Talk:Quebec/Archive 1

message: Hi, it seems to me that the blue color on the flag is not the same one as the actual flag! Alain Michaud 20:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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:  ... 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 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. Mdrejhon 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of Quebec 

message: 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. --Menchi 03:58, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive maps 

message: 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. Student7 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map images

message: 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. Bearcat 02:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. P.T. Aufrette 13:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.   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. Bearcat 16:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. :-) Mathieugp 18:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Bearcat 22:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Voltaire

message: 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. -- Valmi Dufour 15:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV s. bill 101

message: 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.
-- Mathieugp 16:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  some thoughts 

message: 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. Indefatigable 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  Skeezix1000 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not Québec? 

message: 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.  A. Lafontaine 16:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 ?--Marc pasquin 14:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of unsubstantiated text

message: 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. Fad (ix) 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacques Parizeau resignation 

message: 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. Jim62sch 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link Farm

message: 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? -- Jeff3000 05:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That History section definitely needs to shrink considerably.--70.81.13.192 00:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Québec or Quebec? We could make a redirect. 69.158.65.32 00:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: 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????--Ramdrake 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's with the blanking?

message: Someone added "english" to the official languages. English is not an official language of Québec, so I deleted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.135.219 (talk • contribs) .
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).  69.156.27.118 01:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: 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, 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 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.
Lionel GM 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article quality

message: http://pvq.qc.ca/dev/en
Lionel GM 16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More info on Political Parties, such as, for example:

message: 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.  Sébastien Savard 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec is a country? 

message: 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.Gary Joseph 07:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  --Nephtes 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism or misplaced line?

message: YAY for article protection!  Thanks Samir! --dragfyre 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just getting to be too much. Hopefully a checkuser will clear somethings up. The user that keeps vandalizing happens to own this category. It's scary. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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--70.48.98.233 04:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated sockpuppet vandalism 

message: 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.  --Nephtes 15:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's complete BS and I removed it. Don't hesitate to revert when you see this kind of vandalism.--Boffob 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.254.43.65 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Marseillaise 

message: 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.--Boffob 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parliament website says the voting will start (on the amendment that says "within canada") on Monday, before they adjourn. WikieZach| talk 14:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If memory serves, please note that the proposed bill regards the [Nation of Québécois (Quebeckers) within a united Canada], not Quebec per se. Psychlopaedist 14:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Just James 11:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --NoiZy 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Psychlopaedist 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec as a Nation 

message: 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...?!?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.40.14 (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the talk page, but remember that wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is OK to have a personal point of view, but on wikipedia all articles must be from a neutral point of view.-Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Another welcome to Wikipedia from a relatively new contributor :)  I would encourage you to 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 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.  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.Chang E 17:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.AshleyMorton 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "...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.Chang E 05:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Tompw (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec vs Canada 

message: I propose we remove the semiprotection. It didn't work anyway, as the vandal had a bunch of sleeper accounts which could edit regardless. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definetly helping more than hindering on this article. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. --JForget 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like he struck again with the account User:Railer 584--JForget 16:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to checkuser for me then. I've sprotected it for a week in the meantime against the idiot. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deprotect?

message: 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. Joeldl 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: 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. Joeldl 02:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Perhaps the metropolitan areas can include nreakdowns of the municipal populations. --Soulscanner 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I posted that comment I've made the changes. Joeldl 11:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities