Talk:Quebec/Archive 3

message: Placed "nation" statement in political context; people have different points of view on what "Quebecois nation" means. I think we can all agree, no matter what our political point of view, that the whole subject is politically volatile and subject to POV iinterpretations. --Soulscanner 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. 70% of the people in Quebec are considering theirselves as Quebeckers. See statcan for statistics. The Quebec Nation is not "volatile" . 70.83.226.185 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We had a consensus with the others before you came in. Please respect the discussion. The Quebecois Nation is meaning less in this case. Pgsylv 22:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we really had a consensus.  Soulscanner is right, it is not an issue for the lead section, which is for major issues discussed later in the article, and ones that are central, at that.  This issue is neither. Lexicon (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes, there was something like a 5-way consensus before you came to the article. If you feel strongly about it, we can reopen the discussion and check to see if consensus has changed. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you could respect the current consensus. The recognition of the Quebecers as a nation is indeed a major issue in the political history of the province.--Ramdrake 13:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice work people. We have effectively made this well written article into a political battle ground. We all agreed a statement that was acceptable by both parties. However, it has significantly been transformed to reflect a particular POV. Seeing that the article has been tagged with a NPOV, rightfully so, I think the article is at loss here. Good job ! Watchdogb 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I don't see what the added, very polemical statement is doing in the intro. As far as I can tell, it only serves to belittle the idea of nationhood for the Quebecers, especially considering the fact that the 2006 Harper motion is only one of several that confirm this state of affairs (the 2003 motion passed by Quebec's National Assembly could as well have been used as an example).--Ramdrake 20:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing wrong with including polemical statements, as long as they are clearly identified as such. However, it's important that the context be explained. I would hope that we can find a way to come to a real consensus here. --Soulscanner 20:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was always told that including a polemical statement, especially in the introduction, was something frowned upon here at WP. Besides, the introduced statement isn't described as being polemical.--Ramdrake 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I can tell, I see very few regular contributors to the article commenting on the addition of "Quebec being a nation". Presenting this motion without context implies that it is important regarding Quebec's status, which is debatable. It is also unclear whether all of Quebec's residents are "Quebecois". The fact that this debate exists is not polemetic; it is a doumented fact. Removing this referenced fact goes against Wiki policy, as does removing a Wiki neutrality tag before a dispute like this is resolved. I've opened a section on the talk page to resolve this dispute. Give it a week so all regular contributors weigh in.  If this does not work, we'll need to go to more formal measures. But the neutrality tag needs to stay until a real consensus is achieved. --Soulscanner 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationhood in context 

message: Some feel the "Quebec nationhood motion" should be in the lead sentence. Others feel that it does not belong to the lead section at all. There was no consensus here, as no vote was held on the matter, and the regular contributors to this page have not weighed in on the debate.
The Parliamentary motion in question, while important, is not as vital in defining to Quebec's current legal and "national" status as other legislation and other current and recent events in Quebec. For example, the two referenda on sovereignty are much more important to understanding the nature and significance of Quebec nationalism and the Quebec sovereignty movement than the Parliamentary motion mentioned here. Without understanding the context of the debate, the multiple and overlapping definitions of nation (see the Wikipedia article, which documents the different defenitions), and the fact that the statement "Quebec is a nation" is contraversial and an ideological position that is related to a popular political opinion means that it does not hold the same weight as "Quebec is a province in Canada", which is a simple question of fact. Quebec nationalists and sympathizers on the Canadian left agree with the statement, many federal Liberals and Conservatives would see the motion as meaningless, and Trudeau Liberals and neo-conservatives would see it as dangerous in that it recognizes ethnic nationalism.  
 
I'll also point out that the statement, without context, is also misleading in the sense that it indicates that Quebec nationalist aspirations have been satisfied with this recognition; as anyone familiar with Quebec politics knows, it is considerably weaker than what most (if not all) nationalists are willing to accept.
Personally, I think this motion should not even be mentioned in this article. As a compromise, I propose that mention of Quebec nationhood, if it is to be left in the lead section, be moved to a paragraph in the lead that briefly puts this statement in the context of Quebec nationalism and the Quebec sovereignty movement.--Soulscanner 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec nationhood motion should not be in the lead sentence 

message: I know that there's been a dispute here, so it should be pretty well watched right now. If some guy comes along, blanks the page and replaces it with:
Quebec 
then go to WP:AIV and ask for him to be blocked. He is a long term vandal with over 90 sock puppets blocked over the last year. 1 edit is enough to identify him. I don't care what people at AIV say, tell them that Royalguard11 told you so. This last time he got 4 vandal edits in. I don't want to have to semiprotect the page yet, but a couple more hits this week and I'll have to. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 21:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to Editors 

message: My reference is Charles Taylor in "Reconciling the Solitudes" p.141 . It's important to put it at the beginning of the article just as in the Scotland article.The definition used here is the civic nation, not the ethnic one. We suppose Quebeckers have one language, one territory and they identify themselves as Quebeckers. Pgsylv 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec is a nation