Jump to content

Talk:Quebec: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Joeldl (talk | contribs)
3,344 edits
making archive
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Archive box|[[/Archive1|Archive 1 (July 2006 - April 2007)]]
{{WikiProject Quebec}}
}}
{{WikiProject Canada|class=A|importance=Top}}

__TOC__

I think the sentence in the heading "Quebec is also the sole territory north of the Caribbean Sea – aside from France itself, and the thinly populated archipelago of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon – where French is spoken by a majority of the population." needs to be changed. If I'm not mistaken St. Pierre & Miquelon have a very similar status as a department in metropolitan France. It's almost exuivalent to refferring to "the United States and Hawaii" or "The UK and Northern Ireland."[[User:Ggrzw|Ggrzw]] 19:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:I was going to add "in the [[Commonwealth of Nations]]" to the relevant sentence in order to rectify this factual error, but then realised this would imply France and Sanit-Pierre and Miquelon were British territories! I will point out that [[Luxembourg]] is most definitely a territory north of the Caribbean in which a majority of the population speaks French. So I have removed the sentence quoted immediately above entirely. [[User:Chang E|Chang E]] 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I felt pretty insulted on the first words having a mispronounciation validated by documentation ''Quebec (pronounced [kwə'bεk]'' the w shouldn't be there, anglophones pronounce it because they lack prounciation, it should sound like K-BEK you should add a tiny vowel between but it's a much better way than kwebek ! --[[User:DynV|DynV]] 09:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

:This isn't insulting at all. This is the english Wiki and this is how english-speaking people pronounce it. This is exactly the same as, say, "Newfoundland" being called "Terre-Neuve" in the french wiki. And before you ask, yes, I'm a french speaking Quebecer myself.

Different linguistic backgrounds result in different pronunciations in different languages, and "Quebec" has historically been pronounced "kwe-bek" in English. In English it can sound very affected to say "K-Bek". The vast majority of anglophones mean absolutely no disrespect whatsoever in the use of English pronunciations of "Quebec" or "Montreal" and no offence should be taken. In the French Wikipedia article on British Columbia, I would expect the French name of the province to be used. "Ontario" is pronounced slightly differently in French and English, and I wouldn't expect Ontarians to be insulted or blame it on some defect in pronunciation. One sign of a secure, cosmopolitan culture is the acceptance of different words for placenames in different languages based on the evolution of speech. England/Angleterre/Inghilterra/Inglaterra. France/Frankreich/Francia. Venice/Venise/Venezia. Would the English or French or Venitians be insulted? [[User:Corlyon|Corlyon]] 04:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Corlyon 26 September 06


With regards to the 'high school dropout rate' this is not an entirely fair statistic in the context of Quebec vis-a-vis the other Canadian provinces due to the fact that Quebec enjoys a school system that is somewhat distinct from the rest of Canada, with [[CEGEP]] etc... The linked table of statistics only shows school leaving rates at age 20; however one will find that within Quebec there is a significant number of students who are able to return and complete their schooling - a statistic at age 25, for instance, is markedly different from what is shown.


{{FAOL|French|fr:Québec}}

'''See also [[Talk:Quebec/archive 1]]'''

The only official language in Québec is french… not French/Englich..! (1974)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Change of colonial powers section is not realy accurate, theres no word on the effect of it for first nation or the mention of any battle between people. The french article in wikipedia contain much more information and talk about first nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


It looks like if Inuit is in the list, it must be a list of First Peoples, not First Nations? or is the article on First Nations wrong? -- [[User:Someone else|Someone else]] 07:26 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
:I have no problem with [[First Peoples]]. My objection was to making that a link to [[Native American]]s. ☮ [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]]

--------

For the present, I've removed the link to a "separatist statement" that was added. I don't think it's especially valuable just to link to some individual separatist's statement. Even an official link would be best served under, say, [[Parti Québécois]] for example. - [[User:Montrealais|Montréalais]]

==

== Flag of Quebec ==

Hi, it seems to me that the blue color on the flag is not the same one as the actual flag! [[User:Alain Michaud|Alain Michaud]] 20:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:Looks fine to me! [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 05:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:No, it's still not looking fully "correct" - it's a little too purple looking on most computer screens. There are a lot of color variations; see: [http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Quebec+flag&sa=N&tab=ni] ... In the notes for the wikipedia page that shows when you click on the flag, you might want to explain which color standard is being used. For web-based images, I strongly recommend brightening the blue colors to the same as the website of the Provincial government of quebec: [http://www.gouv.qc.ca http://www.gouv.qc.ca] which is the defacto Quebec standard for web-based colors. Please fix the Wikipedia Quebec flag to match the Quebec government website flag color which happens to be RGB(0,51,153). The red component in a web-based quebec flag image should be 0 - even though representations of quebec flags on websites are somewhat inconsistent, the Quebec flag in today's usage, on flagmasts as well as websites, do not have a noticeable red component (and thus are never purple-ish). If there is a historical reason that a red color component exists (purplish color), this needs to be clearly explained (i.e. an old dye no longer used), which it is not, and if so, it is no longer currently in use. Switching to RGB(0,51,153) to match the Quebec website, looks much better and more like the flags where they actually fly where I live (Ottawa-Hull is right on the Quebec border). I have never seen a purplish-colored Quebec flag here actively flying in these modern times here in Quebec and/or Canada. Whatever is done, please make sure the color is documented properly. [[User:Mdrejhon|Mdrejhon]] 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a more accurate [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Fleurdelis%C3%A9.jpg version] of the flag to Wikimedia Commons if anyone would want to use it. [[User:Lotheric|Lotheric]] 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Excessive maps ==
''Resolved''

Why are there so many different maps of Quebec on here? Surely one can be removed. It looks strange having so many different versions.

: Agreed, too many are just confusing. There are 2 that are completely identical in content and scope, except in colour. So I moved that one away. And I also moved a historical map to, suitably, [[History of Quebec]]. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 03:58, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

==Map images==
One of the problems about the size of Quebec is the difficulty in depicting the more populated areas as red "agglomerations" or regions as tiny dots on this huge map with the vast area of nothing representing northern/Upper Quebec.

The US has a similiar problem with Alaska. It is usually depicted as a much smaller inset than it's actual comparative size. Also Hawaii, which is generally pictured as being much closer to the rest of the country than it really is, and a bit larger than the tiny islands they are.

I suggest that the map/graph be broken down into "Upper Quebec" and "Lower Quebec" where the latter might have some chance of being understood and analyzed by a reader new to Quebec studies. Right now the depictions are so small as to trivialize "Lower" Quebec. They look silly. [[User:Student7|Student7]] 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

==Voltaire==

Voltaire did ''not'' say that Canada was ''quelques arpents de neige'', as he's popularly quoted to have said. He said that '''[[Acadia]]''' was ''quelques arpents de neige'' '''near''' Canada. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 02:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:The exact Voltaire quote I've seen is: ''La Nouvelle-France: quelques arpents de neige qui ne valent pas les os d'un grenadier français.'' Not Acadia, but Nouvelle-France. So I'm restoring it. [[User:P.T. Aufrette|P.T. Aufrette]] 13:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::The correct quote is ''Vous savez que ces deux nations sont en guerre pour quelques arpents de neige vers le Canada, et qu'elles dépensent pour cette belle guerre beaucoup plus que tout le Canada ne vaut.'' [http://micat.waika9.com/] [http://www.voltaire-integral.com/VOLTAIRE/candide2.html] Note also that if you google on it, the "vers le Canada" version exists in a number of actual footnoted Voltaire reference pages, while the "Nouvelle France" version can ''only'' be found as an isolated, anecdotal quote. This is a case where a variety of versions are remembered (you can also find pages where it's claimed that he wrote ''quelques arpents de neige, habités par des barbares, des ours et des castors''), but none of them are what was actually said. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 16:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::: In French, ''vers'' would mean "towards", but in the sentence of Voltaire, it means more "around" or "nearby" or "in the surroundings of". This could mean Acadia I guess, but I find it far fetch. Voltaire never named Acadia. I think he probably was referring to the disputed borders between New France and the British colonies (which indeed is Acadia). Snow was pretty much a feature of ''le Canada'' in the imaginary of the French at the time. It is unfortunately still the case today. According to them, we are all riding skidoos, getting stuck to each other when we kiss (because of the cold), we all know how to make igloos (!?!) and we are all related to an Indian somehow. :-) [[User:Mathieugp|Mathieugp]] 18:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::: I created an article on of a the ''few acres of snow'' quotation this morning; I've added the link to the "See Also:" section here. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 22:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----

==NPOV s. bill 101==

I don't feel comfortable starting a counter-edit war being new here, but I sort of question the anonymous removal of ''among Anglophones''. It doesn't seem to me like a significant amount of Francophones are against the Charter. -- [[User:Valmi|Valmi Dufour]] 15:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I agree with Valmi Dufour.

Furthermore, this phrase is not correct: "Often known as "Bill 101", it defined French as the only official language of Quebec". French is the official language of Quebec since the (non-separatist) liberal prime minister Robert Bourassa voted Bill 22 in 1974 (July 31rd) [http://www.vigile.net/997-2/stats.html (reference)]. The french version of the page has the same error.

It should be mention also that all main political parties in Quebec since the fifties were nationalist except the Equality Party, a marginal Montreal west-islander anglophone party formed in 1989 (I think they're dead now, they didn't win any seats at the national assembly since 1994). The thing is not all of them were promoting independence. There should be a link to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quebec_sovereignist_movement History of the Quebec sovereignist movement] page. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:68.2.83.174|68.2.83.174]] ([[User talk:68.2.83.174|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/68.2.83.174|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>


Further agreement ...

In 1977, the newly elected Parti Québécois government of René Lévesque introduced the Charter of the French Language. "Often known as"
(awkward ... should be; refered to as, the Bill name, that received favorable passage) Bill 101, it defined French as the "only" (if only one language is recognized "only" is redundant. Plus the point is just wrong) official language of Quebec. "To this day it remains controversial," (opinion, plus it is unclear what is, in the editors opinion, controversial ... the Bill or the French language) "and widely misunderstood both inside and outside Quebec." (judgement and opinion, no given proof, then again, pick a bill at random, Bill 32 ... any clue, either inside or outside, simple cojecture and rather empty value:) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:70.81.40.14|70.81.40.14]] ([[User talk:70.81.40.14|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.81.40.14|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

Complete disagreement. It is factually wrong to say that French is the only official language of Quebec. According to the Constitution (and the British North America Act before it), Quebec is officially bilingual. The provincial legislature does not (and never did) have the power to change this. Claims to the contrary only stand because this provision of Bill 101 has never been directly challenged in court. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:207.115.105.94|207.115.105.94]] ([[User talk:207.115.105.94|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/207.115.105.94|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

The previous unknown guy just says: "Claims to the contrary only stand because this provision of Bill 101 has never been directly challenged in court." Well according to that, the 101 DID go in court and lose on "concerning English-language schooling in Québec" issue of the law. [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000745 (reference)]
And i'm agreeing to the fact that a majority of Francophone agree with the Charter [http://www.cslf.gouv.qc.ca/publications/PubC138/C138ch2.html#II.1 (reference; sorry for the bad looking image)] --[[User:Zerat ca|Zerat ca]] 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

== Quebec Act ==

It should be mentioned that the Quebec Act of 1774 contributed to unrest in the Thirteen Colonies prior to the War of American Independence.

== some thoughts ==

The article mentions that bill 101 is "to this day still controversial and widely misunderstood inside and outside Quebec". I would say that inside Quebec today, the bill would only still be controversial to anglophone and allophone communities, at most. I feel the initial fears have dissipated since the bill's adoption.

The article mentions "widespread complaints of the destruction of NO ballets "(sic). There was widespread complaints from both sides about the other side's illegal dealing in this referendum. I think mentionning only one side's is very partial and reflects a point of view, which I believe should be avoided in "encyclopedia format".

What do you think ? should these be editted ?

: 1. Bill 101 is still misunderstood inside Quebec. Obviously, people who only get their daily information from the English language press are more in the dark then the others, but nevertheless a lot of people do not know the contents of the law and the regulations passed under it.

: 2. Yes, you are right. This is not NPOV at all. It was added recently by some anonymous. It should be removed in my opinion.

-- [[User:Mathieugp|Mathieugp]] 16:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Why not Québec? ==

I understand this is the English article on Québec, but in Canadian government, the province is referred to as Québec (with the accent). Perhaps the article could be moved from Quebec to Québec.

:That is not correct. The federal government's English style guide (''The Canadian Style'') specifies that the province is "Quebec" in English, "Québec" in French. This matches the centuries-old common practice of English-speaking Quebecers, and the no-accent style is the most common spelling of professional editors everywhere. [[User:Indefatigable|Indefatigable]] 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

::Quebec, and Montreal for that matter, are perfectly valid English-language versions of Québec and Montréal respectively. For the same reason the English language Wikipedia uses words like Italy, Warsaw and Prague (rather than Italia, Warszawa and Praha, respectively), we should use the English language norm, which is Quebec. In any event, using Québec and Montréal in written English, unless one is using it in the context of a French-language term (e.g. "Journal de Montréal" or "Ville de Montréal"), comes across as an affectation. [[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

== Pierre Trudeau, the RCMP, and the FLQ? ==

I have never heard about this before I read this page. I believe I have a fairly wide ranging knowledge of the era and the incident and I would just like a source to the inquiry that says that Trudeau pushed the RCMP to inflitrate the FLQ to push them to violent actions. Much of the evidence of the time points to the idea that the RCMP had very little in the way of background on the FLQ and it was part of what led to the massive confusion on the part of the federal government at the time.

I could not find it in English (of course), but here it is in French:

http://www.vigile.net/00-10/octobre-grandchamp.html (last article at the bottom)

You can use Google or Babelfish to get a rought translation. I will translate it myself this weekend.

The name of the inquiry is the McDonald Commission. They also mention a Keable Commission in 1977.

In English, I only found this one good article:

http://www.vigile.net/01-1/flq-citizen.html

-- [[User:Mathieugp|Mathieugp]] 12:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found a radiocast on the subject of the MacDonald commission in the online archives of Radio-Canada:

http://archives.radio-canada.ca/IDCC-0-9-1500-10144/guerres_conflits/espionnage_canada/

-- [[User:Mathieugp|Mathieugp]] 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the debate surrounding the level of crisis. What I am not aware of is information about Trudeau using the RCMP to infiltrate the FLQ and push it to violent activities. I did not read anything about this in the links provided. I really think if this can't be substantiated that it should be removed. [[User:Benw|Benw]]

: OK. I guess you cannot read French. In the night of July 26, 1974, Robert Samson, then working for the secret services of the RCMP, accidentally triggered the bomb he was going to set up behind the house of Steinberg's president in Ville Mont-Royal. (If you never lived in Quebec, Steinberg was a chain of grocery stores). Then he was arrested and lated tried. It of course made the news. His revelatations during the trial is the beginning point of all we know. He was being payed by the RCMP to do criminal acts which would later pass as crimes committed by the FLQ. Premier of Quebec René Lévesque set up the Keable Commission, mandated to inquired on the illegal activities of the RCMP on the territory of Quebec. Trudeau immediately setup a competing McDonald Commission. A lot of evidence was brough to light at that time. The Keable commission started to inquire, but was blocked on many levels. Many of the documents they demanded from the federal government were kept secret. The federal government of Trudeau tried to shut down the Keable commission and succeeded. The government asked the Supreme Court if a provincial government had the power to inquire on the operations of the federal government. The supreme court ruled in favor of the federal government. After that, the lawyers of the government reduced the inquiring powers of its own McDonald Commission.

:In 1992, a lot of the documents that were given to the Keable and MacDonald commission in the 70s were finally made public. These documents contradicted the version of the story that Trudeau had given to his MacDonald commission. The cabinet reports for October 14 and 15 has many ministers expressing their opinion that the government has not demonstrated that there exists a threat of insurrection. Three ministers demanded evidence that the War Measures Act was necessary.

:[[Reg Whitaker]], professor of political science at [[York University]], member of the [[Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies]] published a memoir on the subject in August of 1993, but the English language media largely ignored it as Pierre Trudeau published his biography around the same time. The memoir stated that the security comitee of the cabinet authorised the RCMP to compile information on the members of the RIN as soon as the middle of the 1960s. Under the Trudeau goverment, the RCMP was instructed to treat the separatist movement as a whole (which in their definition included the FLQ and the PQ) the same way the communist Party was being treated.

:Regarding the PQ, the Secret Services of the RCMP stole their list of members in January of 1973 at the explicit request Trudeau's cabinet. The cabinet emitted a directive for the RCMP on this subject during its meeting on December 19, 1969.

-- [[User:Mathieugp|Mathieugp]] 2 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

This is all true and i wish more of those truths would make it to the first page. -SB

== Historical Corrections Sabotaged ==

I've put back my modifications concerning the 1837 "rebellion" of the french canadians.

I am an historian who devoted his whole life to this brief moment of Québec history and I find it offuscating and frustrating to see a complete denial of the real story.

Most of the sources can be found in Normand Lester's [[Le Livre noir du Canada Anglais]] and are factual proofs.

Please respect the people that horribly died in this dark period...

"Je me souviens"...

:Lester's book is hardly a reputable source; it has been widely criticized by both francophone and anglophone historians -- at least those who take time to comment on it. [[User:HistoryBA|HistoryBA]] 23:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:By the way, since you raise your own qualifications to justify your position, would you mind expanding on them? What do you mean when you call yourself a "historian"? [[User:HistoryBA|HistoryBA]] 23:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excuse my average english : How come there is no talk about the British invasion ? '''"Great Britain acquired New France through the Treaty of Paris (1763)"''' true but after they invaded and declared war and destroyed so many lives. It WAS NOT a peacefull trade in as this line would imply. Try to add a line about it. Lots of lives were destroyed in the process and there is not a single mention... why ? this whole entry is so biased.. there is so many thing left unsaid just because they could make anglophones or British folks look bad. The french language was barely protected until recently , english assimilation was prenominent , there was no desire to protect the french language 50 years ago much less 100 or 200 years ago. The october crisis was seen as a great human right violation, read the lines about it in the october crisis article, it seems like the prisoners were treated with the greatest respect. What a joke. People were arested for dumb reasons like being in a worker union or kept in jail for weeks without any accusation. Wikipedia's articles are as biased as can be, not surprising given it becomes the truth the majority of people believe.

:Man, I thought I would never read someone who makes any sense at all on this whole discussion page. I too think that the whole history section is biased in an awful way. As you said, people tend to forget a lot of things as decades go by. But wait ! Some events are only 20 years old and they still show bias ! First of all, the 'lower canada revolution' section is all wrong. And don't expect me to correct it... cuz I did it once and everyone actually agreed that these corrections were not factual. How the heck do you care about factuality when the Canadian history page doesn't even mentions the sequestration of every asian people in the country during WW2 ???? Frankly, you guys disgust me.

:: Last time I checked, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that '''anyone''' can edit. If you think it's biased, you can change it.

== Le livre noir du Canada anglais ==

This book has valid sources, and most of what is written in it is valid too. However, it is a pamphlet. Its avowed objective is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of these Anglophone columnists who desperately try to stain the reputation of Quebec nationalists while remaining silent on the wrong doings of Canadian nationalists. That being said, the history of the "rebellions" is complex enough that it can't seriously be summed up in a short biased paragraph like the one added by the anonymous user.

-- [[User:Mathieugp|Mathieugp]] 03:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I'm not questioning its sources, but rather using it as a source. It is simply not a reliable NPOV source. We should be very suspicious of using any statements from the book as fact, unless they can be properly verified or corroborated by a reputable historian. [[User:HistoryBA|HistoryBA]] 03:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:: I don't think we should be very suspicious of it only because it has a point of view. At least, Normand Lester had the honesty of making his objective with his book quite clear unlike so many other people before him. We should simply be aware that it is a pamphlet and not the work of a historian, but a journalist: big difference. However, on the whole, the information in the book is well-referenced and, as such, his own references are worth digging into. The dumb sentence written by the anonymous user is of course nowhere to be found in the book! You will however find all kinds of interesting and factual details on the episode of the burning of the Parliament of Canada in Montreal ( and the fanatics who later repeatedly tried to kill Lafontaine and the other politians who supported the Rebellion Losses Bill), the antisemitism of the elite of Canada before and after the second world war, the KKK in the West and all kinds of details I didn't even know about.

:: Also, relying on a "reputable" historian is something you want to do only if you intend to commit the logicial fallacy of [[Appeal to authority|appealing to the authority]]. I would advice we all bother to take the time to find out what's true and what isn't on our own instead. -- [[User:Mathieugp|Mathieugp]] 14:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::The problem is that the anonymous editor is not citing the sources used by Lester, but citing Lester himself as an authority, which he is not. I agree that we need to verify facts ourselves, but we often need to rely on published sources, such as those written by established historians. After all, Wikipedia has a policy against publishing original research. [[User:HistoryBA|HistoryBA]] 23:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::We should be concerned with what is fact and what is not, and the *presentation* should be NPOV. The sources don't have to be NPOV, they just have to be verifiable fact. [[User:MikeCapone|MikeCapone]] 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

:::I agree. My argument is that we cannot say that something is a "fact" just because it is in Lester's book. [[User:HistoryBA|HistoryBA]] 23:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

== A. Lafontaine's version of Quebec history ==

User A. Lafontaine, which is believed to be yet another incarnation of DW/Angelique, is at it again telling us what the history of Quebec really is all about. Since I have a few minutes to spare, I will take the time to refutate what he has written:

"In 1774, the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act that helped ensure the survival of the French language and French culture in the region. The Act allowed Quebec to maintain the French civil law as its judicial system and sanctioned the freedom of religious choice, allowing the Roman Catholic Church to remain."

What a distorsion of events. All of a sudden, the governors of Canada and the British Parliament of the 18th century are concerned with the faith of the Quebec people, concerned with 20th century concerns over the fragility of its language and culture in the era of globalisation. In its infinite generosity, the always enlightened politicians of England would have '''allowed''' the "French" of Canada not to be deprived of the most basics human and civil rights. What wishful thinking.

Are we, the descendents of the ''Canadiens'' supposed to thank the British Parliament of the time for recognizing, finally, after 11 years of illegality, the rights it was supposed to have already recognized with the Montreal [[Articles of Capitulation of Montreal|Articles of Capitulation]]? Quoting [[Louis-Joseph Papineau]], here is what really happened between 1760 and 1774:

The aristocracy, armed with the sword of [[Brennus (4th century)|Brennus]], and his Vae Victis roaring, issued that English laws would be those of Canada "for as much as the circumstances allow it."

There was an odious and studied ambiguity, which delivered everything to arbitrary rule, and left to the judges the possibility to always decide for the friend, the party, the purchaser, always for the English, since "the circumstances allowed it."

The public offices were openly sold with rebate, by the holders to their substitutes.

The General ([[James Murray]]), shocked by the violence of the Judge-in-chief, had to suspend him and send him back to England. All the English population of Canada was irritated by the Governor's action, while the few ''Canadiens'' who took part in the events expressed their confidence in him.

Disgusted by the task he had to accomplish, he wrote to England: "Under the pretext that the exclusion laws against Catholics in England and Ireland are applicable to Canada, the new subjects are excluded from all public offices. There is only among the English and Protestant population that magistrates and juries are taken. This population accounts for 450 men, the majority despicable by their ignorance. They are drunk on the unforseen importance that has fallen upon them, and hasten the excercice of their new powers with ostentation and rigour. They hate the ''Canadien'' nobility, because it is respectable, and the rest of the population and me, because I prevent a little of the wrongs they would like to accomplish."

The merchants of London, influenced and blinded by those of Canada, demanded the recall of Governor Murray and obtained it. His commission was revoked because he had become sympathetic to the ''Canadiens''. He asked for an enquiry, and, after examination, the [[Privy Council]] decided that the charges brought against him were not founded.

Finally, the law officers of the Crown were consulted. In 1766, they repudiated the ordinances of 1764 which had excluded the new subjects from any participation in the administration of justice, and passed one which enabled them to be jurors and lawyers.

This is the limit to the amount of justice that was granted to them at the time.

And then everything remained chaotic and in disorder until the Quebec Act or Bill was adopted, after the officers in law of the Crown had formally declared that the King alone was not a legislator; that He was legislator only with the two Houses of the Parliament; that the proclamation of 1763 and all that had been done of supposed legislation under His authority were as many unconstitutional and null acts.

Thus, the most perfect government in the world according to [[Montesquieu]], [[Blackstone]] and [[Delorme]], had remained twelve whole years in the ignorance of its ignorance, its usurpation, its incapacity and its negligence to govern by law rather than by arbitrary rule, always armed with the sword of injustice, never with the balance of justice.

---

DW then continues on to let us know that:

"Like there counterparts in Upper Canada, in 1837, English and French speaking residents of Lower Canada, led by Robert Nelson, formed an armed resistance group to seek an end to British colonial rule. Their actions resulted in the Lower Canada Rebellion. An unprepared British Army had to raise a local militia force and the rebel forces were soon defeated after having scored a victory in Saint-Denis, south of Montreal."

First of all, the invasion army lead Robert Nelson, that's in 1838. The 1837 events do not start by the actions of the "rebels". The starting point is when the unelected colonial government issues mandates to arrest 26 leaders of the Patriotes. The people who come to arrest them are not the police, they are the army. The law is being violated by those who enforce the law.

Prior to this, the loyalists of Montreal had already begun to organise themselves in militias. They were parading in the street and were very provocative. In reaction to this, some Patriotes created the Association des [[Fils de la liberté]] to arm citizens so they could defend themselves in case things got worst. We must remember that British soldiers had already shot three unarmed citizens in 1832. Everybody knew that at the time. Many men could not tolerate to see Loyalist thugs menace their families.

It is the approval of the Fils de la liberté by the leader of the Patriotes, LJ Papineau, that would have given the governement an excuse to unleash the troops of John Colborne on the population. It is on the news of the military intervention that the Upper Canada rebellion started. When civil rights were suspended, all there was to do was to cross the border over to the US or resist. The battle of St-Denis was not part of a military strategy on the Patriotes side. There is a possibility that some Lower Canada patriotes were hoping to organize themselves appropriately and kick the British goverment out. There is however no substancial evidence of this. When the mandates of arrest were issued, the Patriotes are still in the middle of their boycott strategy.

--

DW then tells us something we didn't know about Durham's report:

"After this clash, Lord Durham was asked to write a report on this incident and gave the opinion, in laguage traditional of the day, that the French population were "without history and culture of any kind" and were "to be assimilated". However, the British Parliament did not agree with Durham's opinion and maintained all the rights accorded the colony's French-speaking citizens under the 1774 Quebec Act."

The British Parliament did not agree with one part of the report, that is granting ministerial responsibility to the new merged colony. However, they agreed with the assimilation policy and that is why the two colonies were indeed merged together. To claim the opposite is plain wrong.

-- [[User:Mathieugp|Mathieugp]] 6 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

== Open letter to A Lafontaine ==

Mister,

Since you've been busy modifying the history section lately, I'll consider that you didn't read the discussion titled "A Lafontaine's version of history".

So, I'll let you revert your latest modifications by yourself, hoping that your obsession with Mister Durham and his fascist opinions is not chronical.

Sincerly yours



==Removal of unsubstantiated text==
'''I removed:'''
*1)"Interestingly, Laporte's kidnapping happened a few days before he would have been formally indicted for [[racketeering]], since Pierre Laporte had powerful connections with organized crime."
*2)"it should be noted that kidnapping Pierre Laporte conveniently avoided the embarrassment of having a government minister indicted as a member of organized crime."

Documented facts are needed as such unsubstantiated allegations do not conform to [[Wikipedia:Policy]]. [[User:A. Lafontaine|A. Lafontaine]] 16:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about the Province of Quebec. I removed/changed inappropriate titles not suitable for this article such as "Towards soverignity" which is covered in great detail elsewhere. [[User:A. Lafontaine|A. Lafontaine]] 16:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

'''I removed:'''
*"mostly thanks to extensice efforts by the Federal Government to grant citizenship to many more immigrants than the normal rate, as well as efforts by [[Casper Bloom]] to entice canadians from other provinces to register on the electoral rolls by exploiting an electoral law loophole; as a result, more than 30,000 persons who do not have residence in Québec (they were not listed on the Medical Insurance records which, by definition, lists every Québec resident) were nevertheless able to vote in the referendum."

Snide remarks are unacceptable in Wikipedia and documented facts are needed as unsubstantiated allegations do not conform to [[Wikipedia:Policy]]. 16:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

'''Edit''' : this is a known fact and well documented at statistic Canada. usually 21 000 immigrants are granted citizenship a year. The year of the referendum there was an astonishing never seen before and never duplicated peak of 43 000 people. 1/4 of that number was for the month of october only. Its the first time in history Quebec received more immigrants they Ontario. ''" Looking into the data for a longer period of time, we see that the increase in certificate attributions jumped by 87% between 1993 and 1995. The year of 1996 saw a drop of 39% in the attributions of citizenship certificates. "'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum#Citizenship_and_Immigration_Canada]

'''I removed:'''
*1)"without due process - none of which had any connection with the [[FLQ]]; actually, plenty of them were political opponents of [[Pierre Trudeau]]."

*2)"Martial law was imposed and civil liberties suspended."

The War Measures Act is not martial law. Documented facts on exactly who was arrested and proof they were not connected to the FLQ is needed as broad unsubstantiated allegations do not conform to [[Wikipedia:Policy]]. [[User:A. Lafontaine|A. Lafontaine]] 16:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

WAR MEASURES ACT -
I inserted the numbers arrested under the War Measures Act plus those charged. This is taken from the McGill University Website [http://www.mcgill.ca/maritimelaw/history/crisis/]about the October Crisis written by a senior Quebec Cabinet Minister at the time and McGill University Law Professor, William Tetley. [[User:Marc Allaire]]

: you put the same thing on the october crisis page. As I asked, whats make you think that comments made by someone who at the time was in the government would be less "unsubstanciated" then those in a position paper made by a large union central ?--[[User:Marc pasquin|Marc pasquin]] 14:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

== Constitutional negotiations 1981 ==

This section should include a link to [[Night_of_the_Long_Knives_(Canada)]], along with a note that Levesque's version of the supposed 'betrayal' is not universally accepted, and has in fact been explicitly denied by the other participants.

== Jacques Parizeau resignation ==
Jacques Parizeau said that he planned to resign if the referundum was to not pass. We can't for sure know that he resigned because of the media pressure after his controversial speech. Pierre Duchesne on the other hand in his biography of Parizeau say that Bernard Landry requested Parizeau resignation a day after the speech. In any cases, I think that section of the article needs an edit. [[User:Fadix|''Fad'']] [[User talk:Fadix|(ix)]] 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

== Ethnicity ==

Please look at this:

Ethnic origins
'''Canadian - 68.7%'''
'''French - 29.6%'''
Irish - 4.1%
Italian - 3.5%
English - 3.1%
Scottish - 2.2%
North American Indian - 1.8%
'''Québécois - 1.3%'''
German - 1.2%
Jewish - 1.2%
Haitian - 1.0%

I don't understand why Québecois, Canadian and French ethnicities are separated because its essentially the same thing (if we consider the ancient definition of "Canadians")

Also, I don't understand why there's only 1.3% of Québécois in Québec...weird.

Could someone explain that to me please? Thanks!

: Aparently, a lot of people answered "french-canadians" but statistic canada counted those as being a multiethnic answer. This mean that "canadian" consist of people answering "canadian, french-canadian & english-canadian" and that french contain "French (as in from france), french (as in francophone) and french-canadian". --[[User:Marc pasquin|Marc pasquin]] 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

:: Dude, frankly, I don't know where your stats come from. I'm from Quebec and I always lived here. I've lived in almost every cities on the side of the St-Lawrence river. 1.3% Quebeckers ?? I doubt it. You don't have ANY idea what you're talking about. Get the fudge outta here.

:::No, Marc Pasquin knows what he's talking about. This Quebecois ethnicity is a statistical artifact. Or rather, a survey artifact. Not until recently (maybe 10-15 years ago) did Canadian pop up as a possible ethnic origin. Before, "Canadian" ethnicity was split into "French" or "English" with no "Canadian" added, which did not provide much distinction those whose families have been living in the country generations and for recent immigrants from the UK or France. Now "Canadian" ethnicity does not make any distinction between language or more conventional ethnic origin either, because it is done through self identification. You can look up the "Call me Canadian movement" who lobbyed for changing census choices. Anyway, since "Canadian" appeared as a choice, "Quebecois" subsequently appeared through self-identification (just like, say, one might write-in "Jedi" as a religion in the census).--[[User:132.206.150.33|132.206.150.33]] 15:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::::The 1.3% quebecer is just silly... the guy who wrote that is just an ignorant of Quebec Etnic status

:::::I wrote the stuff, and if you follow the reference link, you'll see that it's direct from Statistics Canada. I'm not making it up. The "Ethnic Origin" question on the Canadian census is 100% self-reported - Statistics Canada asks you what your Ethnic Origin is, and if you say "Haitian" even though your family is from Mozambique, you will show up as Haitian. If you say "Québécois" (because StatsCan considers that one of the options), then you go down as "Québécois". I am NOT making any comment about whether it is or is not a "legit" ethnicity. I am NOT making any comment about whether 1.3% is a valid assessment of Quebecers' ethnic feelings. I AM saying that the StatsCan numbers are by far the best we have available, and thus they should be in the article. To be completely honest, I think that having "Canadian" in there as an option makes the numbers a bit odd, but I don't care, I still believe that they're what should be in this, our encyclopedia. [[User:AshleyMorton|AshleyMorton]] 18:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::p.s. Please don't call me ignorant until either a) you know me better (because you might be right, but you don't know me), or b) you're willing to sign your name to your comment. [[User:AshleyMorton|AshleyMorton]] 18:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)



==Link Farm==

One of the editors on this page might want to consider getting rid of many of the Wikilinks. Many are redundant, and others appear unnecessary. All those links actually detract from the article, rather than make it more useful. Merci, mes amis dans le nord de la frontière. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

== History section ==

I would recommed that the history section be moved up near the top of the article, and many of its sections shortened and moved to the [[History of Quebec]] article. Many of the history subsections could have main links to other articles in Wikipedia. I think that would increase the readability of this article. Any thoughts? -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] 05:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

:That History section definitely needs to shrink considerably.--[[User:70.81.13.192|70.81.13.192]] 00:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== Official Language? ==

Will any editor please provide a reference confirming that English is not an official language in Quebec? Someone... [[User:Svelyka|Svelyka]] 06:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: French was made the sole official language of Quebec through the [[Official Language Act]] in 1974. The text of the Act can be read online here: http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/charte/reperes/Loi_22.pdf

: Note that this law was superseded by the [[Charter of the French Language]] later in 1977. An mofified version of the Charter is what still applies today. -- [[User:Mathieugp|Mathieugp]] 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

== Title ==

Québec or Quebec? We '''could''' make a redirect. [[User:69.158.65.32|69.158.65.32]] 00:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


I think we should stick with Quebec. As much as I like the 'e' with the little mark over it (looks cool), I think that we should use the English spelling since this is the English wikipedia. For example, the article for Rome is not Roma, Athens is not Athína, Warsaw is not Warszawa, etc. [[User:Redtitan|Redtitan]] 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Act of Union ==

The section concerning the act of union forgot to mention the final conclusions of the report. This VITAL information is of NPOV and should not be removed, whatever is your opinion.

Please respect history, at least a tiny little bit.

== Corporations Leaving Quebec ==

"''Quebec's separatist debate has influenced many corporations to move their Canadian headquarters from Montreal to Toronto.''"

This would be hardly surprising, but still, I request a source giving the case of many notable corporations that have left Montreal to move to Toronto because of the separatist debate. --[[User:A Sunshade Lust|A Sunshade Lust]] 22:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


If you want proof that corporations left Montreal for Toronto you have to look no further than the Royal Bank of Canada which used to have it's NATIONAL headquarters in Place Ville Marie and the Bank Of Montreal also moved it's national HQ to Toronto. Those are but two examples. Jringer Sept 24 2006 3:47 am.

:But RBC, as I pointed below, started in Halifax, then moved to Montreal. Are you going to blame this move on Nova Scotian language laws or sovereignist aspirations? --[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::That's just silly. RBC was founded as Merchants Bank in Halifax and then moved to Montreal because it was the economic center of the country at the time (Halifax never was). Then it moved to Toronto because the center of the country changed within the span of a decade. See debate below. -- G. Csikos

It's probably true, but two exemples is not enough. Mister Horse Sept 24 2006 21:38

::Having lived in Quebec for over 40 years, I can attest it's true. You should find several references like this one [http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article.jsp?content=20030929_55609_55609] if you search for "Quebec" and "corporate exodus" in your search engine. Also please note this subject is significantly more debated in the English-language local press than in the French-language one. And I would suggest the sentence be modified to:

<blockquote>"''Quebec's separatist debate influenced many corporations to move their Canadian headquarters outside of the province of Quebec, mostly to Ontario.''"</blockquote>

::Not all headquarters that moved were in Montreal, and they didn't all move to Toronto. And most importantly, this happened mostly from 1976-1980. The exodus is long over; it's certainly not still happening now.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 12:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As a CA student in Montreal, I can attest that the corporate exodus isn't long over but instead has been transformed into a silent factor in the decision-making of many companies. Unless a Canadian company is tapping the Quebec market, it would rather locate its facilities in Mississauga than Laval for language and political reasons. This is especially true of Canadian subsidiaries of American firms.

The government of Quebec has been trying to stimulate the growth of the private sector by having the lowest corporate tax rates in Canada for years (and ironically, the highest personal tax rates, but then again the population is immobile). Nevertheless, Montreal's unemployment rate remains around 11% while, in neighbouring Ontario, Toronto's is 6% and Ottawa's is 4%. Montreal also has the peculiar distinction of having an unemployment rate higher than the surrounding province (8.5% in the rest of Quebec), which isn't true for any other major city I have data for.

G. Csikos <small>email address changed to preven spam -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]])</small> 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)</small>

Even if it's was true that corporations left Montreal for Toronto, it's a POV that the reason is the sovereignty movement. A lot of corporations left NYC for LA during the same period anyways. I realy don't understand why this line is still in a protected article. Anyways, does it realy deserve its place in a 10 lines summary of the economy of Quebec? I don't think so.

The "corporate exodus" is an important part of Quebec's financial history. It marked a turning point as to which companies occupied most of Quebec's financial space.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 15:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:How do you know it's because of the sovereignty movement? It may be important in the financial history, but not in the overall economy. It is clearly not a fact.
::Maybe because I happened to live there when it happened and I happened to read the newspapers in both languages? What makes you think it's not true?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 22:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't care if it's true or not. It just represent a point of view without even citing sources. Why don't we add a sentence about the fact that Montreal lost its pretochemical industry because of Trudeau?

While the financial center of the US may have diversified away from being solely focused in NYC (where I grew up), New York is still the financial center of the country. Economic growth isn't a zero-sum game so LA's rise didn't challenge New York's dominance. Remember, two planes went into NYC's WTC and not LA's US Bank Tower.

In Canada, Montreal went from being the major commercial capital of the country to a secondary player within the span of a decade. The process was completely different and completely due to the sovereignty and Frenchification movements.

By the way, if you're going to make uninformed, asinine objections, at least sign them.

G. Csikos

::I'm not sure if I would call Montreal post-financial exodus merely a "secondary player", but it is definitive that Toronto stole first place back then. And I would say the movement sparked more from the political uncertainty stemming from the sovereignty movement than from any regulations in the wake of the francization movement that accompanied (or closely followed) it. But otherwise, you're quite right.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::The decline of Montreal and the rise of Toronto did not occur within a decade. Go read the part of the [[Montreal]] article relating to this. It has sources and everything, and though the sovereignty movement certainly had some influence in this, it is not the only one, and arguably not the most important one either.--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Montreal is a secondary player both continentally and nationally. Within Canada, it's on par with Calgary or Vancouver at the moment and will soon be left behind. Comparing it with US cities, it's in the ranks of Denver or Boston, cities with smaller populations.

:::When was the last time you heard about people actually being transferred to Montreal for work? Or moving there voluntarily?

:::Don't forget that on a per capita income basis Montreal is one of the poorest major cities in North America. The average New Jerseyan (where I actually lived before university) makes $56,772 USD / year while the average Quebecker makes $38,427 CAD / year (about $32,000 USD PPP / year). Then the income taxes are 15 percentage points (not 15%) higher!

:::To answer the obvious, I'm only here for love.

:::G. Csikos

::::When's the last time I heard people moving to Montreal for work? Very recently, all the time in fact. Lots of computer programmers for example. A number of sectors of the Montreal economy are doing quite well. And comparing the per capita income of New Jersey vs Quebec isn't representative of much attributable to PQ politics. Half of the province lives outside of Montreal, where the main economic activity resides in exploiting natural resources. Now the fisheries of the Gaspé are pretty much dead (thanks to overfishing, but that's a worldwide problem in that industry), lots of mines have been depleted and forestry got the double whammy of abusing clear cuts and the soft lumber dispute with the US. So no wonder the per capita income appears so low. --[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::AFAIK, there was a rush for a few years where you were hearing, say from about 1976 to 1980, lots of corporate headquarters moving out of Montreal, most but not all of them to Toronto. Since then, the economy of Montreal has certainly renewed itself (it's been over a quarter of a century, after all), and today there are a lot of high-technology companies here (aerospace, computer technologies, pharmaceuticals to mention just a couple), while Toronto has retained its hold on the financial sector in general. But I would dare say by and large, Montreal's economy has recovered and even prospered since. I don't think it's right to portray it as still suffering from the language laws or the threat of independance...--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 23:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the data don't support your notions about your home city.

:Who said Montreal is my home city? (Though you seem to be replying to both Ramdrake and myself).--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Excusing Quebec's poverty compared to the rest of the continent by saying that the resource-based rural economies drag down the figure is simply wrong. First, Quebec is 80.4% urban, which is the urbanization rate every other major province ranks at (Alberta is 80.9% for example). Secondly, concentration of population in a single city isn't as important as what everyone is doing to make money. Look at Pennsylvania or North Carolina, states with populations the size of Ontario's but really no major cities to account for most of it (Philadelphia is smaller than Montreal!). The population in those states is spread out into decentralized suburban and exurban communities but they seem to be thriving nonetheless.

:Red herring. The Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region is easily 75%+ urban (the merged town of Saguenay has 150,000 people in it, the entire region has about 225-260K). It doesn't change the fact that its economic health is tied mostly to two industries: aluminium and forestry (and now essentially 2 or 3 companies, Alcan, Abitibi-Consolidated and possibly Alcoa). When any of those two sector hurts, the economy of the entire region suffers. You end up with old people living off their retirement funds or government money and the young leaving for "greener pastures" such as Montreal (and then don't get a job so easily, contributing to that higher unemployment). Alberta may be as urban as Quebec, but its economy is tied to the oil industry. It's pretty much the only reason it's rich and growing (their other big thing being cows, and well, let's not go mad into this). But my point is that you were the one talking about Montreal then brought in one statistic about Quebec as a whole (average salary, versus New Jersey's, which, while higher, by itself doesn't say anything else about the "thriving" economy). Well, half of the province lives outside Montreal, and in those regions, as urban as they are, the economy isn't diversified and is subject to the growth or decline of a handful of major companies, making a significant contribution to the average income in the province. But this is all pointless talk anyway, see below.--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::It isn't a red herring. I gave the urbanization rate for Alberta just as a comparison, but it's the same figure in BC or Ontario. BC's economy is also very resource-based outside of Vancouver and yet (when the NDP isn't in power) they seem to be doing very well in spite of a poor forestry market. Don't forget that services make up 70%+ of the economy for ALL provinces with the remainder usually concentrated in manufacturing (primary industries such as agriculture or natural resource extraction are single-figure components of GDP). Quebeckers can't just blame providence when it's their own fault, and what has been hurting Quebec the most recently has been the downturn in manufacturing because of the high Canadian dollar. You should take an economics class.

:::But what does this have to do with French language policies in particular?--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::Do you know that Quebec's dividend tax credit is the highest in the nation? Along with the very low corporate taxation rate, it means that unlike in other provinces you get taxed much less if you have a business and incorporate it instead of remaining a sole proprietorship. This is a measure by both PQ and Liberal governments to foster business creation but it certainly hasn't been working. In the presence of such strong fiscal stimulus any other province's economy would be overheating. -- G. Csikos

In the end I wouldn't call anemic 2% annual real GDP growth during good times economic prosperity when Ontario has been clocking in at 3% annually and the US at 4%. If you are familiar with how an exponential function works these sort of differences compounded over decades should frighten you. There is something wrong with Quebec's economy and each year Montreal is becoming more and more a has-been.

:I never claimed Quebec was doing great economically either, at least compared to the neighboring province of Ontario or wealthy US states. No one is disputing the 2% GDP growth. The thing is that this annual growth is not constant, and depends on a number of factors. Montreal is definitely doing better than it was during the early to mid 90's, the rest of the province, not so much. In neither case is this caused by language laws or the possibility of another referendum.--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, the growth rate is pretty constant during expansions. It of course drops during recessions. Welcome to macroeconomics. Canada experienced a recession during the first half of the 1990s, and Quebec, being a weak economy even during boom times, was really hit hard.

::NJ is a wealthy US state, but for comparison, Maine is not. Yet its GSP (Gross State Product) per capita and average wages are considerably higher than Quebec's. It's also a state that's very resource-dependent (fishing and forestry). Have some fun at http://www.bea.gov/ or http://estat.statcan.ca/ if you wish. -- G. Csikos

By the way, I actually knew two families in my hometown, Parsippany, NJ, who were from Montreal but yet I have had trouble finding anyone from New Jersey here in Montreal (besides fellow students at McGill). Think about it.

:Irrelevant anecdote. --[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::It isn't irrelevant. Come up with your own anecdote. -- G. Csikos

:::Sorry to hit you with a cliché but the plural of anecdote is not data. But if that is your wish, can't say I know anyone from New Jersey, but how about, London (UK) and and at least 2 people from Seattle (the hometown of Microsoft, well, technically Redmont). Of course that is not to say I haven't known people going in the other direction as well. But migration naturally goes from poorer places to richer places. At some point you can't just blame language policies from 30 years ago.--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever actually gotten the opinions of someone from outside Quebec or do you just enjoy sitting in an echo chamber?

G. Csikos

:Ad hominem, but FYI I live in Ontario, and studied Quebec history more than you have. There is no dispute as to the current economic situation in Quebec and Ontario. But the current (and past) higher growth of the latter compared to the apparent stagnancy of the former has nothing to do with the Quebec's language laws and aspirations of independence. Toronto surpassed Montreal not long after WWII, long before the Parti Québécois was even created. Add the oil crisis when 3 out of 6 refineries in Montreal were closed due to federal government policies relying on expensive domestic supplies rather than the cheaper arab oil, another big hit on Quebec's economy that has nothing to do with language or independence related PQ policies. So please, go read some serious history books instead of spewing the clichéed nonsense of attributing '''all''' of Quebec's economic woes on its language laws and the sovereignty issue. They were one factor among many back in 76-80 (and around 95), and their influence has only diminished over time.--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::Have you yourself ever spoken to business managers of American subsidiaries during an audit about how their new office is in Mississauga because they couldn't find enough English-speakers in Quebec? I'm informing you of my personal experience which is backed by economic data. One can only draw conclusions. -- G. Csikos

:::They probably didn't look hard enough if they couldn't find enough English-speakers. But picking Mississauga over Montreal at this point, again, has little to do with languages policies (why pick Missauga over, say Winnipeg?). Go read the Economy section of the [[Montreal#Economy|Montreal]] article (provided it still has the proper references). Would you attribute the decline of a city like [[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]] [http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/projects/population/cities/buffalo.html] to language laws or the Saint-Lawrence Seaway? How about [[Cleveland]], and [[History of Pittsburgh|Pittsburgh]]? Both cities had much bigger population and prosperity in the past.--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::Not to mention that something like over 50% of the population of the Greater Montreal speaks English (even if it might not be their first language). That's over 1.6 million people right there. So, ''not enough English-speakers in Quebec''? I don't think so.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 23:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you want but what I have been demonstrating is that the economy of Quebec (and by extension Montreal) is chronically underperforming its potential. Real GDP growth is half what it should be and unemployment is chronically high (high unionization has a lot to do with this too). Quebec has no excuse for not doing at least as well as Ontario.

All this sluggishness is in the presence of extensive fiscal stimulus that would anywhere else be the genesis of a frenzied, inflation-causing boom. Consequently there must be a dragging force on the economy and it isn't hard to conclude that separatism and the discouragment of the use of English in business are the causes.

These two factors are the obvious differences between Quebec and its counterparts in Canada and the US. Moreover, I know for a fact professionally that these two issues have discouraged investment in the province. I invite you to explain this dragging force otherwise.

While the overt exodus is over, companies now avoid Quebec from the get go.

G. Csikos
:You are working with the assumption that economic growth can only come from external English speaking investment sources. And pulling your conclusion out of a repeated mantra rather than conducting a proper statistical analysis out of rigorously collected data (instead of your personal anecdotes). While there is no denying that the sovereignty and language issues are not incentives for American and other foreign investors, you have failed to show that those are the main factors affecting Quebec's economy, especially in recent times. You might consider, for example, without consideration to other factors, that the provincial government practices much more economic interventionism than any other province.--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

::Yes and no.

::First off, when exports are 52% of GDP ($145 billion out of $274 billion in 2005, compared to 11% for the US), a lot of economic growth will have to come from a continued rise in the value of those exports. Since 85% of Quebec's (and the rest of Canada's too) exports head to the US, you've got to be able to convince Americans to buy from you or set up subsidiaries in the province to do the exporting.

::This is exactly why the Pour un Quebec lucide manifesto complains that Quebeckers have such poor English-language skills (Ramdrake, those language surveys are based on self-reported ability). It goes on to state that everyone graduating from Quebec high schools should be able to write and speak English fluently. This is clearly not the case. A lack of English skills hurts and will continue to hurt Quebec's potential for economic growth.

::On the issue of separatism (I notice you can't stop using the word sovereignty), Quebec really doesn't scream "invest here" if the legal situation might change in five years (with a concomittant drop in market prices for real estate). As an example, Montreal's commercial vacancy rates are always significantly higher than those in Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, Ottawa, or Calgary. Here's a source for you <http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/06/20/ed-officespace-20062006.html>.

::By the way, what do you do for a living? I've given my real name and life story as a means to lend credence to what I am saying and you remain hidden behind a pseudonym.

::G. Csikos
:::Sorry but I value my privacy. At this point we are going in circles. The only disagreement we have is to what degree those two factors actually affect the economy. Bill 101 dates back to 1977, legislatively there hasn't been much if any change since the late 80's. The language issue is no longer a policy issue rather than a fact: most Quebecers are francophone just like most Mexicans speak spanish (which I imagine also affects US investments in Mexico to a certain extent). The English skills among francophone in general still have room for improvement, as does ESL education in Quebec, but the proportion of bilingual francophones keeps increasing, and the overall skill level has been improving. No one denies the value of being bilingual (or polyglot), and that is why every single government has tried to improve English education (the only debate being on how to do this, as a pedagogical problem). The exports to the US are more affected by relative currency value and recent security hassles than the distant possibility of a referendum. We both could pull numbers all day, but until one of us finds a study or conducts an extensive economics analysis factoring in all relevant variables, I figure you'll stick to your clichés and I'll keep saying that there's a lot more behind Quebec's economic woes than separatism and language laws.--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You hide behind privacy. Ramdrake, for instance, gives enough of his personal details (gosh, a real name!) so that I know where he's coming from (a Montrealer working in the IT field). You on the otherhand are an unknown.

Anyway, I never blamed Bill 101 or Bill 22 wholesale for causing Quebec's economic woes but rather a general hostility towards the English language established since the rise of the separatist movement. Keeping the public sphere French is one thing but preventing firms from conducting internal communication in English is another. It's both counterproductive economically (by impoverishing Quebec) and linguistically.

In fact, linguists (read Language Death by David Crystal) know that the only way for a minority language to survive in the face of economic and numerical dominance is bilingualism. The alternative is to watch the minority language shrink in influence to the point where the young of the next generation completely drop their mother tongue in favor of the dominant language.

Back to your lack of economic insight. No, US investments in Mexico have different origins: low costs and the tapping of a market numbering over 100 million. In fact the populations of Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries make it enough of an incentive for Americans to learn Spanish (which most people take while in high school).

The situation for Quebec is different. First, Quebec isn't so poor that American firms can't wait to open up a new office or factory because the labor is so cheap. It may get that way eventually though. Second, Quebec's population is small and will stagnate over the next century. Consequently, Quebec has to actively attract investment to receive it.

No, exports, being mostly of services rather than goods, aren't really affected by the security changes. Again, BC's and Ontario's economies faced the same currency pressures as Quebec's and yet they grew by 3.8% and 3.1%, respectively, last year. Real GDP growth in Quebec came in at 2.4% instead. Because, as I mentioned before, Quebec's fiscal policy is more pro-business than even Alberta's, there exists a major dragging force which I know from experience to be related to linguistic and political nationalism.

Right now Quebec's GDP per capita is 68% of the US's. If the US grows at an average of 3% annually (4% during expansions, 0-2% for weaker years) for the next 35 years, real GDP will be 2.8 times today's value. If Quebec's rate of growth remains at an average 1.5% for the same amount of time its GDP will be 1.7 times today's value.

That means in 2041 Quebec's GDP per capita will be 41% of the US's. How's that for disparity? For the sake of Quebec's future this dragging force on the economy must be removed.

I'm done proving your statements to be nothing more than hand-waving. Since you're incapable of doing any sort of economic analysis yourself to disprove me, I have better things to do than be concerned as to what is being presented about Quebec here on Wikipedia. Distort reality if you like but you have to step outside eventually.

G. Csikos, 10 November 2006

: True but during that time the US population will increase much faster. Unless your 4% growth is growth per capita and not simply GDP growth, then you might have a point. Someone should clarify this.

Of course the 4% growth is 4% growth in GDP per capita (and real GDP per capita at that). Take an economics class.

G. Csikos, 6 January 2007

==What's with the blanking?==

Is it always the same person(s) who come in here almost every day now and either blank out the article or "remake it into a stub"? How controversial can the subject be to deserve that????--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

== Area ==

Quebec is not "the second-largest [province] in Canada". It is THE largest and by far, being one and a half times the size of the closest runner-up which is Ontario. The only Canadian jurisdiction larger than Quebec is the Territory of Nunavut. But it is not a province.

: The [[Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada]] page and my old Hamond Atlas agree, so I edited the page. (Bold, eh?) ==[[User:crowston|Kevin Crowston]]

== Language ==

Someone added "english" to the official languages. English is not an official language of Québec, so I deleted it. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:67.68.135.219|67.68.135.219]] ([[User talk:67.68.135.219|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.68.135.219|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

True. Quebec declared French as its official language. '''HOWEVER''', I think the article should mention that English and French are both constitutional (de jure) languages of Quebec (and Manitoba and New Brunswick). That means that all citizens are entitled to services in either French or English, and that all laws must be written in both languages. The same is not true of Ontario, for examples, where laws may be written in English only, and the government is not bound to serve you in French (though in practice it does in many bilingual areas). [[User:69.156.27.118|69.156.27.118]] 01:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

==Article quality==
I made a minor edit that led to deletion of an entire paragraph that then led to reading the entire article. Frankly, it is a hodge podge of assorted claims mixed with some documented facts that together is far from being part of an encyclopedic work. It will be a sizeable job to get this in proper factual format and will require much collaboration. I removed this because it is factually wrong and/or misrepresented, plus it lacks context and fluidity within the article:

*[[Loyalist (American Revolution)|Loyalist]], or ''Tory'', refugees from the war settled what is now [[Ontario]] and the [[Eastern Townships]] area of Quebec. This marks the beginning of an English Canadian presence in Quebec. [[The Constitutional Act of 1791]] saw the colony divided in two at the Ottawa River to accommodate the new arrivals; the western part became [[Upper Canada]] (now [[Ontario]]) and changed to the [[Law of the United Kingdom|British legal system]]. The eastern part became [[Lower Canada]]. Both colonies were granted elected Legislative Assemblies.
*The Parti Canadien (later Parti Patriote) soon won constant majorities in the Quebec Parliament : tensions soon rose as the governor refused to include them in his council of ministers. The Parti campaigned for "responsible government", i.e. the democratic right to elect a government responsible toward the House of Representatives, not the unelected Governor.
*The "[[Family Compact]]" was the mainly Scottish and English clique that monopolised the ministries, but also new land development and growing imperial commerce, to the exclusion of the vast majority of "Canadiens". The ensuing tensions were to lead to rebellion after the Russell Resolutions of 1834 received no answer from London.

[[User:Lionel GM|Lionel GM]] 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I have also removed the following paragraph as it is not relevant to Quebec and has no sources provided:
*The occurred at the same time as the "Grand Dérangement", or deportation of the French Acadians, beginning in 1755, from the present-day provinces of [[Nova Scotia]] and [[Prince Edward Island]] : the ethnic cleansing gave their lands to English colonists. Some Acadians fled in the woods to what became New Brunswick, where some of the dispersed later joined family survivors. The Acadian population was dispersed between the 13 colonies, France, and British jails, splitting up families. Some of the Acadians eventually made their way to [[French Louisiana|Louisiana]] (see [[Cajun]]s) or to Quebec, where they are said to have 1 million descendants.

==More info on Political Parties, such as, for example:==

http://pvq.qc.ca/dev/en

[[User:Lionel GM|Lionel GM]] 16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

== Quebec is a country? ==

Is this vandalism? I don't really know how / don't have the time to look into how to deal with it right now, but last I checked Quebec is a province in Ontario, not a country.
:Quebec is a province in ''Canada''. [[User:Sébastien Savard|Sébastien Savard]] 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In french, it's a ''Nation'', which differs from English meaning of Nation.

==Quebec as the largest what?==
By area, Quebec is the largest province in Canada: only the territory of Nunavut is larger - is it me or is this badly worded? shouldn't it read 'By area, Quebec is the second largest province in Canada: only the territory of Nunavut is larger'
:Just in case you didn't know, in Canada a territory is not the same as a province. Thus, Quebec is in fact the largest province, and the second-largest administrative division of Canada, after the territory of Nunavut. Hope it helps.

==Vandalism or misplaced line?==
I removed the line:
''after the 1980s, the population of the rival British colonies to the south had surpassed 1 million, compared to barely 60,000 for New France.''
This was the first line under "Fall of New France". If anyone knows where it belongs, then edit and add again.[[User:Gary Joseph|Gary Joseph]] 07:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay people. This site is a disgrace. School children doing their research on Quebec are going to think it's like Iraq or Afghanistan here (no insults intended to Iraqis or Afghanis).

Lets get a decent article together here. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a political discussion forum.

Lets start by cleaning up the intro. It's too long. The intro mentions the Caribbean Sea. That's not relevant to Quebec.

Lets keep it short an focused. Look at the entries for France and Ontario, and lets model this page on that. History should be way, way down the list. Every single country or province (take your pick) has history way down on the list. You guys might care about the Patriotes and the War Measures Act, but 99.9% of the people coming here will be from China/India/USA. You need to tell the reader what they want to know, not try to influence them to your way of political thinking. People here seem to have trouble with that. Users won't give a fig about the petty fights between the French and English. If you want to rant about the inevitable march of history and list petty grievances , go to www.marxist.org or www.anglosphere.com.

The written style here is atrocious. Do any of you know how to write? If you do not know how to write good standard English, stick to editing the French site. No offense, but I wouldn't dream of editing the French wiki site with my French. Please extend the same courtesy here.


Let's try this :





Quebec (Québec in French) (pronounced [kʰwəˈbɛk] or [kʰəˈbɛk] in English and [kebɛk] in French) is the largest and second most populous province in Canada. It is the only Canadian province with a French-speaking majority and whose only official language is French.

Quebec is bordered by the province of Ontario, James Bay and Hudson Bay to the west; by Hudson Strait and Ungava Bay to the North; by the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador to the east; and by the United States (the states of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine) to the south. Quebec's capital is Quebec City and its largest city is Montreal.

Most of Quebec's population resides in cities like these on the banks of the Saint Lawrence River. The northern portion of the province is sparsely populated, but houses vast stores of hydro-electicity, forestry products, and mineral resources that drive Quebec's principal industries. More recently, information and communication technologies, aerospace, biotechnology, and health industries have replaced traditional textile and manufacturing industries.

Quebec was carved out of New France as a colony under the British Regime in 1763. It became a founding province of the Canadian Confederation in 1867. The "Québécois" have their own cultural identity, with a flourishing secular French-speaking culture. As a result, Quebec often goes its own way politically, exercising limited autonomy in taxation, immigration, foreign relations, language and culture. It also has a strong democratic independence movement.



There. That sounds pretty neutral.

(Note: Garry, I like your text above. Pretty neutral yes. Suggestion however, could be written: "The [[nation]]-State of Quebec (Québec in French) (pronounced [kʰwəˈbɛk] or [kʰəˈbɛk] in English and [kebɛk] in French) is the largest and second most populous province in Canada" since "nation-State" is becoming the correct real definition for Quebec within Canada / Thanks for your great job, Garry).

: Um, really? nation-state: "a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state; especially : a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities"... Considering Quebec is neither sovereign nor homogeneous, I don't think the term applies. --[[User:Nephtes|Nephtes]] 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


that's because we(in quebec) were given the state of nation few days ago, however, the meaning in french is different: a nation is a group of people with shared language, history and cultural belief. in english, as you said, if mostly refers to a country.

Oh and yeas this is terribly biased, I however thkink it still should include as much info about Québec as possible... even if some people think the only 3 countrys in the world are india usa and china... canadians and quebecers still use Wikipedia as a reference and could easily be tricked... both frenchs and english constantly bias this page to make them look cooler. english often remove parts in which they were guiolty while frenchs try to place those in evidence.. wikipedia needs some sort of system so people that really know what they're talking about get edit priority...
[[User:OpsY|OpsY]] 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Repeated sockpuppet vandalism ==

YAY for article protection! Thanks Samir! --[[User:Dragfyre|dragfyre]] 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:This is just getting to be too much. Hopefully a [[WP:RFCU|checkuser]] will clear somethings up. The user that keeps vandalizing happens to own this [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jagjagjagjab|category]]. It's scary. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]])</small> 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Why the hell is this page protected, and more importantly, why is it not explained why its protected anywhere? If you are going to completely protect it against vandalism, fine, but christ at least justify yourselves--[[User:70.48.98.233|70.48.98.233]] 04:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I think the template says pretty much all that needs to be said, and if you want to know what vandalism caused the protection, the history page is a click away: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&action=history -- [[User:Omicronpersei8|Omicronpersei8]] ([[User talk:Omicronpersei8|talk]]) 04:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's sockpuppet vandalism per se, but I noted a confusing trail of inappropriate edits by [[User:Dalent|Dalent]] and have reverted the article as left by [[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]] EDIT: I should clarify, the edits were vandalistic in nature.[[User:Chang E|Chang E]] 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Please remove this unencyclopedic sentence ==

"Quebec's separatist debate has influenced many corporations to move their Canadian headquarters from Montreal to Toronto."

:Agreed its unencycolpedic in the sense that doesnt have any references, buts its a fact. Before and after the 1995 referendum, a myriad of businesses closed up shop in Quebec to move to Ontario or elsewhere. Ill find sources. --[[User:Gregorof|Gregorof]]/[[User talk:Gregorof|(T)]] 01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
:Until then, it should be removed. But even if you find a valid source, I don't think it's important enough to be in a 10 lines section on the economy of Quebec.
::Besides this has been discussed at length in other articles, including the [[Montreal]] and [[Toronto]] ones. The decline of Montreal and growth of Toronto have a lot more factors (and many more significant ones) than Quebec's language laws and sovereignist aspirations. Consider the [[Royal Bank of Canada]], which started in Halifax, then moved to Montreal before relocating to Toronto. Both moves have a lot more to do with the ports and the Saint-Lawrence Seaway allowing ships to go further inland to major trade centers around the Great Lakes than with anything else.--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 20:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::That's just silly. RBC was founded as Merchants Bank in Halifax and then moved to Montreal because it was the economic center of the country at the time (Halifax never was). Then it moved to Toronto because the center of the country changed within the span of a decade. See above debate . -- Gregory Csikos

== La Marseillaise ==

A recent edit states that La Marseillaise is considered an unofficial anthem of Quebec. I've lived in Montreal my whole life and while I've heard Gens du Pays sung any number of times, I doubt most people I know could recite even the first few lines of La Marseillaise. So I think that the statement is wrong, and I'm inclined to revert, unless someone can back it up. --[[User:Nephtes|Nephtes]] 15:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:It's complete BS and I removed it. Don't hesitate to revert when you see this kind of vandalism.--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

::It used to be, but... back in the 19th century, where a lot of songs, most of them half-forgotten today, were considered ''unofficial anthems''. Don't know why I tell you that, it's true, but otherwise I absolutely don't want to get involved in all your work here. Bye! - JP.ca <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/66.254.43.65|66.254.43.65]] ([[User talk:66.254.43.65|talk]]) 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== Economy ==

I flagged the description of the economy as lacking requisite balance. This issue must be resolved.

G. Csikos

: The economy section is really too small to say much about it. It should really be expanded.--[[User:Boffob|Boffob]] 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

== Quebec as a Nation ==

Update the parliament agreed that Quebec is a Nation inside Canada.

Updates should follow
:Still we must wait though. A bill was ''proposed''. There are still 2 more readings and a committee in the house, and 3 reading and a committee in the senate to go. ''Then'' we update. Government must act first. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 01:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::Parliament website says the voting will start (on the amendment that says "within canada") on Monday, before they adjourn. [[User:Wikizach|<font color="red">Wiki</font>]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]Zach| [[User talk:Wikizach|<font color="#461B7E">talk</font>]] 14:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::But just because they are voting (and the bill will most likely pass) doesn't mean we can call them a nation yet. We could add that ''parliament is currently considering a bill that would proclaim Quebec a nation within Canada'', but we can't just say ''yet'' that ''Quebec is a nation''. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::::If memory serves, please note that the [http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2538061 proposed bill] regards the [Nation of ''[[Québécois]]'' (Quebeckers) within a united Canada], not [[Quebec]] per se. [[User:Psychlopaedist|Psychlopaedist]] 14:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Ahh, good catch. ''Nation of Québécois''. That refers to the people, as nobody refers to the province as that. The province is Quebec, La belle province, or Province du Quebec. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 03:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I heard that the vote passed. I'm not Canadian but does that mean that Quebec is now a separate nation? According to my calculations, without Quebec, Canada becomes the 3rd largest nation and the USA moves up to 2nd place.--[[User:Just James|Just James]] 11:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::No. The province of Quebec is not a country. The Canadian integrity is unchanged. There are no political or legal ramifications to the motion. The motion is presented as reconciliation. This motion can also be seen as mere "appeasement", a strategic move meant to please some mild separatists in Quebec, and possibly get some support for the Conservative party in a future election. A more machiavellian interpretation would be to say that the motion is meant to reopen a debate that would divide hard-nosed separatists, and mild or undecided separatists. The debate as to what this really all means is ongoing and will certainly develop much further in the days and months to come. Time will tell what the consequences will be, but it seems unlikely that it will have genuine effects in federal politics. It is to be noted that referendums for the Quebec sovereignty is a provincial, not a federal affair. I hope this clarifies certain questions non-Canadians may have. The topic is complicated and I don't pretend that my blurb is a satisfactory picture. --[[User:Noizy|NoiZy]] 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Qubec hasn't separated yet, and no the bill hasn't totally passed yet. There are two votes in commons, followed by two votes in the Senate, followed by Royal Assente. Everything buy crap passes the first vote in the house. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 22:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I placed the motion in the history section "PQ and the constitutional crisis". I thing we should leave the motion as is and not include any interpretations (such as Québécois include/doesn't include all people of Quebec since there are different POVs on this issue) --Zorxd 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:Generally, I agree (particularly regarding the POV) -- thanks! I also contemplated moving it down as you did, but I thought to keep it upfront in case someone else decided to add this content (given its newness) and then also decided to expand on the (still not insignificant) sovereignty issue for context. [[User:Psychlopaedist|Psychlopaedist]] 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

== Revisiting: Quebec vs. Québec? ==

While I'm certain that [[User:Osgoodlawyer|Osgoodlawyer]] had no ill intent whatsoever in adding italics to this article's ''Province or Territory of Canada'' infobox, in doing so he or she caused many links therein to break. Based on the sources cited above in [[Talk:Quebec#Why not Québec?|Why not Québec?]] and the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]], it would appear to be more appropriate to simply use "Quebec" throughout the article unless speaking specifically about the province's name in [[French language|French]]. However, this assumes that the spelling "Québec" is not considered current in English. As the only printed dictionary I have at hand is a [[Merriam-Webster]] from 1977, I thought it might be useful to double-check with others that Québec is still considered a non-English spelling. Both [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/quebec Merriam-Webster Online] and [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110595/Quebec Encyclopaedia Britannica Online] appear to consider "Quebec" the only valid English spelling. I'd hate to spark an edit war over this, especially since personally I use "Québec;" I simply want to repair the broken links in the best way possible. [[User:Chang E|Chang E]] 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:*It seems to me that we can agree that this started quite solidly (many decades ago) with English=Quebec and French=Québec. Clearly, since then, many Canadians, while speaking English, have begun to use the accented written version and the spoken ke-bek (sorry, I'm not a linguist, but you know what I mean) in place of the non-accented written version and the spoken kweh-bek. However, I would argue that when they do that, they are knowingly inserting a French word into their language, the same way someone occasionally will pronounce Paris "par-ee", for effect. For many, it has become a habit, but it's still not English. [[User:AshleyMorton|AshleyMorton]] 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::*Refuting my own point (sometimes I'm just different when I wake up than I am when I go to bed), I spent some time this morning wandering around some of the defining "places" of Canadian English (major news outlets, textbook companies, governmental agencies, political blogs, whatever I could think of), and it seems pretty clear to me that "either" - without any real preference - seems to be the reality. Parliament uses the accent, even in English, for example. So, when I contribute, I will probably continue to exclude the accent, but I don't believe changing one version out for the other one is a high-priority use of one's time. [[User:AshleyMorton|AshleyMorton]] 12:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:*On a completely different point that arrives at the same conclusion (that we shouldn't use the accent), I think it's valid to consider the spelling that other "Englishes" than Canadian English use. Clearly, they aren't *as* important, but I don't believe they can be discounted - I mean, New Hampshire borders Quebec, while BC decidedly doesn't. I believe (though I speak from limited experience) that American English (they border it) and British English (they used to rule it) do not use the accent. [[User:AshleyMorton|AshleyMorton]] 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't think Quebecers really care what a bunch of English encyclopedia's think what's "official" and what's not. The fact of the matter is that Québec is the official name. I think that we should use the official name, and not the "prefered english name". I would call it Québec, not Québec (french spelling). If it means anything, I'm from the west (of Canada). I'm also think that the italics are a stupid idea. The name is Québec, and there is no reason for it to stick out. Maybe we should move the actual article to [[Québec]]. We already beat the "use english" clause in the [[WP:MOS]] for French Universities. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 22:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::::All I am looking for is additional reference material on the "correct" English spelling of the name of the province in question -- specifically, whether or not the use of the ''[[Accute_accent|accent aigu]]'' has become an accepted standard for English readers. With all due respect, I don't believe opinion alone is a reliable guide here.[[User:Chang E|Chang E]] 23:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:*I generally concur with Chang E. According to the ''Nelson Canadian Dictionary'' (1998):
:::'''Quebec''' or '''Québec''' ...
::with no qualifier; this is also the case in ''Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary'', 11th ed. (2003). The ''Canadian Oxford Dictionary'' (2004) merely (strangely) renders only the unaccented version, while the ''New Oxford Dictionary of English'' (2001) indicates '''Quebec''' at the beginning of the main entry and "French name '''Québec'''" at the end.
::Similarly, please note that '''Quebec''' (without the accent) is an equally valid and (per the federal government) ''official'' rendition in English ... regardless of what Quebeckers may or may not think; see notes in article. After all: nothing exists in isolation. :)
::Thus, there is little reason to move the article. Given the above, I also agree with Royalguard11 that italics are 'stupid' looking; overuse of the accented version seems rather pretentious. [[User:Psychlopaedist|Psychlopaedist]] 00:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:::For what it's worth, the [http://www.gouv.qc.ca/portail/quebec/pgs/commun?lang=en official government website of Québec] uses the accented version. I find, however, that the non-accented version is more familiar to the larger English-speaking world, and I adjust my own usage accordingly. Because en:Wikipedia is a service to people all over the world, perhaps the spelling of the article should reflect that wider, if technically inaccurate, usage. --[[User:Tachikoma|<font face="zapfino">Kyok</font>]][[User:Tachikoma/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="zapfino">o</font>]] 15:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Noted, but FWIW the English rendition without the accent is ''not'' technically inaccurate: [http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/info/pan_can_e.php the unaccented version in English is prescribed by the federal government]. And remember that while the province is officially unilingual, it and the rest of the country is officially bilingual at the federal level. Technically, usage with and without the accent in English is (though varied) [[WP:V|what it is]] :) [[User:Psychlopaedist|Psychlopaedist]] 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Quebec vs Canada ==

So sad to see how people talk about Quebec; as if everything was beautiful and as if Canada was a good country respecting everyone. But when it comes on talking about Quebec French heritage, and Quebec's place within Canada, that's when we notice that Canada is not so good. The English assimilation attempts are still widely popular among the Canada's population. Quebec bashing is omnipresent everywhere, and even in this article. Quebec's political position is always diminished in order to amplify that of Canada, and to give the idea that Canada is good and that Quebeckers are always complaining about everything. I am a French Canadian federalist, but since I moved outside Quebec, I started off doubting about it... Why should Quebeckers live with people who proclaim multiculturalism, but who try to get French Canadians assimilated to their own way of thinking??? What's the point of sticking to Canada when you are not even able to live in French outside of Quebec, to get the core of your culture respected??? Oh yeah!!! Canada is bilingual... but what people don't say is that there's a fence that is continually being built up around Quebec; and then after a referendum, English Canadians ask themselves: "What's wrong with them?"... with them... not with us... with them...?!?! <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/74.102.40.14|74.102.40.14]] ([[User talk:74.102.40.14|talk]]) 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:Welcome to the talk page, but remember that [[WP:NOT|wikipedia is not]] a soapbox. It is OK to have a personal point of view, but on wikipedia all articles must be from a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]].-[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
:Another welcome to Wikipedia from a relatively new contributor :) I would encourage you to [[Special:Userlogin|create a Wikipedia account]] and find citable references about topics such as "Attitudes toward Quebec," both positive and negative, within and without the province itself. Keep in mind Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|neutral point of view]], e.g. by finding not only references that point toward negative attitudes towards Quebeckers in Canada, but ones that either refute or otherwise address those attitudes or that point toward positive attitudes. [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] is critical in discussions such as this, so I would seek out government surveys, surveys from major newspapers or other media outlets within Canada, university research and publications, etc. These sorts of additions, presented in a clear and unbiased manner, would add much value and context to the article as a whole.[[User:Chang E|Chang E]] 17:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand the point that was set out by the above user, and I agree with him. That is to say that both replies to that message are exactly demonstrating what is indeed disputed about. Both messages imply a strong English Canadian culture trait, which is that of sticking to writings whereas the French Canadian culture imply a more opened discussion and debate relating to what can be understood either equally by writings or by natural and personal sense of perception. It is a matter of not sticking to the sole commitment to writings; because in the French Canadian culture those writings are also the result of an arbitrary way of thinking that comes from the head of someone as any other thoughts that are not published; no matter the time it took to find out a conclusion and no matter how much it has cost to find it out. In that perspective, all researches, even those that are not in books, are as good as any published researches. They are references! But anyway, I guess that to understand that way of thinking, some people would need a written statement published by a famous person...--[[User:Kilyu|Kilyu]] 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not sure I completely buy that, I mean, French has long been a language full of great writing, both expository and creative. I don't believe that a memory of an over-the-lunch-counter discussion in a café in Shawinigan really holds the same weight as a published history of the region, that had been put together by several serious historians (I'm not referring to anything specific, that's a hypothetical situation) ...and I think that weight on the published book would be just as important to an academic at, say, the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières as it would be to one at the University of Toronto. However, if it is true, then there are actually increasing ways of managing it - I would certainly consider a link to an audio-recorded interview or an archive of posters, or something like that that exists in another media format, to be very valid. Nothing, though, changes the fact that if you believe one thing is true, and I believe differently, we have to have something other than simply our own experiences to fall back upon.[[User:AshleyMorton|AshleyMorton]] 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on my french canadian point of view, the point is that each and every reference is as valid as any other ones as long as something indicates the origin. And someone's head is also good because studies also comes from heads as it was mentionned above... the sole difference is the depth at which the research was made, and so the credibility of the statements. However that fact doesn't mean that what comes from a single head or from unknown references is wrong and that it should be rejected... By the way, I'm a Quebecker who studied in a french-speaking university, and I can assert that each and every reference (no matter the form, the length, the origin, etc.) is as good as any other ones if that reference is indicated. That has nothing to be related with the artistic side of creation... these are two different things. One is about referencing one's statements, and the other one about archiving one's creations. In other words, archives may be used for referencing; and depending on the references you use, your assertions will get more or less credibility towards a subject. But as I said above, that doesn't mean that someone may reject one's statements on the sole basis that according to that person the references are not in-depth enough. You may validate and invalidate one's assertions with any other references though. Therefore, that means that you have to assume that what is said is right until you get a denying reference. But above all, you can also use your own judgement, and "read between the lines" in order to get the real meaning that is given by a person. Wording is only one way among others to express one's thoughts. --[[User:Marc Doc|Marc Doc]] 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:"...each and every reference (no matter the form, the length, the origin, etc.) is as good as any other ones if that reference is indicated. ...Therefore, that means that you have to assume that what is said is right until you get a denying reference." Language is indeed only one form of human expression, but I sense here you're not saying what you mean. Rather than guess at your meaning I can only question it. To take what you've written literally -- with no ridicule intended, I simply need further clarification to understand you correctly -- if I tell you "According to my uncle Bob, the world is flat," then it must be assumed the world is flat! My uncle Bob is a reference, who I have provided for your consideration. There are some obvious problems here; how can you verify this is my uncle Bob's claim, or that I even have an uncle Bob (verifiability)? And even if my uncle Bob is real and claims the world to be flat, without being able to check the source how can you find out the reasoning behind his claim? Obviously you can't mean this exactly, so again, please clarify your point. And again, I'd encourage anyone with time and access to verifiable sources to work on a section addressing some of the concerns raised about non-Quebec attitudes toward Quebec and Quebeckers. It is obviously an important topic, and deserves careful, deliberate, and systematic exposition by someone with the resources to present a balanced picture.[[User:Chang E|Chang E]] 05:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that discussion in an English website... at last things are perhaps changing for the best... that was my opinion. But if you want more references, read the references linked to the French version of this article or any other manifestos and studies that are published in French... you will get the references you are looking for. And don't tell me that you don't speak French, that is not a valid answer... those references are as valid as the English references... even if you don't understand it. You're in Canada, in a bilingual country... perhaps you should start off learning French if you don't already speak it... that was my opinion as well.--[[User:Dafjo|Dafjo]] 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Dafjo|Dafjo]], [[User:Kilyu|Kilyu]], go ahead and craft a section with your references! This is your Wikipedia too, after all :) I personally haven't time to, and not being a student of contemporary Canadian history, don't feel I have a firm enough grounding in the myriad issues. I'm in no position to craft anything from a NPOV on this particular topic in intra-Canadian relations.[[User:Chang E|Chang E]] 13:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or self-respect, but as many French Canadians may think, English Canadians might be less cultured than French Canadians because of that tendency to reject all opinions and facts that are not referred in books or other written documents. Without generalizing that to everyone, watch TV if you want to know more about the way French Canadian debates and discussions are processed, and you will notice a huge discrepancy with that of English Canadian society. The cultural frame is much more organized and defined than that of the English Canadian society. In that case, you should try to at least keep in mind that even if we are in the same country both sides are aften poles apart from each other on many subjects.

:Given that Canada has inhabitents of First Nations, Inuit and European descent, I personallu find it amusing that there are people who think that the differences between Anglo-Canadians and Franco-Canadians are significant. [[User:Tompw|Tom<small>pw</small>]] ([[User talk:Tompw|talk]]) 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*it may seem bizarre but when you know the friction that were present in europe between the french and the english peoples, its not so bizarre, in fact the difference is that the franco-canadians (or/and quebecois, as i call myself one :) and english canadians has evolved in a different context so the relations between them are not quite the same as their european counterpart, in fact when you examine the situation its quite normal thats its finally did get to that point.[[User:Rookie Oneqc|Rookie Oneqc]] 15:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

==Deprotect?==
I propose we remove the semiprotection. It didn't work anyway, as the vandal had a bunch of sleeper accounts which could edit regardless. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 21:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:It's definetly helping more than hindering on this article. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 04:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:: I would have suggest a full protection but probably it will not work, since we cannot really fully block it forever as we have to update it eventually. --[[User:JForget|JForget]] 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Looks like he struck again with the account [[User:Railer 584]]--[[User:JForget|JForget]] 16:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Back to [[WP:RFCU|checkuser]] for me then. I've sprotected it for a week in the meantime against the idiot. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He has finally made a mistake! He forgot to login and we now know where he's coming from. Traceroot on the IP {{IPvandal|207.115.103.54}} reveals that the guy is actually from Montreal, Quebec. RDNS and Whois have provided nothing else on the address. If anyone can find anything out (shared IP or not, proxy server, anything) it would be nice to know (for blocking reasons). I do know that it's not an OP (scanned with nmap) and that it's owned by Quebec company "Openface Inc." <nowiki>(openface.ca)</nowiki>. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 03:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

*he is probably working at his IP, if the ip is from that company, i try to get someone i know who could get more info. [[User:Rookie Oneqc|Rookie Oneqc]] 13:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

==Disambiguation==

I've changed the disambiguation wording. I think this is important. First, the article deals primarily with the current territory of Quebec, but at one time it included parts of Ohio, Missouri, etc. A person referring to this article looking for that might think that they'd found the right one, when in fact they hadn't. A second thing is that a person might read "in Quebec" somewhere, and on some occasions it could be the city, but the person might not realize that, and therefore might not bother looking at the disambiguation page, thinking they'd found the right page. I am not trying to put the entire disambiguation page here, I am just trying to prevent people from thinking they've found the page they're looking for when they might not know enough about the meanings of ''Quebec'' to know they haven't. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to quibble slightly with this change [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec&diff=117478540&oldid=117412804] to the disambiguation wording. For the province of Quebec (1763-1791), it used to say "see also" instead of "see". This article also contains information about the historical entity, but only the part of it that is now in Quebec. So "see also" is more appropriate than "see". [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] 08:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


==Cities==
Wouldn't it be more informative to have the top census metropolitan areas instead of the top municipalities? I think it makes sense to have more cities and fewer places like Laval or Longueuil. Also, it's more meaningful to say that Montreal has a population of 3.5 million, since this is what matters if you're going to compare Montreal to other cities. A metropolitan area gives a better idea of the importance of a city than the population of the core city does. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] 02:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
: I agree. Perhaps the metropolitan areas can include nreakdowns of the municipal populations. --[[User:Soulscanner|Soulscanner]] 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::Since I posted that comment I've made the changes. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] 11:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


=="Three other uses" template==
This conversation started at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Three other uses]].

===Previous conversation===
*'''Keep''' Basically, the usefulness of these templates is when other meanings may be similar enough to create confusion, or when one or two other uses stand out as being particularly common. The article [[Quebec]] is a good example of why this needs to be kept. Sometimes other uses can be similar enough to the use in the article that people may not ''realize'' (at first or at all) that the current article does not cover what they're looking for. In the example [[Quebec]], there is one extremely common ''geographic'' use besides the province. A person might well read "in Quebec" somewhere without realizing that "Quebec" can also mean [[Quebec City]], if they are not told that there are other ''geographic'' uses in the same area of the world. As for [[Province of Quebec (1763-1791)]], again, a person might not realize that they're in the wrong place when they come to [[Quebec]], even if they're told that there's a disambiguation page. At that time in history, the province contained not only some areas in present-day Quebec, but also what is now Ohio, Missouri,, etc., and that is only marginally covered in the article [[Quebec]]. If they don't know that, then thinking that they had found ''the'' article about the province of Quebec, they might not bother looking any further. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] 09:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:* [[Province of Quebec (1763-1791)]] was a rename of [[Canada, New France]]. Should [[Canada]] have a dablink to [[Canada, New France]] as well? I don't think historic entities should be disambiguated at the top, only completely distinct places of the same name in other continents/regions. If readers come here due to a reference to Quebec over a 30-year period in the 18th century, they probably read it in a historic article and would look for it in the history section. Still, this is not the wrong place; [[Province of Quebec (1763-1791)]] and [[Quebec]] are part of the same topic as the latter includes the former, especially considering the subarticle [[History of Quebec]]. –[[User talk:Pomte|Pomte]] 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
::*''See also'' would have been more appropriate than ''see'' for the historical entity. The article [[Quebec]] does have some coverage of that period, but does not cover any areas outside Quebec's current boundaries which were added by the [[Quebec Act]] in 1774. The article [[Quebec]] covers facts about the historical entity, but ''only where they are relevant to present-day Quebec''. A person interested solely in the history of Ohio or Illinois might well be interested in [[Province of Quebec (1763-1791)]] in a completely different perspective, and they need to be told that that perspective is not covered in the article [[Quebec]]. What we are dealing with here is a subject that coincides ''partially'' with that of [[Quebec]], but not completely. You say that disambiguation is only for totally different topics. Editors should have the flexibility to tell readers what the division is between articles, and this division will sometimes involve subjects that are closely related but not identical. Also, [[Quebec City]] is a completely different meaning of ''Quebec'', though Quebec City is not in a different region. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC) To respond to the suggestion about ''Canada'' as a part of New France, the history of that region is entirely subsumed by the history of what is now Canada. The same is not true of Quebec from 1774 to the American War of Independence. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] 01:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

:::* It is interesting that the same situation does not apply for other terms that refer to older parts of Quebec, such as [[New France]], [[Lower Canada]], and [[Canada East]]. Not only because their names do not include the word 'Quebec', but I think also because regions are expected to shift borders and change names. [[Province of Quebec (1763-1791)|Province of Quebec]] is only one of them, and yet here it looks like its part of the history is made more important than all the other parts. To me, it is sort of like linking History of X at the top of article X, which also coincide partially. I admit this analogy is not accurate, and I'm unlikely to pursue the argument with much force. If this is the right idea, [[Northwest Territories]] should have a dablink to [[North-Western Territory]].
:::: The Province of Quebec has either been neglected, or is not very important to note: None of the articles [[Ohio]], [[Illinois]], [[History of Ohio]], or [[History of Illinois]] mention the name Quebec at all, only that they were occupied by the French. If a person is interested in those histories, how can they tell to search for Quebec? (I don't know it well enough to insert content.) As another example, [[Oklahoma Territory]] has no mention of [[Oklahoma]] even though the Territory consists of a subsection of the present state ([[History of Oklahoma]] makes only a brief mention). If you'd like, let's take this discussion elsewhere, say [[Talk:Quebec]]. –[[User talk:Pomte|Pomte]] 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

===Conversation continued===

In this case I think the fact that the name ''Province of Quebec'' (and not just ''Quebec'') is identical makes it especially confusing. The [[Quebec Act]] extending Quebec into the area west of the Appalachians was one of the [[Intolerable Acts]] that contributed to the American War of Independence. Since Ohio had not been settled by the British at that time, it is understandable that it might only have played a minor role in the history of Ohio as seen by Ohioans. Nonetheless, it is part of their history. And it was definitely significant in the history of the United States. In fact, that extension was probably more significant in the history of the US than it was in the history of French Canada. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] 08:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

: Okay, I concede.
: ''See also'' in place of ''See'' may not make sense in that context, but that depends on how people read it.
: Wasn't it totally misleading that [[Province of Quebec (1763-1791)]] showed in its infobox the map for Upper and Lower Canada (1791)? I have changed it to the map after the [[Quebec Act]] (1775). –[[User talk:Pomte|Pomte]] 12:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
::All right, that seems like a good idea. As for "see also", obviously the territory of the province of Quebec included the primary areas of French-Canadian settlement in the Saint-Lawrence valley. I'm not going to insist on "see also", though. [[User:Joeldl|Joeldl]] 22:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:46, 8 April 2007

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quebec&oldid=121214218"