, I didn't know they shouldn't be in plural, but c'mon...does it really matter? Personally I don't really care over that small slip-up. I can't keep in mind of every rule found in the English language. If you think I made some mistakes in my contributions in the articles, then I wouldn't have a problem with you correcting them. Cheers. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::You're the one who put up the personal information about yourself. It's just odd for a native speaker of English without any other mother tongue to make that kind of mistake. Of course you should know they shouldn't be in plural -- I mean, it just sounds strange! That's why I'm wondering whether you are truly who you say you are. G. Csikos, 19 February 2008 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.245.242.195|99.245.242.195]] ([[User talk:99.245.242.195|talk]]) 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::::::Oh ok. I was wondering why you had to question me like that. Honestly, if you want to see who I am...let's just stick to my talkpage, not here, hmmm? ;) [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 06:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
: This article is total crap. You guys don't even know what you are talking about. Most of the people involved in this discussion would love to see Quebeckers assimilated to the Canadians. It's never going to happen. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.208.197.88|132.208.197.88]] ([[User talk:132.208.197.88|talk]]) 22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
We're ''all'' Canadians. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not, LOL. Canada = USA. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.83.226.185|70.83.226.185]] ([[User talk:70.83.226.185|talk]]) 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You're an American? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
::A true Quebecois nationalist would never call himself Canadian. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 04:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Quebec has not signed the Constitution. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.83.226.185|70.83.226.185]] ([[User talk:70.83.226.185|talk]]) 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Quebec has never needed to sign the Constitution. It would only be nice if it did. G. Csikos, 19 February 2008

==Rating and GA==
I have reduced the rating of this article from A to B. The simple reason is that it isn't even a [[WP:GA|good article]]. The bigger reason however, is that this article is far from A quality. We need more sources for 1, ALOT more sources. Considering the size of it, I consider 34 footnotes to be very pitful, especialy since alot of the are not even in proper format. Secondly, this article needs some re-writing to expand some sections, cut some cruft, and improve the overall prose. May I suggest following the aformentioned points, [[WP:GAN|nominating it for GA status]], and going through a peer review process before even thinking that this article is close to A quality. --'''[[User:Reaper_X|<font color="#000000"> Reaper</font>]] [[User talk:Reaper_X|<font color="#ff0000"> X</font>]]''' 03:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
:Ok, what shall we do to bring this article back where it was? I could go hunt sources since I'm the best providing informations than doing some major edits. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 04:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
::Well the thing it, it never 'should have been' an A-class. I can't be too specific, I haven't given the article a detailed analysis yet. May I suggest looking at [[WP:GA|good article criteria]]. --'''[[User:Reaper_X|<font color="#000000"> Reaper</font>]] [[User talk:Reaper_X|<font color="#ff0000"> X</font>]]''' 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry. I wasn't answering to you, but asking to the editors here. We'll try to work on it. Thanks. ;) [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 04:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: I started cleaning up the mess a while ago. The sections in the [[Canada]] page would be good to use for Quebec. I used this model to cleanup Etymology and Geography sections. The History section needs to be condensed ... vandals amd POV pushers love history, it seems. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 07:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Soon, I'll start hunting up the sources and add them in. That's the best I could do - providing the information. I prefer to leave the editing to someone else. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 10:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually Soulscanner, this article is crap since you started your "clean-up" full of POV. This article was writen by RCMP agents, that's what happened.

Quebec is not a canadian matter, it never signed the Constitution. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.83.226.185|70.83.226.185]] ([[User talk:70.83.226.185|talk]]) 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::<blockquote>I consider 34 footnotes to be very pitful</blockquote>I totally agree with this. The history section is just ridiculous as it is. Sadly, I have to salute the fact that this article was downgraded. [[User:Lucboudreau|Luc Boudreau]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Restoring that the people of Quebec form a nation ==

I have restored the sentence in the intro that says that the Canadian government recognized that the people of Quebec form a nation. Again, the same arguments are valid: there is no need for ''every individual'' in a nation to identify as part of the nation for the nation to exist. Also, there is no proof that anyone who is a citizen of Quebec is forcibly excluded from membership in the nation: on the contrary Harper did mention it is a matter of personal choice, thus, ''potentially'' if they so choose, every citizen of Quebec may identify with the Quebecois nation. Thus, it would be exact to say that the people of Quebec have been deemed a nation, since there is ''no'' firm exclusion between the term Quebecois and Quebecer, only that Quebecois ''may'' apply mre closely to those of French language and culture. If anybody wishes to dispute these facts, I would invite them to present reliable sources to that effect.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with Ramdrake. I think the way you formulate it is correct. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.208.198.72|132.208.198.72]] ([[User talk:132.208.198.72|talk]]) 20:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::As long as you don't say Quebec (itself) is a nation? I'll accept it. Though IMHO, it's being in the introduction, may be viewed by others, as political agenda pushing. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

::Could there also be a note added, that it's unknown if the motion meant every Quebecer? The motion might mean ''just'' the francophones or it may exclude the aboriginals or inuit. What if there's Quebecers who ''don't'' consider themselves a nation? Again, there should be a note of some kind, that points out the motion's (deliberate?) vagueness. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
:::GoodDay, here is the problem: the motion in French reads ''"Les Québécois forment une nation dans un Canada uni"'' In French, there is no ambiguity that the potential membership of the nation is the entire citizenship of the province (some individuals may not want to identify, for whatever reason). In English, one of the main interpretations of "Quebecois" indeed amounts to the same thing. However, if the wording in English was meant to ''forcibly'' exclude any Quebecer from membership in the nation, this would be the first time that any ruling (law or motion or whatever) passed by the Canadian Parliament would have a different meaning depending on the language used. Honestly, that wouldn't be very smart. Therefore, the use of the French word in the English motion shouldn't be taken as meaning that there is any restriction on the potential membership of the nation.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 11:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
::::: Yes there is. Some definitions of Quebecois in French exclude anglophones (see [[Quebecois]] page). Stephen Harper was explicit that the word Qubecois did not include all Quebecers:
::::::'' "In an interview with the Canadian Press, Harper, who introduced a motion in the Commons last month recognizing the Québécois as a nation within Canada, said '''there is no exact definition''', so it's up to an individual to decide whether they are Québécois. "I think you identify yourself. '''It's an identity, not a legal definition'''," the prime minister said. "'''Being a Canadian carries a legal definition — you're a citizen or you're not. But the idea of a Quebec nation is strictly a matter of identity and you can't define it for everyone.'''" He said the concept implies ties to the French language and the territory of Quebec. "Obviously, this idea is linked to the French language. For that reason, if you're speaking of a Québécois nation you're speaking of French," he said. "'''You're speaking of the Québécois, not Quebecers.'''" When asked whether anglophone Quebecers are part of the Québécois nation, Harper said: "'''I think some anglophones and some ethnic groups identify with the Québécois nation. Maybe some don't,'''" he said. "I don't think it's possible to put precise terms to it." If the main criterion is an attachment to the French language, Harper was asked, does that mean all French-Canadians — even those outside Quebec — belong to the Québécois nation? "I'm not sure," Harper said, speaking in French."As I said, I think it's an identity. Those who share that identity belong to that identity. '''Those who don't share it aren't part of it.'''"<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/19/harper-motion.html?ref=rss | title = Who's a Québécois? Harper isn't sure | publisher = Canadian Broadcasting Corporation | date = 2006-12-19 | accessdate = 2006-12-21}}</ref>''
:::::::Please tell me of a definition of Quebecois in French which specifically excludes anglophones. Please bring reliable sources which say so. Also, the Harper interview reads clearly to me that ''not all'' Quebecers are Quebecois, but not through some specific restriction. Harper said it: it's a matter of identification. '''No one is forcibly excluded.''' And not everyone needs to identify with the nation for the nation to exist.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::: The inivasion of Iraq made it's way onto BBC pages much more often, and you don't find it in the lead sentence of the UK or United States page. Appearing int he BBC does not justify putting a subject in the lead. Please tell me why this should be mentioned and not the 1995 Referendum. That made it in the BBC too. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 12:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: You are basing it on the noteriety of the event. The Referendum was more noteworthy. This is not even a law. It's motion. The Clarity Act as a law with legal consequences. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::: All this needs to be explained. Nation is too vague and controversial a term to mput in the lead without a qualifier. It means different things to different people. Harper's definition is obviously different from Ramdrake's and other Quebec nationalists. In addition, the motion is largely inconsequential. It has no effect on Quebec's legal status or that of anyone living in Quebec. It is not important enough to put in the lead sentence. No one has shown that it should be mentioned before the two referenda, the existence of a separatist party, or the existence of a nationalist movement. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 09:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::Mayeb the fact that the motion made news around the world (BBC, A2, etc.) the very next day gives it some importance. Nobody outside Canada spoke much of the ''Loi sur la clarté référendaire''. The motion may not have legally changed anything, but its symbolic importance was noted around the world. I'd call that important enough.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Again, the 1995 referendum did too. So did the Herouxville proclamation. It doesn't justify putting in the lead. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::You can't seriously compare those. The 1995 referendum wasn't a law (it was a referendum), and the Herouxville proclamation was shunned by most Quebecers as being way over the line.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::However, there's nothing in the motion that says ''all'' Quebecers are a nation. I still think we should point out the 'vagueness' of the 'motion'. But it's not something that I'm gonna loose sleep over. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
:::In every nation, you will find people who, for a variety of reasons, do not identify with the nation, although they do meet the membership requirement. Not ''all'' Quebecers need to consider themselves as part of the nation for the nation to exist and to potentially include all its citizenship. Hope that makes things clearer.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::: there is no membership requirement according to Harper. It's voluntary. Anglophones who do not identify with it, are not part of it. Harper is clear on this. membership is based on identity. Other might have other definitions. That makes the point that the term is unclear and contraversial. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Membership in ''any nation'' is voluntary. One may have American citizenship, live on American soil and still identify as something else than American. That doesn't prevent the American nation from existing, nor does it make its definition less clear in any way, shape or form.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::I'd like to put forward a reworked version, as per my edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=192592629&oldid=192552289 here], to word as follows:<blockquote>''Quebec (pronounced /kwɨˈbɛk/ or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec (pronounced [kebɛk][1]) is a province in the eastern part of Canada.<br><br>Quebec is bordered to the west by the province of Ontario, James Bay and Hudson Bay, to the north by Hudson Strait and Ungava Bay, to the east by the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick. It is bordered on the south by the American states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. It also shares maritime borders with the Territory of Nunavut, the Province of Prince Edward Island and the Province of Nova Scotia.<br><br>Quebec is Canada's largest province by area and its second-largest administrative division; only the territory of Nunavut is larger. It is the second most populated province, behind Ontario, and the only one whose people were recognized as a nation by a motion of the federal Canadian government. The majority of its inhabitants live along or close to the banks of the Saint Lawrence River, while the central and north portion of the province is sparsely populated and inhabited by the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Quebec operates North America's largest and most extensive civil service.''</blockquote>Ramdrake reverted my edit seven minutes after I posted it, but I still feel it has a much more natural flow. If the consensus is that the line ''must'' be in the very first paragraph, we could always move the "largest" text up there to keep the flow. (The current version feels tacked on and quite out of place.) Thoughts? --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
::Sure, why not? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the way it's writen now is good, thanks to Ramdrake. I think we could reach a consensus with those two lines. T Y [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 02:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
:I'm fine with it as well. Good job Ramdrake. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 10:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
::I still think it's being in the introduction is not necessary. But it's not the end of the world, so Okie Dokie. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
::: Need to show that it is relevant; no one has shown this yet. The motion in question carried no legal weight. No one hs yet demonstrated that it is more relevant than existence of nationalist movement. This pushes nationalist political POV in a major, major way without attributing it to a political POV. It belongs later in the lead. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 08:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't see that it particularly pushes a nationalistic POV, as the reference also exists in the Spanish, Italan and German versions of WP (not even counting French). The motion did ''not'' need to carry any legal weight to have international symbolic import. Like I said, most important Canadian laws are ever hardly talked about abroad. This one was extensively reported upon.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::: As extensively as the Quiet Revolution, first election of the PQ in 1976, 1980 and 1995 Referendums, the patriation of the COnstitution, Meech Lake, the Charlottetown Accord, etc.? I don't think so. I would mention all these before I mentioned the symbolic Harper motion. These had much more lasting impacts. Please find arguments that Quebecois nation motion is more important than these. I'll point out that the French wikipedia site is blocked because of this issue. It;s nationalist that consider Quebec a nation. Other Canadians generally don't. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 12:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::Many of the events you are talking about (Quiet Revolution, first PQ election, both referendums) are historical events as compared to laws or motions. And please stop using ''ad hominems'': ''It's nationalists that consider Quebec a nation. Other Canadians generally don't.'' While it's true that ''most Quebecers'' consider they form a nation within Canada, the fact that the motion passed nearly unanimously (or was it unanimously?) in the House of Commons belies your generalization that ''other Canadians generally don't''... unless you wish to prove that the House of Commons isn't representative of its constituents!--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::: It's not a law. It's a symbolic motion. It doesn't have legal validity. The referdna were more notable events. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 12:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

== Request for consensus -The people of Quebec as a nation ==

It looks like [[User:Soulscanner]] heavily disagrees with the current consensus that mentions that the people of Quebec form a nation in the lead sentence. Again, then, I see no choice but to reiterate a request for the opinion of the various editors active here: should we, for the third or fourth time, debate again on the merits of such a mention? I'd like to mention that the consensus which has existed until now (and is now broken) was a compromise between editors wanting to say that "Quebec is a nation" and others who did not feel it was important.
I'd like to find out whether [[User:Soulscanner]]'s reverts reflect a real change in consensus or just another instance of POV-warring.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
: This topic has been the subject of various edit wars in the past week. There is no consensus on adding this, as there is no justification given as to why this motion is noteworthy. There are many more noteworthy events in Quebec than this motion. This is far from a historic event. It has been off the page for weeks now. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 13:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::This topic gained consensus to add at least two, possibly three times since last August. You denying there is consensus to add this doesn't make it so, especially when four other editors have weighed in on the re-add ''this time'' (see section ''above'') and have endorsed the addition. Unfortunately, your behaviour now is tantamount to thinly-veiled POV-warring ''against consensus''. I urge you to cease and desist, or prove that consensus has changed.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 13:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::: they have hardly weighed in to re add. They actually reverted several times, along with myself. here's a documentation of the edit warring.
:::*1 revert[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=191054033&oldid=191053436 02:44, 13 February 2008]
:::*2 revert[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=191531088&oldid=191473104 23:42, 14 February 2008]
:::*3 revert[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=191708416&oldid=191532665 20:01, 15 February 2008]
:::*4 revert[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=191772575&oldid=191721096 02:05, 16 February 2008]
:::*5 revert[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=191862489&oldid=191814620 15:28, 16 February 2008]
:::*6 revert[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=191887460&oldid=191881424 17:45, 16 February 2008]
:::*7st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=191930159&oldid=191895851 21:36, 16 February 2008]
:::*8nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=191939594&oldid=191937461 22:26, 16 February 2008]
:::*9rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=191961404&oldid=191940848 00:32, 17 February 2008]
:::*10th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=191967844&oldid=191963429 01:11, 17 February 2008]
:::*11th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=191979552&oldid=191970738 02:24, 17 February 2008]
::: It is a weak consensus, but a consensus nevertheless. The above editors all scrutinized it. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Soulscanner, the reverts are about stating that ''Quebec is a nation''. The previous consensus was about stating that ''the people of Quebec form a nation''; I wouldn't support stating ''Quebec is a nation'' either, as it is tantamount to saying Quebec is a nation-state, which is demonstrably wrong. However, saying that ''the people of Quebec form a nation'' clarifies the meaning of [[nation]] being used (shared cultural and linguistic heritage, and a sense of identity). Please reconsider.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::I am completely neutral regarding this point, so I'll give my two penneth. There must be plenty of reliable sources that discuss the putative nationhood of Quebeckers, and so it is easily verifiable, likewise the fact that Quebeckers have had two referenda regarding independence, one of which was only [[Quebec_referendum%2C_1995#Result|narrowly lost]], does tend to speak to the fact that this subject is very important and noteworthy to the people of Quebeck. So I do think this is noteworthy, but the lead should give both points of view, we need reliable sources supporting the concept of Quebeck nationhood, and reliable sources that do not support this contention. Then we can say that there is strong feeling on both sides of the debate and allow anyone reading the article to form their own conclusion. [[User:Wobble|Alun]] ([[User talk:Wobble|talk]]) 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::: Again, this is splitting hairs. It pushes nationalist POV becasue it includes all Quebecers in the defintion, when Harper's definition does not. The motion does not solve any outstanding issues. The main political issue is who has power: the federal or the provincial government. Quebec nationalists want more power to go to the province, and this motion did nothing to address the real issue. AS such, it is not a historic motion that should be mentioned. What's more important is that Quebec nationalists consider Quebec to be a nation. It is standard practice to express POV's as opinions of certain groups or individuals. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Please bring reliable sources that say any Quebec citizen is ''de facto excluded'' from the membership even if they would like to be included. People who do not wish to identify do not count, as they can obviously be included in the membership if they so wish.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::: Your reverts do the same thing. Thye effectively promote the idea that the Quebecois nation is an objective fact, when it is in fact disputed. All you have to do is put it in the context of Quebec nationalism, constitutional politics, and identity politics, and I'll have no trouble with it. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Personnally, I would accept something along the lines of
::::''Quebec is the only province whose people have been recognized as a nation (insert refs here) by the Canadian Parliament, even though this recognition is still hotly debated (insert refs here).''
:::What do other editors think?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: Nope. English speaking Quebecers do not identify as Quebecois. So not all of Quebec's people are recognized. Only those who identify witht he French culture count in the [[Quebecois nation motion]]. This motion has no legal standing; it is not like the [[Clarity Act]], which does. It also does not satisfy the demand of Quebec nationalists for a devolution of constitutional powers from the federal government to the province. It deosn't solve anything. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::: I agree totally with that. But the lead sentence isn't the place to discuss that. It's a complex issue that is not clear cut. I'm not arguing whether or not Quebec is a nation, or whether the Quebecois form a nation. Quebec nationalists believe it is, and about half of all Canadians believe it isn't. The problem is that the different sides cannot even agree what a nation is. For example, I'm an English speaking Quebecker, and in English, we distinguish between Quebeckers (i.e. someone who lives in Quebec) and Quebecois, someone who identifies with the French-speaking culture. Some people include English-speaking Quebecers, and some don't.
::: The [[Quebecois nation motion]] plays with that ambiguity. The Prime Minister says it is purely a question of identity, while Quebec nationalists say it is a question of citizenship. Ther eis not enough room in the lead sentence to explain this. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 13:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, saying that the Anglophones don't identify themselves as Québécois is somewhat false as for example Harper's Quebec lieutenant [[Lawrence Cannon]] considers himself to be an Anglophone and a Québécois at the same time. He's not of French decent, nor does he quite identify himself with the French culture (obviously he speaks French), but he still identifies himself to be Québécois. [[User:Nat|'''nat.u''']][[User talk:Nat|'''toronto''']] 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::And I have many friends of various anglophone backgrounds (one of them was even born in Winnipeg) who plainly identify as Quebecois, even though some of them don't have a perfect command of French. Soulscanner, if you wish to say that many anglophones do not wish to identify as Quebecois, that's fine and factually correct; just please don't pretend they are ''de facto'' excluded from the definition.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::* Maybe not your definition, but accordng to Harper's definition (it was his motion) anglophones who do not identify as Quebecois (the majority) are not including (again, according to Harper). Harper and Quebec nationalists have different definitions of Quebecois nation. Which one counts? I don't know. We need to list them in the article so that people know what we're talking about. Presenting one definition as the right one is pushing POV. Several definitions are given at the [[Quebecois]] page. It's better discussing issues of identity there. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 14:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::* AS Harper says, some do, and some don't. Most do not. When you talk of Quebecois, you're not talking about Mordecai Richler or Jan Wong, or the Arcade Fire; you're talking Michel Tremplay, Michel Venne, and Celine Dion.
:::::::: <small>A survey of 1,500 Canadians by [[Leger Marketing]] for the Association of Canadian studies in November, 2006 showed that Canadians were deeply divided on this issue. When asked if Quebecers are a nation, only 48 per cent of Canadians agreed, 47 per cent disagreed, with 33 per cent strongly disagreeing; 78 per cent of French-speaking Canadians agreed that Quebecers are a nation, next to 38 per cent of English-speakers. As well, 7'''8 per cent of 1,000 Quebecers polled thought that Quebecers should be recognized as a nation.''' '''Among french native speaking Quebecers the support was at 96''' [http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=23ba4837-5854-458d-b513-0c2d2d0b5ea3&k=50919].</small>
::::::: So most anglos in Quebec don't think of Quebec as a nation; they do think of the Quebecois as a nation like the Cree or the Acadians. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
See my posting below (I meant to put it here). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, the fact that an overwhelming majrity (78%) of Quebecers consider they should be recognized as a nation, doesn't that make this recognition prominent enough for the lead? And characterizing the identification of Quebecers as a nation as the POV of ''nationalists'' marginalises what is the opinion of nearly four Quebecers out of five. Keeping it out of the lead altogether is totally unacceptable for these reasons, IMHO. At least be honest and let's write that ''most Quebecers consider themselves to form a nation'' rather than ''Quebec nationalists consider Quebec to be a nation''.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 14:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
=== Prime Minister Harper's interpretation ===
Here's Prime Minister Harper's interpretation, who brought forward the motion, interprets it:
:'' "In an interview with the Canadian Press, Harper, who introduced a motion in the Commons last month recognizing the Québécois as a nation within Canada, said '''there is no exact definition''', so it's up to an individual to decide whether they are Québécois. "I think you identify yourself. '''It's an identity, not a legal definition'''," the prime minister said. "'''Being a Canadian carries a legal definition — you're a citizen or you're not. But the idea of a Quebec nation is strictly a matter of identity and you can't define it for everyone.'''" He said the concept implies ties to the French language and the territory of Quebec. "Obviously, this idea is linked to the French language. For that reason, if you're speaking of a Québécois nation you're speaking of French," he said. "'''You're speaking of the Québécois, not Quebecers.'''" When asked whether anglophone Quebecers are part of the Québécois nation, Harper said: "'''I think some anglophones and some ethnic groups identify with the Québécois nation. Maybe some don't,'''" he said. "I don't think it's possible to put precise terms to it." If the main criterion is an attachment to the French language, Harper was asked, does that mean all French-Canadians — even those outside Quebec — belong to the Québécois nation? "I'm not sure," Harper said, speaking in French."As I said, I think it's an identity. Those who share that identity belong to that identity. '''Those who don't share it aren't part of it.'''"<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/19/harper-motion.html?ref=rss | title = Who's a Québécois? Harper isn't sure | publisher = Canadian Broadcasting Corporation | date = 2006-12-19 | accessdate = 2006-12-21}}</ref>''
So according to him, it's a vague notion with no real meaning. Anyone can be Quebecois, and anyone can opt out. It's a question of identity, not citizenship according to Harper. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 13:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:There's one thing I don't understand. The 'motion' is about the people in Quebec (not the province itself) right? Then why is it put in the lead of ''this'' article? The lead of the [[Quebecois]] article would be more appropiate, would it not? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::Because, if you look at it, the article is as much abot the population of Quebec (demographics, history, etc.) as it is about the territory.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::: Good day has a point. The subject of the motion is about the Quebecois. That's where this subject should be stressed. It's true that the many nations of Quebec are described here, but the Quebecois are but one nation. There is geography, government, history, government, etymology, territorial expansion, all mentioned here. The article is about much more than the Quebecois. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:But why not add the 1980 & 1995 sovereignty referendums aswell? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:For the stability of the article (to avoid edit wars), the motion (which is already in the article) should be removed from the lead. It's not worth the hassel; it's being in the lead, give the impression (regretfully) of Quebec nationalism. Again, it's not worth the hassel. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

=== A better solution ===
Here's a neutral way of presenting the POV of nationalists in context in 4th paragraph of lead section; it's too complicated to mention in the lead sentence without important digression; presenting the POV of nationalists as a fact poses serious POV problems. Mentioning it the context of identity and constitutional politics as the POV of nationalists is fair.
:<small>''Quebec is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly [[francophone|French-speaking]] and where [[French language|French]] is the only [[official language]] on the provincial level. However, there is a significant [[English-speaking Quebecer|English-speaking minority]] and English is widely spoken, especially in [[Montreal]]. Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of [[civil law]], also remain strong in Quebec. Quebec has a strong and active [[Quebec Nationalism|nationalist movement]] that advocates for greater autonomy and considers Quebec to be a nation within Canada.<ref>[http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#SOB-1798651 Hansard; 39th Parliament, 1st Session; No. 087; November 27, 2006]</ref> There have been (unsuccessful) [[referendums]] on [[Quebec sovereignty movement|independence]] in [[1980 Quebec Referendum|1980]] and [[1995 Quebec referendum|1995]].''</small> <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Soulscanner|Soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Soulscanner|contribs]]) 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
My worries have been confirmed: Having the 'motion' in the introduction (lead) is too much of a hassel. We should allow this article to follow the other provinces & territories articles leads (for stability's sake). My worries have been confirmed, others see the prominant positioning of the 'motion' in the article, as being 'political agenda pushing'. Soulscanner has ''major'' points though - it's ''just'' a motion (and a vague one at that) & not an Parliamenty Act & shouldn't be given prominance over the 1980 & 1995 referendums. The fact that it's being in the lead, is causing other editors to charge 'Quebec nationalism pushing'? is enough of a reason to keep it out (of the lead). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

=== Definitions of Quebecois ===
A '''Québécois''' ({{pronounced|kebeˈkwa}}), or in the [[grammatical gender|feminine]] '''Québécoise''' ({{IPA|[kebeˈkwɑːz]}}), is a native or resident of the [[Canada|Canadian]] province of [[Quebec]], but may also specifically refer to a [[francophone|French-speaking]] or [[French Canadian]] native or inhabitant of the province,<ref>{{cite web | title= "Quebecois." ''Main entry. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition''|date=2003|accessdate=2007-03-16 |url=http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/quebecois}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title= "Québecois." A.a. ''The Oxford English Dictionary Online'' |date= 2000-03 |accessdate=2007-03-16 |url=http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50194642?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=Quebecois&first=1&max_to_show=10}}</ref> or to someone who identifies with Quebec's French-speaking majority culture.

In English, '''Quebecer''' or '''Quebecker''' ({{pronEng|kwɨˈbɛkɚ}} or {{IPA|/kəˈbɛkɚ/}}) is used to refer to any resident of Quebec, including [[English-speaking Quebecer]]s or [[Allophone (Quebec)|allophone]] natives or residents of Quebec.<ref>{{cite web | title= "Quebecer." ''Main entry. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition''|date=2003|accessdate=2007-03-16 |url=http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Quebecer}}</ref>

With a lower-case initial, the word ''québécois'' is also used to refer to [[Quebec French]], a variant of the [[French language]] spoken by Quebec's population. As an adjective, it can refer to [[Culture of Quebec|Quebec's francophone culture or population]] or the culture of French Canadians living in Quebec.

In French, ''Québécois'' refers to a native or any resident of Quebec. In a cultural context, it can also refer to a [[French Canadian]] living in Quebec, or, as an adjective, refers to French Canadian culture in Quebec.<ref>{{Citation | title = Petit Robert. Dictionaire de la langue française. | last = Robert | first = Paul | publisher = Les Dictionnaires Roberts-Canada S.C.C. | location = Montreal | year = 1984 | page = isbn = 2-85036-066-X }} "''Specialt.'' (répandu v. 1965). Du groupe ethnique et linguistique canadien français composant la majorité de la population du Québec. Littérature québécoise; cinéma québécoise."</ref><ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061113.wgagnon13/TPStory/specialComment/columnists | last = Gagnon | first = Lysiane | authorpage = Lysiane Gagnon | title = There's no Quebec ‘nation' | publisher = Globe and Mail | date = 2006-11-13 | accessdate = 2007-04-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20061125/CPOPINIONS/611250816/6309/CPOPINIONS | last = Gagnon | first = Lysiane | authorpage = Lysiane Gagnon | title = La nation? Quelle nation? | publisher = La Presse | date = 2006-11-26 | accessdate = 2007-04-04}}</ref>
{{reflist}}
--[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:Soulscanner, it is rather disingenuous to provide as a reference a WP article which by and large you wrote yourself. This is akin to pushing OR to try to prove a point.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

::What kind of reference is Lysianne Gagnon anyway ? LOL <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pgsylv|contribs]]) 17:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::: There are four references that provide varous definitions of Quebecois in English and French. They show that Quebecois has various meanings, including resident of Quebec, francophones of Quebec, or French Canadians in Quebec. They appear in most complete dictionaries. Please not that all the refeferences are good, and show that thse definitions exist in English and in French. Please address definitions 4-7. They are dictionary definitions. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 17:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: The Lysianne Gagnon editorials are examples of a Quebecoise who does not believe that Quebec is a nation, and that believes that Harper's motion was a semantic game. I agree that this view needs to be balanced before being inserted into the article by other viewpoints. All viewpoints should be discussed here before being inserted. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Actually, I read her piece (the French one) not as saying the Quebec nation doesn't exist, but as saying the motion doesn't ''properly and fully'' recognize the Quebec nation. There is a significant difference.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Not far from what I'm saying. The motion is largely meaningless. It does not grant more powers (i.e. autonomy) to the Quebec government, which is what Quebec nationalists really want. That is the real heart of the issue; the motion just makes a mockery of it. It gives a token recognition to a French Canadian nation in Quebec, which has no legal standing in Canada. That's why it's not worth mentioning in the lead doesn't change anything constitutionally. I think saying that nationalists seek more autonomy for Quebec and see it is a nation is a fair way of framing their POV in a neutral way.
:::::: I think the constitutional debate is well worth mentioning, but not in the lead sentence, and especially with this silly motion. No article starts out with a lead sentence that brings up the political flavor of the month, and this motion makes a mockery of things. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 23:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

===Found the last wording that had consensus===
I found and put back the last ''exact'' wording which had consensus. It says Quebec is the homeland of a people recognised as a nation, and doesn't get into the polemic of who's included and who isn't. It's absolutely factual, and I don't see where it could lead to nationalist interpretation. How about it?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:I'm content with it, though it's location may bug others. The wording was never a problem, it's being in the lead was. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

'''Comment''' Ramdrake, I've reverted your most recent edit only so that we can discuss the matter (and reach a consensus). Why a revert? That is a fair question; I've no interest in a revert war, and won't perpetuate one. However, my reasoning is that the inclusion of "nation" is something of a lightning rod, if you will, and so I'd strongly suggest that we leave it out ''for now'' so that we can keep the article stable and focus on achieving consensus. (I'd also suggest incorporating a hidden comment about the term, and the fact a discussion is under way, but wanted to run that by you first.) Thoughts? --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:I must admit I'm growing tired of this back and forth (not meaning this one discussion, but the whole set of discussions stretching all the way back to last year). OK, people are saying that if we do put the mention of a nation in the lead, it will attract editors who will want to edit it out, thus making the article unstable. However, it is also true that if we leave it out of the intro, it will ''also'' attract other editors which will repeatedly put it in (as just happened during the last couple of weeks). The only viable solution I can see is to mention it in the lead, but in a fashion that both positions can live with, so it doesn't attract editors with the desire to correct what they feel is either an omission, or an overstatement, depending on one's POV. Does that make sense? I don't see that omitting it from the lead will make the article any more stable, and I would dare say the last couple of weeks, with over a dozen reverts over the issue, amply proves my point.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::As a Federalist, I'm secure enough, to allow it (the motion) being mentioned in the lead. Afterall, it was a 'motion' passed by the House of Commons (a Federalist body); not the Quebec Assembly. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:::''Notwithstanding'' (pun intended) the fact that the Quebec National Assembly passed a very similar motion just before that. I'm open to discuss putting some statement in the lead that will make clear this motion was passed, while making sure it is worded in no way so that anyne can assume Quebec is a nation-state rather than a nation (ethnocultural identity definition).--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== Why do you revert ? ==

Ramdrake, Pieuvre and me Pgsylv have agreed on one version. You revert it. What kind of behavior is that. I will ask you get banned. [[Special:Contributions/70.83.226.185|70.83.226.185]] ([[User talk:70.83.226.185|talk]]) 17:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:I knew this was going to get ugly. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:: Several other editors disagree. Three editors out of a dozen does not make a consensus. Ckatz, DoubleBlue, Royalguard, and myself all reverted references to Quebec nation in last two weeks. They are well documented. Page was semi-protected to prevent anonymous IP's from reverting. Pgsylv was banned for edit warring. Pieuvre was perfectly happy with this version for two weeks. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:Clarifying things: Pgsylv was blocked for being uncivil & edit warring. Also, the argument a few days ago, was over an edit claiming Quebec ''itself'' was a nation (which it isn't). Ramdrake's edit was ''the people of Quebec'' being a nation (not the province itself). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]])
:: That issue has been handled in the fourth paragraph where the "nation" debate is treated in context. Many dispute that the Quebecois are a nation, and many more think it unimportant. Prime minister Harper, for instance, minimizes its important as a simple case of cultural identity. There is also the issue of whether the [[Quebecois nation motion]] itself is more important than, say, the majority of Quebecers being francophone, and Quebec nationalists seeking more autonomy from the federal government. I think those should be mentioned first. I myself think it's silly to deny that the Quebeconation exists, but the opinions of those that do needs to be respected. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:I don't mind Ramdrake's version being in the lead (personally). But, I do mind it being there, if it's going to cause 'edit warring' & basically, alot of hassle (per my above concerns). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::I don't mind either, but honestly first thing in my mind is just kill this ridicious spat that has been going on for months. As long as it does say the Quebecois form as a nation, I'm fine with it. Whether it should be in the lead or not, I'll have to say I don't know how to explain myself. I'll have to say the referendums of 1980/1995 and Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords are more important for the Quebecois history. This recognization of Quebecois nation (the people) is a new thing, but it should not be ignored however. I suppose in the future it'll be more detailed and defined. Just remember we had our days when we argued if Quebec is a distinct society or not, and now people don't really question that today. The whole "nation" issue is a repeat of our "distinct society" arguements back in the 1980s and 1990s. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 22:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::: I agree. It's a complicated issue, and there are many sides to it (not just two). It should be touched on here, and more fully developed in another article, maybe the Quebecois or Quebec nationalism articles. It also needs to be presented in context, as you say with Meech Lake, referendums, etc. The Quebec nation is not a fact in the sense of there being a province with a francophone majority, certain borders, and a strong nationalist movement; those are things you can't argue with. It is more something you believe in, like a political ideal or an identity. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 23:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
:I guess another argument for not having it in the lead, would be that the other provinces articles use their leads mostly for geographic purposes. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

== Where do we go from here? ==

Now folks, since all we've got accomplished so far with this brouhaha is to get this page fully protected (again), can we hammer out another compromise.

I think so far there is a consensus that just saying "Quebec is a nation" is incorrect and inappropriate. However, since the removal of the mention of the Quebecois nation motion did lead to a dozen reverts over a couple of weeks, and the inclusion of the same mention has been reverted another three times, I guess the next question is: what can we mention in the lead so that we can minimize drive-by editors who feel this is either omitted or overemphasized, thus changing the article and making it unstable?

My own opinion on the matter is this: this recognition, even though purely symbolic (we all agree on that) is important to a large proportion of Quebecers, nationalists or not (personnally, I don't consider myself a nationalist; I just fully endorse the "distinct but equal society" bit).

I fully acknowledge that whatever we write, we must be crystal clear that what we write cannot be misinterpreted: we cannot write the sentence so that someone believes Quebec to be a nation-state when it isn't. However, while being clear, we also must be as concise as possible, to remain encyclopaedic.

I would like to suggest we start with the last version that was reverted by Ckatz and work from there until we find a compromise everyone can at least live with. Thanks to all.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 11:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:I'd like to clarify again, the 'motion' is already in the article (so its inclusion isn't a problem). It's being (or not being) in the lead ''is'' the problem. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:And its inclusion -or not- ''in the lead'', is what has been causing the various reverts. So I do think we do need something ''in the lead'', lest we face again the same constant revert issues. The recent pas has proven that merely having it in the article as a sentence buried somewhere is just not enough. We do need ''something'' in the lead. The question remains.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::It's a toughy. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Not really. Just as you arrived at a logical conclusion that the inclusion of a too-vague or too-inclusive sentence abut the nationhood of the Quebecois would lead to instability and constant reverts, I took a wider look at the edit history, and realized that its omission would also have the same results. I still think the alternative is to put in the lead something short, but very specific.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::Perhaps a 'footnote'? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Don't want to be an objector of conscience here, but if it can't be read in the plain text, people will still think it has been omitted. This may be hard to grasp, but as symbolic and legally valueless as the motion is, it has been very important to (most) Quebecers in that they felt their distinctiveness was at last acknowledged. In that sense, it may turn out to have carried more historical significance than any of the two referendums.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::There's another (old) idea. Keep it out of the lead here & have it in the lead at [[Quebecois]]. OK, I know it's not a acceptable solution, but the only other alternative would be (when the page is unlocked), have editors allowed only 1RR. If they breach it? they should be blocked. The 1RR would discourage editors from 'reverting'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think restricting reverts will solve the problem, or actually putting it on another page either. I think hammering out a compromise everyone can live with and defend if it is changed is the best way to a long-lasting solution.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::Well, I'm content with your version being in the lead. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:::In that sense, yes, it is a great moral victory for the Quebecois to see that motion passed by the Canadian Parliament. That's probably the biggest value coming from that motion. But this is quite new and it hasn't made as much noises as the referendums, 1982 constitution, and the failed accords back in the 1980s and 1990s (because of their greater impacts on Quebec and Canada). Only time will tell and I have no reason to doubt it'll become more of an issue in the future. But I don't have anything to suggest how to put it in the lead right without those editors reverting seeing that many attempts only have failed to live more than a few days to a week. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

==My suggestion==
I don't think the passage is that bad; it's placement is appropriate. IMO. How about something along this line, short and sweet, and allowing for great detail later on:
:"Quebec has a strong nationalist movement and has held two referendums on independence, in 1980 and 1995. In 2008, the Canadian parliament passed a resolution recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada." [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 18:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In 2008? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry, my stupid mistake, it was of course in 2006 and would therefore read:
::::"Quebec has a strong nationalist movement and has held two referendums on independence, in 1980 and 1995. In 2006, the Canadian parliament passed a resolution recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada." [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 20:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't ya know it. There's a similiar discussion occuring at the[[Scotland]] article. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:It looks good, but I don't think it'll survive the reverts. The issue is not the wording, but whether it should be in the lead or not. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's not the words that's the problem for some, it's the fact they're in the lead. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::PS-I'm confident we'll reach a solution, people. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::::I see. Well, I for one think it's in just about the right place. Not at the very top of the article, but high enough that it gives due prominence to what is a very notable aspect to the province.[[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 00:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Actually, it seems having it in the lead is a problem to some, not having it in the lead is a problem to others, for basically the same reason: it will attract reverts. Maybe in order to make the passage less susceptible to reverts, we should go along with Ckatz' and Shawn's suggestions and attach it somewhere further down in the intro? That way, it is still there, but less conspicuous by either its absence or presence. I can also live with that, especially considering all these issues we've been raising about the stability of the article. What do others think?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
::In agreement. Let's put it further down the intro. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:::But it's already the second to last line in the intro. It can't go any lower. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
::::I could suggest to let Shawn's version a try and see how long it will last. We could embed a note <---Do not remove and talk about it in the talk page. This wording in the lead is agreed by consensus.---> That could keep some goodminded Wiki members to think twice. And that is if I am mistaken about the consensus. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

== Scientific debate ==

According to Charles Taylor, Quebec is a nation. I think it's important to write something like "Quebec is a province and a nation ... ". I don't understand why some users are opposed to this. I think a lot of users think their POV are facts ( Soulscanner for example ) . I suggest Soulscanner and GoodDay stay out of this discussion since they have showed bad faith and political biais in their analysis. There are two main facts: Quebec is a nation because academics recognize it and because the people itself recognize it. The ROC has nothing to do with this fact.

I propose that the users wich think Quebec is not a nation post their scientific references since WP is an Encyclopedia. Now, Soulscanner, if you are gonna post POV from columnists from LaPresse or the Globe and Mail, please note that those references can't be considered as scientific, Lysianne Gagnon is NOT an academic and she doesn't proceed with scientific method. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 16:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:Soulscanner and myself, have every right to be in this discussion. Wikipedia is for everyone, it's a collaboration. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
::Considering C. Taylor's political leaning, I don't think they make a good source (I would've said the same for pro-federalist researches as well). Taylor's books could be on the same line as those columnists from LaPresse, Le Devoir, etc. They have their own opinion and it doesn't necessary reflect the opinions of the Quebecois. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Interesting (to me at least) that the French WP article (which is also currently semi-protected) has the nation reference higher, but still not as high as you are proposing. I actually like the French WP lead a lot, and would support that, as well. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:Could we have an English translation of the French WP article's version displayed here, for observations? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: Charles Taylor is a Quebec nationalist, a political appointee of the Quebec Liberals and affiliated federal NDP, and hence has a partisan political view on the subject. Provided that his political sentiments are clearly identified and balanced with the views of other politicians and political activists, there is not reason they cannot be summarized later in the articles. I think it would be more appropriate, though, at the [[Quebec nationalism]] article, as this page is dedicated to summarize for political POV like Taylor's. taylor's views are no more or less "scientific" than any other academic, political activist, or politician. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't provide 1 scientific reference soulscanner. Nationalist = liberals ? You lie ! You are a liar ! It's a shame. All what you say is total crap! You think Charles Taylor is a nationalist ? He is a federalist ! Don't you know ? Yes you know, but just love to lie. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


::Re: a translation - this is Google's translation of the french article: [http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FQu%25C3%25A9bec&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8 "Quebec" on the French Wikipedia]
::Not sure if this helps, since it is a machine's interpretation, but it's a start. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 23:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

== French intro ==

Here is the relevant paragraph (2nd) from the French intro:

''C'est la seule province canadienne où le français est la langue officielle et on y reconnait l'émergence d'une nation québécoise[3],[4], En 2003 et 2006, l'Assemblée nationale du Québec ainsi que la Chambre des Communes du Canada ont respectivement reconnu les Québécois comme formant une nation, quoique sous une formulation et en des circonstances différentes[5],[6].''

In English (translation is mine, so have a heart ;) ):
''It is the only province where French is the official language, and where the emergence of the '''(Quebec/Quebecois)''' nation has been acknowledged: in 2003 and 2006, the Quebec National Assembly and the Canadian House of Commons each have respectively recognized ('''Quebecers/Quebecois''') as forming a nation, albeit under different wordings and circumstances.''

For those who asked. The pleasure is mine.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 23:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, I kinda like it (minus the word 'Quebec'). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
::"Quebec" is not present in the French text. "Nation québécoise" = it speaks for itself (québécoise forms as an adjective). [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 03:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Well it kinda incorrect that Quebec is the only province where French is the official language because it's also official in New Brunswick. How my prof puts it is "Quebec is is the only province where French is the sole legal/official language allowed to be used in major corporations/medium-to-large size businesses, and public services." and also, apparently (according to my prof), English is co-official in the National Assembly. [[User:Nat|'''nat.u''']][[User talk:Nat|'''toronto''']] 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
::::As usual, Soulscanner is showing bad faith. He just wrote: " Charles Taylor is a Quebec nationalist, a political appointee of the Quebec Liberals ... " . Now, since when do Liberals are nationalists ? I'm sure Soulscanner will never answer this Question. He is a liar. Now, I chose Charles Taylor because he is a federalist. His position ( Pieuvre, you never read Charles Taylor ) , is that Quebec is a nation , but should remain in Canada. This discussion is total crap. We have this guy saying " Well it kinda incorrect that Quebec is the only province where French is the official language " . This is a lie. Quebec is the only province which has one language, french. New-Brunswick has 2 ! English and french. You guys just don't know what you are talking about. It's a shame. Go read a few books. All what you propose are POVs. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 06:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::I only know Taylor from that "reasonable accommation" commission. I must've confused him with Gérald Bouchard. I do agree with Soulscanner that it's better to put it further down the article or put it in "Quebec nationalism" where it's more useful. However, you're in no position to tell us "you don't know what you're talking about". We're not Mr. Know-It-All and that includes you. And I do read books. I just finished reading "Point de Rupture" by Radio-Canada. Very interesting and gives me more lights in the whole referendum history with POVs of both sides. So yes, I do know what I am talking about when it concerns Quebec politics (especially the recent history). As for the language thing...the suggestion "the only province where French is the sole official language", is fine with me. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 07:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

: 1- dont ever change my comments, just don't touch it. 2- " I only know Taylor from that "reasonable accommation" commission " = you don't know Charles Taylor. 3- If you don't know Charles Taylor, it means you don't know a lot of other academics. 4- " Point de rupture" is not giving any information about the "nation". 4- " I must've confused him with Gérald Bouchard." So it makes me say you might get confused with the whole debate around the Quebec nation, just like Soulscanner. That's why I think you should stay out of this discussion as well since your knowledge about this subject is poor. If I don't know Albany, Am I going to debate with people wanting to change some of the article ? No, because I don't know Albany. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 08:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
::1) I moved your comment where it should belong. It shouldn't be under where it used to be. If I deleted a piece of it, my apologies since it wasn't my intention. 2) I merely stated I only know them from that commission. I don't know them personally because I'm not related to them as you may be (I'm being sarcastic here). 3) I'm not interested reading about authors ("academics" as you may call them) who talk about independence, federalism, etc. ad nauseum with different wordings, but similar points. I prefer reading newspapers and magazines when it concerns politics. Observing things is fun. 4) "Point de Rupture" wasn't my attempt to suggest a source here. You insulted us by telling us "go read some books" and I was just giving you a tongue-in-cheek comment. 5) Soulscanner has every right to comment here. You do not hold the authority deciding who can and who cannot participate here. (I'm losing count with the numbers here...you're so unclear with counting and staying conscient) 6) I'm well aware of this whole Quebec nation here. You cannot base my knowledge on a small piece of information. So don't treat us like some ignorance teenagers. 7) What Albany has to do with Quebec? 8) I'm not interested further reasoning with you any further. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM This is not a forum]. We're not here to debate political ideas. We're here to report them (with talk pages to discuss how to report them in the articles) as long as they respect the rules of the Wiki. You can find plenty of forums where you can happily lecture us about those almost unknown "academics" that most of us don't really care. Cheers. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 10:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

== Minor link change ==

Could someone with editing rights please change this? Under the Language section, [[Allophones]] should point to to [[Allophone (Quebec)]]. [[User:Darobsta|Darobsta]] ([[User talk:Darobsta|talk]]) 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

== Confusion ==

Soulscanner, you are confused ! You can't be a nationalist AND a Liberal ! You are hilarious ! Was that a joke ? Was that a lie or a funny joke? Look what you wrote: " Charles Taylor is a Quebec nationalist, a political appointee of the Quebec Liberals and affiliated federal NDP, and hence has a partisan political view on the subject. " A nationalist AND a political appointee of the Quebec Liberals? This should be enough for others to understand you don't really know what you are talking about ! [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 08:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:Finally you know how to properly place your comments. Again, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM this is not a forum] where you can make some personal attacks. [[User:Pieuvre|Pieuvre]] ([[User talk:Pieuvre|talk]]) 10:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:: See [[WP:ANI#User:Pgsylv]]. <font color="#CC0000" size="-2">[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</font> 14:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
::: The Liberal Party of Quebec is nationalist. It advocates for more transfers of power to Quebec. Charels Taylor is nationalist too. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 15:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: Lysianne Gagnon is a member of the liberal party, so she is a nationalist too. Logically, with what you are saying, is that the PQ, the Liberals and I guess the ADQ are all nationalists party , right? So 100% of the political parties are nationalists, right ? Then, anyone who votes in Quebec, must be a nationalist, even you, an anglophone from montreal, right ? Then I guess if everybody is nationalist even the anglos, it means Quebec is a nation ? Please explain to me Soulscanner ( He will never answer this question ). [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Quebec ''is not'' a nation. The Quebecois are a nation. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
::::: The Liberal Party of Quebec is a coalition of federalist francophones, anglophones, and allophones. Because francophone nationalists are a majority, the party adopts nationalists policies. Anglophones have no choice but to accept it, or more extreme nationalists will come to power, and they count on the federal government to protect their rights.
::::: Personally, I consider the Quebecois (i.e. francophone Quebecers) to be an ethnic or cultural nation, just like the Acadians, the Metis, the Cree of Northern Quebec and English Canadians. It is their choice to associate beased on culture, language, and ethnicity. But that is my personal POV, and really isn't relevant here. I realize that there are others who have a different POV on this, and work with differing definitions . I would never try to push that on Wikipedia. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 17:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

== What is wrong with current version? ==

The current version seems to handle the "nation" question in a NPOV way:

:''Quebec is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly [[francophone|French-speaking]] and where [[French language|French]] is the only [[official language]] on the provincial level. However, there is a significant [[English-speaking Quebecer|English-speaking minority]] and English is widely spoken, especially in [[Montreal]]. Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of [[civil law]], also remain strong in Quebec. Quebec has a strong and active [[Quebec Nationalism|nationalist movement]] that advocates for greater autonomy and considers Quebec to be a nation within Canada.<ref>[http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#SOB-1798651 Hansard; 39th Parliament, 1st Session; No. 087; November 27, 2006]</ref> There have been (unsuccessful) [[referendums]] on [[Quebec sovereignty movement|independence]] in [[1980 Quebec Referendum|1980]] and [[1995 Quebec referendum|1995]].''

Improved version:
:''Quebec is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly [[francophone|French-speaking]] and where [[French language|French]] is the only [[official language]] on the provincial level. Its original European settlers came mostly from France during the [[New France|French Regime (1608-1760)]]. Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of [[civil law]], also remain strong. '''Quebec has a strong and active [[Quebec Nationalism|nationalist]] and [[sovereignist]] movements that advocate for greater autonomy and consider Quebec to be a nation within Canada.<ref>[http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#SOB-1798651 Hansard; 39th Parliament, 1st Session; No. 087; November 27, 2006]</ref>''' There have been (unsuccessful) [[referendums]] on [[Quebec sovereignty movement|independence]] in [[1980 Quebec Referendum|1980]] and [[1995 Quebec referendum|1995]].''

I recommend reviewing [[WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements]] for some guidelines here. I'm curious to know why the reference to the "Quebec nation" here is not sufficient? --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:Again, it talks about nationalists considering Quebec as a nation (as if this was some minority). It doesn't say anything about both the National Assembly and the House of Commons recognizing Quebec as a nation. I see a huge difference here. Mention of either the federal motion, or better both motions should be in the introduction, not some vague reference to the fact that some people in Quebec think Quebec is a nation (which is an incomplete representation of the facts, BTW). And, for the record, the Quebec Liberal Party bills itself as federalist, not nationalist, so according to WP rules (and common respect) this should be respected. Saying that the Quebec Liberal Party is a nationalist party is unsupported OR, unless you can attribute this opinion to someone. It certainly isn't the opinion of the party leaders.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:Since all political parties in Quebec recognize Quebec as a nation, I suggest we write it at the beginning. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 20:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
::Non starter Pgsylv. Why? Quebec (the province) ''is not'' a nation; Quebecois (the people) are. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
::: The Liberal party of Quebec supports the devolution of specific powers to Quebec, such as health care and Employment insurance, to Quebec. It's in the party platform.
::: Your statement that the Liberal party is not nationalist is simply inaccurate. There are many federalist nationalists in Quebec. The house of commons considers the Quebecois as a nation, not Quebec. Let's get this straight. Moreover, it says clearly here that the nationalist movement is strong. If you wish, we can add that the three provincial parties have declared Quebec to be a nation in the National Assembly. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 22:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Jean Charest, leader of the Liberals, " Quebec is a nation ... " [[http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=e4cb1281-1d73-47e1-998e-8d46752a108b&k=38980]]
If Liberals say so, it means that all political parties see the Quebec as a nation. It's a fact, not a POV. There are a lot of references on that , I have provided one here. T Y [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 21:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding this reference:
[[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20061112.wcharest1112%2FBNStory%2FNational%2F&ord=11830676&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true]]

-Jean Charest: " Premier Jean Charest said it doesn't matter if Canadians in other provinces don't agree that Quebec is a nation. “For us, Quebec is a nation,” Mr. Charest told reporters Saturday after a regional meeting of his Quebec Liberals. “There has never been any doubt in my mind,” he added. “And by the way, neither do I believe that Quebeckers have any permission to ask from anyone to be who they are. "

[[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 21:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
: Indeed, Jean Charest is a nationalist, as I've said before. Nationalists consider Quebec to be a nation, as it already says. Like jean Charest says, for us (i.e. Quebec nationalists) Quebec is a nation. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 22:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
::In agreement with Soulscanner. Nobody here, is disputing what Quebec nationalist views are. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

== adding 2 words ==

Hi, I would like to suggest something: write " Quebec is a province and a nation within Canada ... " at the beginning, since all political parties in Quebec recognize it as so, more than 70 % of quebeckers answered in surveys they recognize the Quebec as a nation and finaly because all academics recognize the fact that Quebec is a nation ... within Canada. I have provided several references since july 2007 and I think I have showed that it was a fact, not a POV. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 21:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry, the House of Commons motion doesn't say 'Quebec is a nation'. It's motion say 'the ''Quebecois'' are a nation within a ''united'' Canada'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you propose ? [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 21:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:I prefer [[User: Ramdrake|Ramdrake]]'s version, personally. I oppose the line - ''Quebec is a nation''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:: So you oppose 5 millions Quebeckers ? [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:: You oppose the fact that 100% of the political parties recognize Quebec as a nation ? Is that what you mean when you say " I oppose the line - " Quebec is a nation" ? Is that what you do GoodDay ? You are opposed to Soulscanner and Pieuvre ? [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
::: All three parties are nationalist, hence it is already mentioned. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 23:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:I don't oppose the Federal Government. I've no problem with Ramdrake's version & it's being in the article's lead. The Quebec National Assembly can pass a motion 'proclaiming' Quebec is a province of Italy; Does that make Quebec a part of Italy? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So you oppose the Quebeckers, right ? [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:What exactly, are you getting at? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we could add that Quebec is a nation but a few Canadians francophile like Don Cherry oppose this fact. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 22:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:Don Cherry? What's he got to do with the article? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

He hates quebeckers just like you do ! [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, GoodDay is saying Canadians don't recognize Quebec as a nation. I think it's not a fact, but a POV. I have showed that Quebeckers recognize Quebec as a nation ( I gave a lot of references ). I think we should start from there. [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:I hate my fellow Canadians? When have I said that? And again, The Canadian government ''has not'' (to date) recognized the province of Quebec, as a nation. They have recognized the 'people' of Quebec as a nation within a ''united'' Canada. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say Canadians, I said Quebeckers. Do you hate Quebeckers ? [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 22:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:I ''do not'' hate Quebecers and I've never claimed to have hated Quebecers. What's your point.[[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
::It seems Pgsylv has no idea what he's talking about. First he calls Cherry a "Francophile," and then says Cherry hates Quebeckers; that's an absolute self-contradiction (I suspect he meant "Francophobe"). Anyway, this whole nation business is a matter of POV, well beyond the scope of this little article. Probably almost everyone in Canada holds a POV on the "nationhood" matter of Quebec and the Quebecois, but that doesn't make any of them right, or even official. So, a Legislative Assembly declared the province a nation; so what? The motion never became law, and the composition of the assembly changes as time goes by; this mean Quebec's nationhood, as seen by the LA, is only temporary. This goes the same for the vague resolution passed by the federal House of Commons; it is in no way an official declaration of nationhood - even if we could define what Harper meant by "the ''Québécois''" - and a future house may collectively see the whole thing in a completely different light. Thus, the whole nation deal is more of a debate than a given fact, and my opinion now is that the lead should steer clear of this contentious issue save for, perhaps, mentioning that nationhood is a thorny and vague issue attached to the province and some of its people. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 03:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:It may be vague and thorny outside of Quebec, but nearly 80% of the Quebec population does consider itself to form a nation. Does that means that 80% of Quebecers are nationalists? If so, the ''strong nationalist movement'' should indeed be described as a ''strong nationalist movement encompassing nearly 80% of the population'', as that's what it is. The motions passed by the National Assembly and the House of Commons aren't Bills, they are motions; they aren't laws per se. They were both adopted nearly unanimously, and can't be dropped unless they are officially repealed (and I don't see the day when either federal or provincial government officially repeals them). The Quebecois nationhood is a highly symbolic gesture, and one which made news around the world; moreover, it is an important historical recognition to nearly 80% of Quebecers, regardless of how it is seen outside outside Quebec. I think this makes it important enough to mention in the introduction.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 13:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:To [[User:G2bambino]]: The ''whole nation business'' is more than a matter of POV, as it has been the subject of two motions, one federal one provincial, both of which ''passed'' with overwhelming support. Also, please review the difference between a motion and a law: neither motion is ''temporary'', unless they get specifically repealed (and I don't see either level of government repealing ''this one''). In short, it seems your assessment of the situation is in serious error on several key points. Also, please review the reasons I gave in the section above why we need something regarding the nationhood issue ''in the introduction''. Pgsylv may have been banned from this article, but there are others who share his viewpoint.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 14:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Of course there are others who share his viewpoint. That was part of my point. But the crux was that it is all just a matter of viewpoint, and the motions - not laws - passed by the House of Commons and Legislative Assembly of Quebec are just that: expressions of a collective ''opinion''. Polls are just measurements of opinions too, and badly representative ones at that. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::::The motion wasn't a poll. It was a resolution of the House of Commons. Unlike a poll, it's not subject to change until repealed or modified through another resolution, and I really don't see a future government repealing the motion any time in the foreseeable future.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 20:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Are you being purposefully obtuse? Nobody said the resolution was a poll, and nobody said the polls were resolutions. Please try again, if you like. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

::Please note: Pgsylv wasn't banned from this article, because of his views. He was banned for being uncivil. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I didn't say he was banned for his views, neither do I wish to imply this; he was banned for being uncivil, but his viewpoint is a legitimate one, and may be shared by other editors.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: You are absolutely right. His political point of view is legitimate and shared by many nationalist Quebecers, but it still is a point of view. The point of view of non-Quebecers and English speaking Quebecers is also legitimate. That is why any statement here needs to balance the common POV's expressed using referenced sources.
:::: The second point is that there are many Quebecers (nationalists and non-nationalists alike) who really see the issue as a relatively minor one in Quebec politics. Nationalists themselves cannot agree on a definition for the Quebec nation, and to many the issue is really one of semantics and partisan political games. No scholarly survey of modern Quebec nationalism would open with the Harper motion. There are many more facts in history (e.g. the francophone minority, the referendums, the Quiet Revolution, the language Charter, the Constitution Act of 1982) that are more relevant to the issue of Quebec's autonomy (whether one sees it inside or outside the Canadian federation) --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::No disrespect is intended, but insofar as I'm aware, these Quebecers are a minority (maybe a relatively large minority - 20-25%, but a minority). We shouldn't decide whether this piece is worthy of inclusion in the lead based on the minority opinion. We should indicate that the recognition was given; we can even add that it is contested up to this day, but we can't just not mention it in the lead, or else we risk having drive-by editors who will keep adding back that "Quebec is a nation" in the lead. To, me this fact needs to be in the lead. The only I see we can avoid long-term issues such as we've been having every couple of months for the last eigh or nine months is for us all to agree on putting ''something'' in the intro about the motion, making sure it is NPOV and impossible to wrongly interpret.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 20:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::I'm simply letting editors know, why Pgsylv was banned from this article. There's always a possibilty that editors would post here & get the erroneous impression Pgsylv was censured for his views. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

<s>::I've another idea (though it's sorta harsh). We ''do not'' have the 'motion' in the introduction (thus lining this article up, with the other Canadian province articles). Then, each editor (registered or not) who edits in to the lead, the 'motion' or something like it? - should be given a stern warning not to do it again. If they do it again?, they will get 'blocked'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)<s>
::I've scratched out my good intentioned 'suggestion'. Having sat back & reviewed it, it seems to hint at censurship. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I warn you that I cannot and will not be part of such a consensus. I believe I've been rather flexible until now, on the precise wording and location within the intro of the sentece, but I believe not mentioning the nationhood issue and warning people not to mention lest they be blocked is an attempt at [[WP:OWN|owning]] the article. One cannot control the article in such a fashion; rather, I'd propose a wording that will satisfy the existing spectrum of viewpoints.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::I told you it was a harsh suggestion, but it's ''only'' a suggestion. Anyways, will you consider the possibilty that having the 'motion' in the lead? is more trouble then it's worth? I'm acceptable to having it included ''or'' excluded? Howabout you? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel that excluding altogether is acceptable, although I'm open to discussion as to where ''in the lead'' it should be.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:I'm disappointed in your response. Your inflexibility (which I was unaware of, until now) concerning the Quebecois motion's location in the article? isn't helpful. Perhaps it's best I depart this discussion. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::Ramdrake, are you insisting that the House motion be in the lead or just that Quebecois nationalism in general be mentioned there? --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 22:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::Mention can be implicit, depending on the wording used. But I feel that the nationhood (for whoemever it applies) should be mentioned as ''more than just the opinion of some nationalists'' as it did gain official, albeit symbolic recognition through the passing of the motion. That's my point. Hope it's reasonable enough. --[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::: The motion is a minor event that everyone interprets differently. It skirts the issue of more powers being devolved to Quebec. The fact is, nationhood for Quebec is a highly politicized issue that is inherently POV. That is why the Bloc and Conservatives have diametricly opposite view of the meaning and significance of the [[Quebecois nation motion]]. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 09:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Fine, you're entitled to your POV. But you cannot impose this POV on all editors. There are those of us who see the motion in a different light. Please remember that WP isn't about ''the truth'', it's about presenting the different, significant viewpoints. The Harper motion is a factual event, which was hailed by many within and outside Canada as something of some significance. It is viewed by many as an event totally outside the autonomist revendications of Quebec, as a recognition of the cultural identity of Quebecers. It is important to a lot of people, for admittedly different reasons, but its symbolic importance is undeniable. I maintain it must be mentioned in the lead, somehow.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 12:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

== The House motion does not refer to the province ==

If people are going to keep bringing up the House motion in every discussion, please not that the motion was very careful to say that the ''Québécois'' are a nation, ''not'' the province of Quebec. Both Harper and Dion said that they were referring to the cultural group; the nation in question consists of the Francophone cultural group founded 400 years ago living along the St. Lawrence, not to every person living within the province of Quebec; there is a very big difference. --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 21:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:In full agreement AG. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::Welcome to the discussion, Arctic Gnome. Firstly, there is a consensus here that Quebec (the territory) hasn't been recognized as a nation, as the word "nation" refers to a group of people anyway. Second, if you re-read Harper's statement carefully, he did say that people who identify as Quebecois are included, therefore the term isn't restricted to the descendants of the French colonists only; personnally I know of a number of people in the Quebec Anglophone community who identify as Quebecois (some identify as Quebecois and Canadians, and see no contradiction - I feel much the same way they do). What we are trying to accomplish here is to get a wording down that will take these realities into account.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:I'm always willing to accept the 'Quebecois motion' in the lead. However, I'll also accept it being out of the lead. It's too bad both sides of the issue can't be flexible about it (as I am). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I see that I should have read the discussions in more depth before responding to all of the "Quebec is a nation" comments from every thread. For what it's worth, I think a phrase like <tt>"Quebec is the homeland of the Quebecois nation."</tt> should be fair to both sides, maybe with a qualifier tagged onto it such as <tt>"It is also home to other cultural groups such as anglophone Canadians, aboriginals, Acadians, and various immigrant communities."</tt> In either case, I think such a line belongs in the lead, Quebecois nationalism is a very important part of the province's history. --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: Actually, most Quebec nationalists would object to this. Most political leaders would consider "Quebecois" to include all residents of Quebec. The reason is of course political. They wish to depict the Quebecois nation motion as a recognition of special status for the province, and as a wedge to legitimize legal claims to sovereignty. If you include this definition, you'll face accusations from some nationalists as depicting the Quebecois as racist. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:I'm disgusted. When I was in the last discussion over this topic (months ago), I admit I was being stubborn and letting my Federalist PoV, effect me. This time? I've been more NPOV in my views. Regretfully, we've got an established editor here (it's not you, Arctic Gnome) who steadfastly refuses to accept the 'Quebecois motion' in the lead & an established editor who steadfastly refuses to have the 'Quebecois motion' removed from the lead. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:::GoodDay, FWIW, if consensus decides to forego mention of the nationhood motion in the lead, I will respect it. But I'd like to see a strong consensus emerege either way first.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:OK Ramdrake. You've restored my hopes for a resolution, therefore I'm stickin' around. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::Over the entire course of Quebec history, the motion is not a huge event and is likely not worthy of being in the lead. However, Quebecois nationalism in general ''does'' deserve to be there. It seems like a resonable compromise to mention the Quebecois nation in the lead, maybe phrased as an opinion, and explain the history of the debate leading up to the motion in the body. --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I haven't seen any opposition to something about Quebec nationalism being mentioned in the lead, but I have seen a lot of personal POVs being bandied about as though they're fact. I am in support of something along the lines of your above suggestion, Artic; but there must be no attempts to define explicitly what the Quebecois nation is. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Agreed with G2bambino on this, especially since Harper (who presented the motion) did not give a specific definition of Quebecois, although I would appreciate if the reference in the article did not refer to it as vague (I don't think it's vague - it's quite open to a degree of interpretation, though).--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:''Clarification'', the editor who's against having the 'Quebecois motion' in the lead? has objections on the basis that the 'motion' pales in importants to the '1980 & 1995 referendums'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::I think that's a fair assessment there. This motion is getting a lot of attention now, but the 80/95 referendums were far more important historically. The province almost broke away in 1995, and I think that's a little far significant than this motion. I think Arctic Gnome has the right idea of just having something about the importance of Quebecois nationalism in the lead, and then the motion in the general history. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

== Quebec nation appears in lead ==

"Quebec nation" appears in the paragraph on Quebec nationalism and the sovereignty movement, and is explained in context.
Ramdrake has objected that this makes the nationalist movement sound too small. Here is a slight rewording.

:''"Quebec is the sole Canadian province whose population is mainly [[francophone|French-speaking]] and where [[French language|French]] is the only [[official language]] on the provincial level. However, there is a significant [[English-speaking Quebecer|English-speaking minority]] and English is widely spoken, especially in [[Montreal]]. Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of [[civil law]], also remain strong in Quebec. Quebec has a strong and active [[Quebec Nationalism|nationalist movement]]. All three provincial political parties advocate for greater autonomy and consider Quebec to be a nation within Canada.<ref>[http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#SOB-1798651 Hansard; 39th Parliament, 1st Session; No. 087; November 27, 2006]</ref> The [[Parti Quebecois]] government advocates for independence, and has organized (unsuccessful) [[referendums]] on [[Quebec sovereignty movement|independence]] in [[1980 Quebec Referendum|1980]] and [[1995 Quebec referendum|1995]]."''

I think that is accurate and fair. It is stronger than mentioning the "Quebecois nation motion" because it emphasizes the POV of Quebec nationalists that Quebec (and not just the Quebecois) for a nation and leaves open the possibility that non-nationalists may disagree with it. It also puts it in the relevant political context. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

: I don't want to be picking nits, but you write that all three provincial political parties consider Quebec to be a nation within Canada, and then you supply the Hansard reference to the HoC motion. Problem is, the "within Canada" part isn't in the Quebec motion that I'm aware of (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and the reference should then point to the National Assembly's resolution on the nationhood of Quebec. However, I'm dubious, as I think the federal motion is probably the strongest of the two, even if it fails to precisely define "Quebecois" as it is recognition of nationhood from without, as opposed to from within. Think you can rework your proposal? Or would you like me to?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
: I think that the fact ( according to StatCan ) that 80% of Quebeckers recognize Quebec as a nation is enough to write in the lead that Quebec is a nation. This is my opinion, but I realize I'm far from the federalists POV editors of this article. It will be hard to reach a consensus I guess. And I think Royalguard is right: if the 95 referendum almost broke Canada, it means that Quebec is a nation. Thank You, [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 00:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

: Maybe we should write in the lead that 100 % of political parties in Quebec recognize Quebec as a nation, just like the NDP, the Federal Liberals, The Bloc Québécois and the Tories, since it's a fact ( see the references above ). T Y [[User:Pgsylv|Pgsylv]] ([[User talk:Pgsylv|talk]]) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:: Already says all three major political parties. That's 100%. The federal parties are different. They voted on the "Quebecois antion", which is a weaker statement than saying that Quebec is a nation. Harper explicitly denied that Quebec is a nation when questioned on the motion. I think the above is a fair statement of what Quebec nationalists believe. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 01:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I stress again, The HoC motion doesn't say 'Quebec is a nation'; it says the Quebecers are a nation. I also stress that the Federal Government's motion should be the 'motion' to use. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: Actually, it says the "Quebecois are a nation"; some (most nationalists) say it includes all Quebecers and extend to all Quebec and others (e.g. Harper) say it does not. It is a deliberate, vague wording introduced by Harper. The Bloc interpret this motion to mean that they Quebec is recognized as a nation:
::::: ''"Duceppe went on to say it's a historic moment because "for the first time in history" the House of Commons is recognizing Quebec as a nation. Canada is the first country recognizing the Quebec nation -- that Quebecers form a nation -- and in the near future other countries will do so."'' [http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061126/nation_motion_061126?s_name=&no_ads=]
:::: This is the POV being pushed by some here. The main issue here is that Quebec nationalist believe that Quebec is a nation, including everyone who lives there. There's no doubt that this is POV, and it should be represented as such. The claims of this POV should be clear and honest, though. By an large, the Quebecois nation is synonymous with Quebec according to this POV. That is the main point of mainstream Quebec nationalist politicians; they seek more autonomy for the Quebec state.
:::: If you include mention of the Quebec nation motion, you then need to explain the different interpretations of a relatively unimportant motion so that readers are not misled. That's why it's better to present the principle claims and objectives of Quebec nationalism rather than ambiguous, meaningless, symbolic motions of the House. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Soulscanner, you seem to (perhaps unwittingly) performing a bit of sophistry here: first you define nationalism so that every Quebecer who thinks Quebec is a nation/Quebecers form a nation (either) is a "nationalist". Then, you ascribe to them goals such as "wanting more powers for Quebec, eventually seeking autnomy and/or independance". These are all goals of sovereignists, ''not nationalists''. The way you have your definitions out, one must make a difference between a nationalist (who only believes Quebecers to form a nation) and a sovereignist (who has further goals, eventually leading to independance). The best demonstration that, according to your definitions, not all nationalists are sovereignists is that 78% of Quebecers think Quebec (or its people) form a nation, whereas two referendums have each gathered less than 50% support. Therefore, there is a difference: there should be about 30+% of Quebecers out there who think Quebecers form a nation, but have no desire to leave Canada (and I don't think there's anything wrong with that). Presenting the nationalist movement (as you define it) and then basically confusing it with the sovereignist movement, I don't think helps the reader.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::: There is no sophism here. Nationalists want more autonomy for Quebec; Mario Dumont, for example, calls himself an "autonomist", seeking to get more powers for Quebec within the federation. The same holds for the provincial Liberals. These aren't state secrets; it's all in the Allaire Report back in the early 1990's when Meech Lake collapsed.
::::::: "1991 Jan. 29 - The Allaire Report is submitted. Its content is to constitute the new provincial constitutional position of the Liberal Party. Massive decentralisation in 22 areas is proposed."[http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/chronos/national.htm]
:::::: This remains the official constitutional position of the Provincial Liberals and was used by the Bourassa government to negotiate the Charlottetown Accord. A devolution of powers has been the core demand of Quebec nationalists for decades, including Duplessis and Lesage (who also wanted more powers for Quebec but remained federalist). It is the belief that these powers should be concentrated in the National Assembly that defines Quebec nationalism. To nationalists, the L'Etat de Quebec (i.e. the province) is a civic nation because it is able and willing to to act autonomously in these 22 areas of government, based on the francophone culture of the majority. Whether 80% of Quebecers believe this is irrelevant. It is still POV. The other 20% of Quebecers and the majority of Canadians who think otherwise deserve to have their views respected too. Polls showing the opinions of Quebecers and Canadians are beside the point, an do not add to the explanation of what the real issues are. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::That is your view. But can't you recognize that there is a large number of Quebecers who only want recognition for their people as a nation without necessarily wanting more prowers from the federal government? You seem to conceive of the nationhood issue as inseparable from the sovreignty issue when nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there are many who associate both, buth there are also many who don't see a specific relationship between the two.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: I doubt that. 100% of the provincial parties want some devolution of political powers to Quebec, the same ones who support the various motions on Quebec nationhood. I think you are largely speaking for yourself here. The motion was originally brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, after all, and all motions regarding natinhood were brought forward by the Parti Quebecois. They se this issue as a political tool. This needs to be explained when discussiong the nationhood issue. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:I think that there is near-universal acceptance that the Quebecois ethno-cultural group is a nation, but there is debate about whether the province of Quebec is a nation. We could probably clearly explain that distinction in the lead without taking up much space. --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:: Actually, it is extremely controversial. I recommend going to the talk page at the [[Talk:Quebecois]] article and the following discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9coison here] on whether the Quebecois page should be deleted. Many argued explicitly that "Quebecois" meant anyone from Quebec, not just people who identified as such or were French Canadian, and that there was no need for such an article, just as there is no need for [[Ontarian]] or [[Albertan]]. The conclusion was that Quebecois should not denote an ethno-cultural group on Wikipedia, presumably, because the ethno-cultural was too contraversial or marginal. Because of this, it was decided that the usual "ethnic" box you find on articles like these should not be allowed on that page. I actually argued for this definition, but was basically shouted down. In good faith, knowing the situation, I cannot sanction that usage here. It would implicitly undermine the principle nationalist assertion in Quebec that it is all the people of the province, and not just French Canadians, that constitute the nation. This directly contradicts the definition you are putting forth, which is also POV. Any way you look at it, the definition is highly politicized and susceptible to POV. It is a complex issue, and it was decided by consensus that the [[Quebecois]] page was precisely the place to explain these complex issues. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Are you saying the existence of the Quebecois as a nation is controversial? That seems to be the point you're now making. It is your contention that the motion is unimportant. Fine, that's your POV. I can assure you that this motion is very important to many, many Quebecers, enough to be in the lead.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Those issues look like they could be solved by disambiguation. We just have to be clear when we are talking about Québécois the ethnic group and when we are talking about Québécois the citizenship. The same would apply for many other terms, like "Italian" of "Scottish". --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: When Quebec nationalists talk about the Quebecois nation, they are talking about citizenship. When Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are talking about it, they are talking about identity. That is precisely the problem.
:::: As I posted above, Gilles Duceppe says it's about citizenship:
::::: ''"Duceppe went on to say it's a historic moment because "for the first time in history" the House of Commons is recognizing Quebec as a nation. Canada is the first country recognizing the Quebec nation -- that Quebecers form a nation -- and in the near future other countries will do so."'' [http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061126/nation_motion_061126?s_name=&no_ads=]
:::: And really, when the motion is so ambiguous, who an say one is wrong and the other right?
:::: Moreover, Quebec nationalists claim that English Canadian definitions regarding the Quebecois as an ethnic group is an attempt to smear them as balkan ethnic nationalists as opposed to being inclusive civic nationalists. They don't want anyone using that definition at all. Using this definition here will create more animosity. Again, I encourage you to examine the discussions on the Quebecois page. You don't need to read many to get an idea of what the issues are. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 07:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::We all have to face the possibility, that having the 'motion' in the lead isn't an absolute need. To have it removed from the lead, isn't going to bring the world to an end. We must ''all'' consider that option, people. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::To not have it in the lead is inviting drive-by editors to add whatever they feel the wording should be to the lead. By putting it ourselves in the lead, with a neutral, agreed-upon wording would prevent that. However, there first needs to be a consensus one way or another. So far, I've heard less than a half-dozen opinions on this, over a widely differing spectrum, so I don't think there is a consensus either way.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Again, one could also argue the same about putting in the lead. There needs to be a strong consensus that a statement in the lead sentence is factual reflects a broad spectrum of opinion and a strong consensus which there never was. As a matter of fact, the issue only appeared because of banned user with a single-purpose account. One could argue that including the nation issue in the lead sentence appeases this type of behavior on wikipedia. The aguement can work both ways. --[[User:Soulscanner|soulscanner]] ([[User talk:Soulscanner|talk]]) 18:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::A simple press of the 'undo', will handle the 'drive-by editors', those types of editors are easily dealt with. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately, it's not that simple. A serious editor will come by and re-launch the discussion on the talk page. On another note, I see that the French version of Wikipedia seems to have resolved its debate over the inclusion of nationhood in the article, and they are going to align with most of the other major European-language versions of WP (German, Spanish, etc.). If they all mention in ''in the lead'' why can't we? If the French, the Spanish and the German versions find this important enough to put in the lead (after a debate, at least in the case of the French WP) why is deemed not important enough for here? Are we using a different standard?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Good point Ramdrake. I wish it could be that easy (again remember I've no problem with the 'motion' being in the lead or being out of the lead). I might be (trying not to pat myself on the back) the most neutral editor in this discussion, concerning 'motion' location. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::I realize that (your neutrality). And again, should there be a consensus ''not'' to include the motion, I will respect it. But so far, I don't see any consensus. Mostly, a single editor trying to push his POV onto the others (and admittedly, I'm pushing back).--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 15:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::This may take awhile to resolve. I wonder if going to [[Wikipedia: Mediation Committee|Mediation]] is an option? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::To [[User:GoodDay]]: let me try to sum up how I see this: I see two diametrally opposed viewpoints. One extreme is: no mention whatsoever of Quebec nationhood in the lead (seems to be Soulscanner's position), and the other extreme is: explicit mention that "Quebec is a nation" in the lead (Pgsylv's position). Through this all, I've been trying to advocate some kind of middle-ground position: to mention (somewhere in the lead, and with a phrasing which I'm open to discuss) that a federal motion recognized that the Quebecois form a nation. This is relevant to the Quebec article because, obviously, Quebec is the homeland of the Quebecois (unless someone wants to dispute that fact?). Therefore I'd like you to understand that, from where I sit, my position isn't an extreme at all, but some sort of compromise. That even this attempt at compromise should be rejected baffles me. And yes, I'm open to informal mediation (or formal mediation, although I see it as a further step if informal mediation fails).--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] ([[User talk:Ramdrake|talk]]) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::I haven't accused you of extremism. I haven't called on the 'motion' being removed from the article itself (only that its being removed from the lead, is a ''possibility''). As you've pointed out, there's no consensus being reached on anything - thus my reasons for suggesting going to 'Mediation'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Ranmdrake: this is a good summary of what's going on. Thus, as is always best, in my mind, something in the middle is what we're striving for - isn't that so typically bland and Canadian? ;) Anyway, I saw that some days ago you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=193130915&oldid=193072965 attempted to restore a previous version] of a description of the nation issue to the lead. It's interesting you did this, as I composed that particular sentence, and was about to raise the possibility of it again being the compromise we're looking for. I think most of us are okay with a brief mention of the nation issue in the lead, with more elaborate detail further in the article, and even more in a dedicated article on its own; Soulscanner... well, I won't get into what Soulscanner can be.
:::::::The way the opening used to read was:
::::::::'''Quebec''' ({{PronEng|kwɨˈbɛk}} or {{IPA|/kəˈbɛk/}}), in [[French language|French]], '''''Québec''''' ({{pronounced|kebɛk}}<ref name="EFname"/>) is a [[Provinces and territories of Canada|province]] in the [[Eastern Canada|eastern]] part of [[Canada]], and the only province that is the homeland of a people recognized as a [[nation]] by the [[Canadian House of Commons|House of Commons]].[http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#SOB-1798651]
:::::::It might be slightly altered to say:
::::::::'''Quebec''' ({{PronEng|kwɨˈbɛk}} or {{IPA|/kəˈbɛk/}}), in [[French language|French]], '''''Québec''''' ({{pronounced|kebɛk}}<ref name="EFname"/>) is a [[Provinces and territories of Canada|province]] in the [[Eastern Canada|eastern]] part of [[Canada]]. The province is the only one that is the homeland of a people recognized as a [[nation]] by the [[Canadian House of Commons|House of Commons]],[http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#SOB-1798651] as well as the only one that has been recognized as a nation by its own [[National Assembly of Quebec|legislative house]].
:::::::Alternately, one could say:
::::::::'''Quebec''' ({{PronEng|kwɨˈbɛk}} or {{IPA|/kəˈbɛk/}}), in [[French language|French]], '''''Québec''''' ({{pronounced|kebɛk}}<ref name="EFname"/>) is a [[Provinces and territories of Canada|province]] in the [[Eastern Canada|eastern]] part of [[Canada]]. [[Nation]]alism plays a large part in the politics of the province, both internally and in relations with the rest of the country; though various motions have been passed in both the federal and Quebec [[Legislative assembly|legislative houses]] regarding this issue,[http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#SOB-1798651] there is no clear, official, or unanimous definition of nationhood in this regard.
:::::::Other tweaks and variations could be made, of course. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:I like your first version G2, infact I'm endorsing it. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:08, 9 October 2008

Lónsöræfi is a wilderness area in south-east Iceland. The region is characterised by its varied geological formations. These mostly date from a period 5-7 million years ago when the volcano Kollumúlaeldstöðvar was active. The glacier tongues of the eastern extreme of Vatnajökull also impose themselves on the area. Visible to the north-west is Snæfell (1833m), the highest peak in Iceland that isn't part of a glacier. The mountains within the area itself include Sauðhamarstindur (1319m) and Jökulgilstindar (1313 m).

Lónsöræfi, while less known and less accessible than areas such as Skaftafell and the Southern Highlands, is nevertheless popular with hikers. A transport service from Stafafell farm into the reserve via all-terrain bus is available. Alternatively, the recent construction of a bridge for walkers over the Jökulsá í Lóni river at Eskifell has improved access for hikers. There are mountain huts at Geldingafell, Múlaskáli and Egilssel run by regional associations of Ferðafélag Íslands. A 4-6 day walking route fromSnæfell to Stafafell is possible via the Eyjabakkajökull glacier tongue. The area can also be reached fromGeithellnadalur. The nearest settlements of any size are Höfn and Djúpivogur.

External links

Stub icon

This Iceland location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quebec&oldid=244246343"