Talk:Québécois (word)/Archive 2

message: User:Soul scanner has persistently wasted peoples' time here. His comments above are purely his own opinion and have no grounding in fact, yet this person constantly makes the same pointless arguments again and again. Nothing he says above is true or even remotely factual. Does Wikipedia not have some system of recourse for dealing with this problem? Laval 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fact that the civic status of Quebec is that of a province, not a nation. There is nothing controversial about that. Actually, you are wasting time; the article cites known and documented usage of Quebecois,a nd includes all usages of the word. You are attempting to advance a separatist political agenda here. I should point out that offering varying point of view in the discussion page does not make this article POV. Discussion pages are for that. I'm very careful to leave that out of the article. The articvle is no more POV than the Websters or the Petit Robert. --Soulscanner 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now I'm a separatist with an agenda, huh? From where I stand, it is you who has the agenda and anti-Quebec bias. Go ahead and keep throwing around attacks. Laval 09:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also notice that you often fail to login when undoing other peoples work and leaving comments. You should stop doing that because it looks like an attempt to avoid so-called "3RR". As well stop making accusations against me of making malicious edits. The article is not neutral and contains original research, and the validity of its existence is arguably weak. Again you are the one promoting bias and agenda by making a big huff over nothing about this term. In the Quebec article, it deserves at most only a few lines. In the end you will not have your way because what you are doing and promoting is against Wikipedia policy. If others are willing to let you do whatever you want and get away with it, then I should not waste my precious time with Wikipedia. Laval 09:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please identify the original research and I will add a reference. As I said, all claims in the article are referenced. As for being anti-Quebec, that accusation is made by all Quebec separatists when facts they don't like are mentioned.  I guess then that the Petit Robert is anti-Quebec. Take it up with them. --Soulscanner 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the controversy section, which itself was pure opinion. David Young's idea that in French, "Quebecois" has a political context is pure original research. Read WP:OR carefully - unless an idea has wide acceptance in the academic community, it is total OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. In French, the fact remains, whether you like it or not, that "Quebecois" is not tied to politics or ethnicity. It is just as neutral as say, "New Yorker" or "Californian". The fact that Young is all you can reference shows how fringe this idea is. And again, this is why this article doesn't deserve to exist and should be merged into Quebec. We don't have articles on Californian (disambig page), New Yorker (disambig page), Ontarian (redirects to Ontario), and so on. By the way, don't ever call anyone a separatist here. It is a joke for you to do so especially since you are clearly an advocate of Canada joining the Union and becoming a mere 51st state. What a world. Stop wasting peoples' time. Laval 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the removal of the controversy section. I also changed Young's article for the definition found in the Petit Robert. The fact is, whether you like it or not, Quebecois has been used to refer to the culture and language of French Canadians in Quebec since the Quiet Revolution. That s why dictionaries, who document the usage of language, record it. Again, it is encyclopedic to use words as they are commonly used, not how we would like them to be used.   --Soulscanner 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Soul scanner wasting peoples time

message: I think all of us will agree that personal attacks are unnecessary. I ask that criticisms be directed at the article, and not at people, and that everybody respect the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith (see Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks). --Soulscanner 07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A page devoted to ranting against an editor. I thank you for your support. --Soulscanner 09:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some circumstances, discussing user conduct is legitimate. It is not tantamount to a "rant". However, that should not be the main focus of discussion on this talk page. Joeldl 11:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacks getting personal 

message: I recommend working together on a Quebecois identity article, and coming back here to summarize it in a short paragraph when we are done. We can then work on other articles(Quebecois nation, Quebecois culture, etc.) and also summarize them here.  We are no closer to consensus here on improving the article, and unfreezing it now will lead to inevitable edit wars that will waste everyone's time. We are just wasting time here responding to each others personal opinions. That's not what a discussion page is for. --Soulscanner 19:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for an article about "Québécois culture". That could only mean either Culture of Quebec or Culture of French-speaking Quebecers. I believe that, given that mother tongue francophones account for 81% of the population, it would be better to contribute to the article Culture of Quebec than to fork into a new article. Quebec identity would be a better title than Québécois identity, since in French there is no word corresponding to Québécois in English, and to the extent that the word Québécois may sometimes be used to refer to the majority culture of Quebec, that is viewed by people using the word as an identification of the majority group with the territory of Quebec. I have never heard of "Québécois nationalism" before as opposed to "Quebec nationalism", but using that phrase to describe it without the existence of any appreciable distinction between the two can only be understood as an attempt to delegitimize it by emphasizing its connection with French Canadians as an ethnic group, implicitly taking a position on it by choosing a name for it that has ethnic overtones in English. Only Harper's "Québécois nation" deserves to be the subject of an article, of all of the subjects you have suggested. Joeldl 06:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebecois Identity article 

message: Should Wikipedia itself,  if there are no special circumstances justifying it (such as might arise in the discussion of the English term Québécois itself, or of the recent House resolution stating that "the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada"), refer to people as "Québécois" rather than as Quebecers, Francophone Quebecers or French Canadian Quebecers as appropriate? 
*No For the same reasons as in my response to Question 1. Harper used the term in the House motion presumably to counter the argument that it was "Quebec" that formed a nation, since Québécois is ordinarily understood in English to refer to only a subset of the people of Quebec. This went largely unnoticed in the francophone public, because the French word Québécois usually or always (there is some disagreement here) refers to all Quebecers. This use of Québécois in English did receive some criticism. This was a political ploy and does not mean that using the word "Québécois" to refer to francophone Quebecers has suddenly become acceptable or common in neutral writing. Joeldl 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is really important. Sources listed below by Pierre Dubuc and others indicate that they consider terms like francophone Quebecois to be POV. Moreover, dictionaries document it as common use. This is one of those instances where the judgement on POV is itself POV. What is the objective criteria used to determine which expression is neutral? --Soulscanner 12:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Francophone Quebecer" is the term most widely used in writing about demographics, etc. I have never seen "Québécois" used that way. In French, the Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui gives "Québécois francophones" as an example, and does not mention an ethnic meaning of "Québécois". In all discussions of public opinion surveys in the press, I have seen francophones referred to as francophones, not "Québécois, be it in English or in French. Joeldl 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been made clear that Québécois is not a neutral term. Other terms being POV are irrelevant. If francophone Québécois shouldn't be used, then reduce it to "French-speaking residents of Quebec." I can't see anyone justifiably calling this last phrase POV. –Pomte 03:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe "French-speaking Quebecer" and "francophone Quebecer" are fine. We don't need, in our usage, to heed the marginal view that people are not "Quebecers" on the basis of  ethnic/linguistic criteria. When the reference to Quebec is implicit, "francophone" seems best. Joeldl 20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 2

message: Should Wikipedia use the word Québécois in such phrases as "Québécois nationalism", "Québécois identity" and "Québécois culture" to translate the French "nationalisme québécois", "identité québécoise" and "culture québécoise", instead of "Quebec nationalism", "Quebec identity" and "Quebec culture"? 
*No This is an extremely serious POV issue. The primary meaning of the adjective québécois in all of these French phrases is "relative to Quebec". However, by translating the French word as Québécois, you are translating a word whose primary (or perhaps sole) meaning in French is non-ethnic by one in English which is. Translating nationalisme québécois or identité québécoise with the English word Québécois, which has an ethnic meaning connotation, tends to discredit Quebec nationalists and people who identify in French as Québécois by insinuating that they are using this term ethnically. As for "culture québécoise", any identification of Quebec with its ethnic or linguistic majority when the word is used this way does not go beyond what you ordinarily do when you say "Swedish cuisine" and think of meatballs rather than the cuisine of the Muslim minority there. The phrases "American literature" and "American culture" call to mind literature in English and the culture of the English-language majority, and yet that does not mean that Hispanics in the United States are not American. "Quebec culture" can be used in the same way, but if the culture of francophone Quebecers is meant a more neutral term than Québécois can be used. Joeldl 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 3

message: Should the fact that many francophone Quebecers, in the past 40 years, have come to view their primary identity as being related to Quebec rather than to Canada generally be dealt with in articles with titles containing the word Québécois, or instead containing Quebec and Quebecer? 
*Quebec, Quebecer As I explained in my response to Question 3, such use of Québécois is a gross NPOV violation because a term which is usually used without ethnic connotations in French is translated by one in English which, despite its vagueness, is usually understood to be restricted to a particular ethnic group, and thereby ascribes ethnic motives to those Quebecers who identify in French as Québécois. Joeldl 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is instructive to note that, unless I'm mistaken, the Hansard, even in the very debate about a "Québécois nation", generally translated the French word Québécois used in debates as "Quebecker" in English. Joeldl 19:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am from the Beauce region of Quebec, and I was touched by the Prime Minister's comments. By acknowledging that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada, he has shown, once again, that he is a great Prime Minister, one of the greatest prime ministers Canada has ever known. Our party has always been at the centre of the great moments and great challenges that have marked the history of this country. Last week was no exception.
*Quebec Articles don't need to be phrased with adjectival forms (by the way, the Quebec listings at List of adjectival forms of place names should be maintained correspondingly), especially if the adjectival forms are in dispute. Someone could argue for Quebecker instead. Avoid this issue altogether by sticking to titles with only Quebec in them. Analogously, :Category:Wikipedians in Alberta is not called :Category:Albertan Wikipedians. I saw a mass rename for all such categories from adjectival forms to nouns at WP:CfD. –Pomte 04:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 4

message: Should this article be restricted to a discussion of the use of the term Québécois in English? 
*Yes In French, the term usually (or perhaps only) means "inhabitant of Quebec". Discussion in the article Québécois of the extent of francophone Quebecers' shifting allegiance from Canada to Quebec, and of their use of Québécois (in French) as the primary method of describing their identity, will leave readers with the impression that this Quebec identity is defined by ethnicity, when the use of the word Québécois in French does not carry an ethnic connotation, or at the very least, to nowhere near the same extent as the English word. Joeldl 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Debates about such words are covered in articles such as Use of the word American, not at American. This is an issue of WP:Undue weight, because Soulscanner would like to elevate debate about the word to the primary topic under the title Québécois. Joeldl 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article should not deal with the actual people. However, since the word Québécois is used in English, (albeit with various restrictions on its use), usually meaning "francophone Quebecer", I am not sure that most people referring to the article want a discussion of the word. I think Use of the word Québécois should be listed under "See also" at Québécois, which should be a disambiguation page like Québécois (disambiguation). Also, concerning the French meaning of the word, I don't know if one can distinguish between the subject of use of the word Québécois and Quebec identity. When some people claim that non-French Canadians are not Québécois (in French), this can be likened to people in England who say that if you cheer for the Pakistani cricket team when it plays against England, you're not English/British. It has little to do with the words "English"/"British" themselves. What is really being questioned is your connection to England/Britain. Whether one should deal with this under English, British, Briton, Britishness, English identity, or British identity is a good question. (Most of these articles deal with the English/British contrast) Joeldl 00:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was rejecting what your question implied, that this article will be about the use in English and not the French. I thought you wanted this to become a disambiguation page anyway, so it should become a non-issue. The British articles are good to consider because identity is discussed in multiple articles. –Pomte 04:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose it would make sense to discuss the French word as well. Joeldl 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 5

message: Before commenting, please examine the comment above which provides documentation for focusing the scope of the article.
Also, you may also wish to review the conversation here: 
 much of what you see here is a rehash of that discussion.  
The decision was to keep the article, but the page was blanked and redirected anyways to Quebec. I essentially complained about ignoring the consensus, which is why this page has been frozen since. 
The questions above all involve what shouldn't be  in the article. Here's questions about what should be. --Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The French Wikipedia site claims that "70 % des Canadiens rejettent la notion que les Québécois forment une nation" ; so what you claim as being something that "everyone knows" simply is not true. Also, how is the dichotomy between Catalonia and Catalans different than that between Quebec and Quebecois? This is not clear to me. --Soulscanner 09:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quebecers recognize themselves as forming a nation according to this survey. Catalonia/Catalans is equivalent to Quebec/Quebecers. -- Mathieugp 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *My view on this is that, if we are dealing only with the French meaning of Québécois, this subject is indistinguishable from Quebec identity. Joeldl 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *There can be multiple articles on the various details of one subject, as your example British shows. A very concise summary of identity here, with a link to Quebec identity using , followed by more details about the term itself, with example usage. These details and examples can be duplicated at Quebec identity depending on context. Quebec identity can have a section on "Quebecois" with a link to this article using . And by "here" I mean either Québécois or Use of the word Québécois. –Pomte 21:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll go with that. Joeldl 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Clarification: it is more common for francophones to strongly identify with Quebec than for anglophones and allophones. However, many non-francophones also have some degree of identification with Quebec. It would be inappropriate, due to the most prevalent meaning of Québécois in English, for Wikipedia to call them Québécois, despite anything Harper says. This goes as far as identifying solely with Quebec and not at all with Canada, as in the example of the Salvadoran immigrant given in Appartenir au Québec, cited above by Soulscanner. The use of the English word Québécois, as in Québécois identity, would exclude such people. It would also exclude me, though I identify with both Canada and Quebec. Joeldl 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments on scope of article II 

message: 1. The civic definition of Quebecois (i.e similar to Albertan) is a fact. It is documented here. Should people looking for this definition be offered a link to the Quebec article on top of the page? --Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 1

message: 2. This page is here to act as reference for the other cultural as opposed to civic sense of the word. This is the subject of interest because it's the sense that Californian and Albertan doesn't have. Should the focus of the article be this cultural sense of the word?--Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The French Wikipedia site claims that "70 % des Canadiens rejettent la notion que les Québécois forment une nation" ; so what you claim as being something that "everyone knows" simply is not true. Also, how is the dichotomy between Catalonia and Catalans different than that between Quebec and Quebecois? This is not clear to me. --Soulscanner 09:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quebecers recognize themselves as forming a nation according to this survey. Catalonia/Catalans is equivalent to Quebec/Quebecers. -- Mathieugp 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *My view on this is that, if we are dealing only with the French meaning of Québécois, this subject is indistinguishable from Quebec identity. Joeldl 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *There can be multiple articles on the various details of one subject, as your example British shows. A very concise summary of identity here, with a link to Quebec identity using , followed by more details about the term itself, with example usage. These details and examples can be duplicated at Quebec identity depending on context. Quebec identity can have a section on "Quebecois" with a link to this article using . And by "here" I mean either Québécois or Use of the word Québécois. –Pomte 21:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll go with that. Joeldl 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 2

message: 3. Does this sense of the word have enough parallels  with other cultural/ethnic/linguistic  groups to justify a similar treatment?  (i.e. Acadian or [[Catalans])]?--Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 3

message: 4. Is it useful for an article on a cultural group to included a section on Quebecois Identity? --Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: it is more common for francophones to strongly identify with Quebec than for anglophones and allophones. However, many non-francophones also have some degree of identification with Quebec. It would be inappropriate, due to the most prevalent meaning of Québécois in English, for Wikipedia to call them Québécois, despite anything Harper says. This goes as far as identifying solely with Quebec and not at all with Canada, as in the example of the Salvadoran immigrant given in Appartenir au Québec, cited above by Soulscanner. The use of the English word Québécois, as in Québécois identity, would exclude such people. It would also exclude me, though I identify with both Canada and Quebec. Joeldl 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 4

message: 5. Is it useful to have a section on the Quebecois nation, including commentary by academics and key political figures?--Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 5

message: I am going to unprotect the page; discussion here seems to have died down.  Everyone should take care to discuss changes and make sure they have consensus. CMummert · talk 13:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus is based on the understanding that it not be deleted but instead  moved to a page called French-speaking Quebecer or franco-Quebecer, as recommended several times by  Joeldl --Soulscanner 08:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but delete it now because there is consensus it shouldn't be in this article. Once the new article is created, the infobox can be pasted there from this edit history. –Pomte 09:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I'm creating a French-speaking Quebecer stub, as the others have suggested. I will put nothing on it but the box and a brief, neutral definition. I'm just skeptical that it will actually be created if I do not. --Soulscanner 09:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit requests

message: Please remove the infobox from the article, pursuant to the consensus developed under Question 1 of the first request for comment above. Joeldl 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus is based on the understanding that it not be deleted but instead  moved to a page called French-speaking Quebecer or franco-Quebecer, as recommended several times by  Joeldl --Soulscanner 08:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but delete it now because there is consensus it shouldn't be in this article. Once the new article is created, the infobox can be pasted there from this edit history. –Pomte 09:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I'm creating a French-speaking Quebecer stub, as the others have suggested. I will put nothing on it but the box and a brief, neutral definition. I'm just skeptical that it will actually be created if I do not. --Soulscanner 09:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: The image of prominent Quebecois at the top only shows Parti Quebecois premiers, what about other important Quebecois like Jean Lesage, Robert Bourassa, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Mario Dumont, Henri Bourassa, Maurice Duplessis, and Sir Wilfred Laurier. Quebecois should not just be represented on this site by two PQ separatist premiers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should not show the faces of two Premiers from the same political party. I also wonder if really we should put only politicians. I understand they are supposed to "represent" their constituants, but when we know through what kind of a flawed and antidemocratic voting system they get to hold seats in the National Assembly or the House of Commons, do we have the right to ask: who are they really representing? :-) The faces should be somewhat notorious to English-speakers world wide, not only to Canadians and Quebecers. Politicians from Quebec and Canada tend to suck and have little visibility worldwide. We should also try to truly represent all French-speaking Quebecers, men and women, of various ethnic backgrounds. -- Mathieugp 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the section above this says, the box is getting removed and hence the images will no longer appear here. Please discuss this issue at French-speaking Quebecer and that talk page instead. –Pomte 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of prominent Quebecois only shows PQ premiers, biased. 

message: I am a little disappointed that there is no mention of the Quebecois diaspora noting the significant Quebecois populations in border U.S. states such as New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine.  When I was a kid growing up in NH, I remember reading that some 35-40 percent of the population has Quebec roots, myself included.  ludahai 魯大海 14:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebecois diaspora 

message: I removed the whole paragraph. If you look up in Oxford American Dictionary you will see Quebecois or Quebecker means inhabitant or native of Quebec. Stop changing the meaning of the words ! Are we just like in the 1984 novel? Pgsylv 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Canadian House of Commons motion, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, said: "...this House recognize[s] that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada...". As you can see the motion does not say "...this House recognize[s] that  Québec form a nation within a united Canada...". nattang 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec is a nation, not Quebecois