Talk:Quebec sovereignty movement

message: I believe that the french page is in much better shape... and a slow transfer and translation might be the best way to clean up this article.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_souverainiste_du_Qu%C3%A9bec  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.132.75 (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposition

message: Firefox didn't like editing a page this big :), so I decided to create an archive. I didn't bother to search for all the currently active discussions; fell free to move current text back in here.
/Archive 1
MartinToupin 14:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive created

message: I put down that in 1995 some 86, 000 No ballots were rejected without valid reasons citing a valid source and yet that number and source were again removed. We do not need editing wars, they get in the way of the truth and mix propaganda with history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.85.176 (talk • contribs) 
:Please sign your posts. You did not read the source properly. 86 501 is the total number of rejected votes during the referendum (rejected ballots occur in all elections and referenda), of which The Gazette insinuates many (no actual number is given) were valid "No" votes rejected by Yes scrutineers without reason. That's the Gazette's own interpretation of the events without actual proof. Only a handful of ridings had rejection issues which were later investigated. Go read Talk:Quebec referendum, 1995, the full list is given in the first section. ETA: Only this link on the judgement seems to still work, but as you see, only 4 constituencies had suspicious rejection rates.--Boffob 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a few more edits late last night. And did another re-read today.  My approach remains keeping the points made by contributors, whatever their apparent biases, and neutralizing unqualified statements like "Québec feels that..." or "french-speakers believe that..." with "Some groupname have historiecally believed that...".  I may add detail about an opposing perspective to present both sides as fairly as I can.  I understand this isn't always a good idea too - there are times where I agree that many or most Québecers have historically held a view, and at times I've been inclined to make that statement too.  But the general idea is to get rid of obvious biased remarks and present a "flow" to the language, which is still lacking in this article.  There's plenty of opportunity here for more editing and improvement.  I'm deliberately not doing this too quickly because I want others to review and have opportunity to comment.  Plus I just don't have time to give this article the attention it desperately needs. --ross613 18:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We do not need editing wars

message: I have been reading this article (as an interested observer, as I am American) and I have difficulty (as many non-Canadians would) with the parties, and groups listed as abbreviations and acronyms of the organisations instead of writing the group name. At the very least, I think each section of the article should spell out the organisations in question once, with an appropriate Wikipedia link. There will be many times someone will only need to read a specific section of an article, and I think it's necessary to allow the reader to understand what is being abbreviated without having to go to an earlier section of an article to decipher what is being said. ArdenD 17:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article abbreviations and acronyms 

message: When I was using this article for a school project, (Yes its always risky with Wikipedia), I found that there are no reasons listed supporting separation, but a section for being against it. I see why the neutraity of this article is disputed :/. 
72.12.130.133 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: This article is truly awful. It is laden with grammatical errors and typographical inconsistencies. I couldn't begin to list them all. I also spotted a few inaccuracies. In particular, Ségolène Royal is described as being "the head of the French socialist party". She actually has never held any significant position within the governing body of the socialist party. In France, just like in the US, one may become the candidate of one's party without being a prominent figure in the internal governance of the party itself. Royal is such an example. The highest ranks she ever held within the French government include "minister of familial matters" and "co-minister of education", as well as local duties (e.g. congresswoman and mayor). But no specific ranking position within the socialist party. In fact, she has lately distanced herself from the socialist party on the grounds that the party no longer represents the younger generation and that it needs urgent reforms and a total re-foundation. Her stance has earned her to be ostracized by the prominent members of the governance of the party.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.93.5 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of consistency 

message: This article has been tagged for cleanup since January 2007, which is almost two years! We need to restart discussions on how to improve this article and find out whats going on. Laval (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a staunch Federalist, so it's best I stay away from this article. But you're correct, it's time this article was given an overhaul (nearly 2yrs is a long time; on Wikipedia, it's even longer). GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So has there been any progress in this articles clean up? I have to say that I am not a Federalist or a Nationalist or whatever label you want. I am actually not sure what route should be taken. I grew up in Québec speking English at home (Or with my parents) and French in public (At School/Freinds Etc.) and at times I was treated with the whole "This is Québec, speak french" attitute, as a kid I did not understand it we were supposed to be in a bilingual country etc..., but now I live on the other side of the coin in the US with all the Spanish/Mexican immigrants, and are we losing our language culture etc... So I do not know If I would be a partial person here. But this subject is very interesting to me.--Mrboire (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Impartiality does not exist. Please continue posting. --216.218.63.141 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged since January 2007

message: NOTE: Source material from this article was used in the article Canadian sovereignty. I'm in the process right now of giving all appropriate editors due credit. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am interested to know your interpretation of sovereignists and separatists, even though you don't sound entirely unbiased. In my opinion, these are evolving terms. "Separatist" has a somewhat more negative term used in a more derogatory term than "sovereignists" due to the imagery it provokes. Note for example how during the recent parliamentary crisis, the Conservatives were careful to use the word "separatists" to describe the Bloc Quebecoi when speaking in English and "sovereignists" when talking about the party in French. The purpose was to provoke opposition to coalition talks in English Canada (in which he largely suceeded) without provoking backlash from French Canada (which he failed miserably).  User:Kurblick 11:30, 08 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Separatist" puts the emphasis on the potential weakening of the relationship between Quebec and the national government and the other provinces.  "Sovereigntist" puts the emphasis on the potential change in the legal status of Quebec.  The terms represent the same thing from different perspectives. Peter Grey (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  separatists in my experience supported Quebec independence, and viewed themselves as Quebecers, not Canadians. They wanted their own, separate, country. Sovereignty supporters wanted enhanced independence for Quebec, and viewed themselves as Quebecers first, Canadians second. They were two distinct positions, and the second group seemed larger than the first. It is obviously in the interests of the first group to fudge as much of the border between the two, and confuse things as much as possible to further their political goals. That's what happened in the second referendum and the fallout of that was the clarity act. There are very many Quebecers who will happily vote for the Bloc and the PQ but will vote against a referendum. These are the people who support enhanced independence and control for Quebec, but do not want to become their own country. So while their vote doesn't make sense if you adopt the "it's two sides of the same coin, based on point of view", it is entirely logical if you understand that there are simply people who want more independence but not total independence. Those are not separatists though they will vote in people who are separatists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.46.166 (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: "Several attempts at reforming the federal system of Canada have thus far failed because of, particularly, the conflicting interests between sovereignists' representatives and the other provincial governments' representatives". Federalists are the ones who want to reform Canada. Sovereignists want Quebec's sovereignty. "... by Quebec's representatives ..." would be more accurate. What do you think?--216.218.63.141 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reforming federalism 

message: Pejorative doesn't look like a synonym of the French word "péjoratif". Any better word to describe, following certains so-called sovereignists, the too strong word "separatism"? --Popol0707 (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation or sovereignty? 

message: This article is a collection of assertions without any substantiation of the facts. For instance, the article makes a statement that the sovereignty movement is not uniformly ethnically french. This is likely true given the size of the movement. But "not uniform" implies anywhere from 99.99999999% french to 0.0000001% french. This needs to be cited and replaced with an accurate appraisal of the support for the movement outside of french ethnicity. Or, it needs to not make such a comment at all. Later on it refers to the "controversy" around the clarity act. This is not strictly the truth in terms of what a controversy is. Those who found the clarity act to be a hurdle to their ambitions of course did not tend to support the act. Not having uniform support does not mean that something is controversial. For instance, President Bush 41 was elected with a small majority, though a very substantial number of americans did not vote for him, it was not controversial for him to become president. The next Bush was elected with the intervention of the supreme court and a disputed vote count in Florida. This was controversial. Just the simple fact of some people not supporting something does not make for a controversy. The article in these cases needs to cite the controversy and the basis of the controversy. If leading legal scholars in Canada came out at the time and said the government did not have the power to enact this law, this would be a controversy. Not sovereignty supporters who were forced to adopt clear language in order to get on a path to negotiate separation from Canada, who did not appreciate having a rulebook to have to play with, announcing their lack of support. Overall, this article I think reads like a (well written) high school paper. It's not an encyclopedia article and seems to take a point of view throughout.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.46.166 (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations citations citations 

message: The reference to 'multi-generational immigrants' is puzzling - historically Canada including Quebec has been largely populated by colonists, not immigrants.  Although the two are sometimes conflated incorrectly in Anglo-Saxon pop culture, it would be surprising for Cree activists to confuse the two.  (And 'multi-generational immigrants' is almost certainly nonsense.)  Peter Grey (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-generational immigrants? 

message: Removed cleanup and cn (2 then, 24 now). Obviously it's a contentious subject but looks like it's moved to a detail level workout. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rm article level tags 

message: "Polling data showed that 32% of Quebecers believe that Quebec had enough sovereignty and should remain part of Canada, 28% thought they should separate, and 30% say they believe that Quebec does need greater sovereignty but should remain part of Canada." 
Looks like a typo. What is the difference between the 32% and the 30%?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.234.153 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There’s no difference its not a serious proposition. Merely a political threat. 142.184.116.120 (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: This sentence:
Quebec language laws violate the Canadian Constitution so the province regularly using the "notwithstanding clause" to suspend the constitution to maintain the legality of their laws.
This is a myth. The clause hasn't been used by Quebec since 1993. The most recent use of the notwithstanding clause was to stop gay marriage in Alberta. As noted in the article on Section Thirty-Three of the Charter:
In 1993, after the law was criticized by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Bourassa government had the provincial parliament rewrite the law to conform to the Charter, and the notwithstanding clause was removed.
I'm going to alter it so that it makes note that the clause is no longer used; as using 'regularly' here implies that it's still being used.
: The notwithstanding clause wasn't even used to stop gay marriage in Alberta — it was talked about, but it never actually happened. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You sure? Same-sex marriage in Alberta. I mean, it was ineffectual, in the sense that marriage isn't a provincial jurisdiction, but they still did write it into law. 198.84.249.96 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notwithstanding Clause 

message: As a suggestion, and it's something I won't meddle with, but I propose to erase the juxtaposition with Catalonia and Tibet from the article. Firstly, it doesn't have any quotation, therefore such analogy might well have never been brought up. Anyway, I find it offensive drawing comparison between two regional entities (as they stand today, this is unarguably a statement of facts) and a region taken by means of genocide. In fact, I abhor and loathe such artificial parallelism which incorporation probably is down to a despicable attempt for the pro-independence advocates to gain approval amongst the neutral readership. Curiously it wasn't Quevec-Catalonia-Scotland. It had to be the Tibet. Spot the difference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.102.235 (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with Catalonia and Tibet 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Quebec sovereignty movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060325055746/http://www.pourunquebeclucide.com:80/cgi-cs/cs.waframe.index?lang=2 to http://www.pourunquebeclucide.com/cgi-cs/cs.waframe.index?lang=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Quebec sovereignty movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629041924/http://www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/vanderMaas.pdf to http://www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/vanderMaas.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130612123452/http://www.am to http://Am
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Has there been any discussion as to what effect an independent Quebec on the integrity of the rest of Canada? I'm thinking specifically about the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador. Is it projected that Canada would be able to hold onto these provinces despite their separation from the bulk of the state? And if not, is that expected to lead to possible calls for separation in the western provinces? Not looking to start a discussion about it, just wondering if there had been such discussion and where to find data about it. --Khajidha (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly been pointed out in sources that if Quebec were to leave Canada, the Atlantic Provinces would effectively be "Pakistanized". The sources don't specifically theorize about the relative likelihood of keeping vs. losing them, but rather just list various possibilities including that, Canada keeping a "West Berlin" transportation corridor through Quebec to keep them attached, or a transportation pact whereby Canada wouldn't retain ownership of a corridor per se, but would simply be permitted to use Quebec's transportation network without being penalized. However, there's little analysis of how much more or less likely any of those options are than any other — they're just listed as the options for dealing with the problem. Similarly, while coverage of the Quebec sovereignty movement sometimes acknowledges that a successful independence referendum might spark a push toward western secession, that's normally just listed and not extensively analyzed as such. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but.... 

message: So I was shocked to see that there wasn't a collection of opinion polls on this issue, like most wikipedia pages and other pages on independence movements. So I created a section with just a couple of polls I found. Please add to it when there's a new poll, I know it's not perfect but don't delete it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.167.111.154 (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Opinion Polls