Talk:Quebec/Archive 6

message: The page has been protected for over a month now, so I'm going to unprotect it as a test. Any signs of the edit war flaring up again though and the page will be re-protected. So try to behave yourselves and don't edit war. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting 

message: I have just borrowed several texts from a local library by various authors (politicians, professors, etc) that deal with nationhood in Quebec.  I require several days to go through them so that I may bring important points here to the debate.  I will post my findings soon.  Andrew647 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just finished writing my review of two books that demonstrate a clear lack of consensus among intellectuals inside and outside Quebec.  See my finding here.  Please comment on it here.  Andrew647 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go back to work. Your "demonstration" is not valid. When I read things like you wrote, I just wish Quebec separates from Canada and builds its own state. I thought it would be possible to have a dialogue with the Canadians but I realize it is impossible. Pgsylv 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will refrain from insulting you, but I can no longer assume good faith from you.  If all you want is to push a political view, this is not the place for you.  I will not make this a personal issue as you wish to do.  Andrew647 16:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not personal, but your work is not valid. It doesn't matter what academicians outside Quebec think of this debate. Your references are biaised. Pgsylv 17:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your references are biased as well.  And it does matter what intellectuals outside Quebec think, because Quebec is also a part of Canada, a part of North America, and a part of the world.  Andrew647 18:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My references are not biased. They reflect the reality. What the intellectuals outside Québec think is not important in this debate. It's up to the Quebeckers. If 6 millions individuals living in the province of Quebec recognize theirselves as Quebeckers, the nation of Quebec exists. If 1 guy from Alberta says it is not a nation, who cares, it is not his business. Pgsylv 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your references are biased because they represent the political views of the people that wrote them.  What the intellectuals outside of Quebec think is just as important as the intellectuals inside Quebec think because simply claiming something is invalid if others do not accept it.  Andrew647 20:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Charles Taylor is a Federalist ! WHAT THE INTELLECTUALS OUTSIDE OF QUEBEC THINK ABOUT MY IDENTITY DOESN'T MATTER. What you write is pretty dangerous. You shall not decide who I am. Pgsylv 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't about your identity, this is about the identity of the region that your people live in along with other nations.  Andrew647 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, bad faith is not demonstrated here. If someone pushes POV (even if it is blatantly obvious) and really believes it is objectively true, it is not bad faith. Bad faith requires knowingly writing false information. --Soulscanner 06:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Pgsylv, if what you think is all that matters in identifying yourself as part of a nation, why do you care what intellectuals inside OR outside of Quebec think? CWPappas 06:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-internet resources 

message: Pardon me if this conversation is archived somewhere, but my discussions with linguists on the subject of the correct pronunciation lead to the «kebek» sound being the appropriate pronunciation in ENGLISH as well as French. The reason being that the qu sound has no reason to be whatsoever, as the original First Nation word was «kebek» and the only reason Quebecers spell with a «qu» is that k, although in the French alphabet, is not really used, as it's origins are NOT FRENCH. I really think that those other ugly pronunciations can be mentioned, but readers should be told what the proper pronunciation is.--Tallard 08:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I don't use it, pronouncing kʰwəˈbɛk with the qu sound is very common in Atlantic and Western Canada.  Kebek is the correct pronunciation in French, but there are several ways in English.  Andrew647 11:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm entirely aware of common use. The point I'd like to make is that linguists say it's not the correct pronunciation, in English. This should be noted in the article, so that people may know the right way...--Tallard 12:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I misinterpreted what you said before.  I have to start drinking more coffee.  I agree with you, the proper pronunciation should be highlighted.  Andrew647 13:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Well my prob is I don't have the resources on hand to make the correction and I was hoping an administrator would see this try to do something about it... I'm real new to this project and I'm not sure what other appropriate channels exist in this case, do you?--Tallard 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hold your horses, boys! As an anglophone who lived in Quebec for around 45 years I never heard another Quebec anglophone use the "kebek" pronunciation in an English conversation...always the kwabek version. Perhaps your linguists are talking about the how the kebek version is closer to the original First Nation pronunciation and not what is most commonly used by the resident anglophone population. What does K or QU have to do with anything? They have the same value as phonemes and, besides, the First Nations didn't use an alphabet with either a k or a qu—they are European imports! CWPappas 08:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I know, same as when they said the earth was round ;) What is common use and what is appropriate use are different concepts. Had the letter K been a regular part of the French language, the French would have spelled KEBEK and Wolfe's followers would have said kebek. The Qu is for the benefit of French language only and should not have inched it's way into the English pronunciation. But it's like I said, I am out of province right now and don't have access to the proper resources for this topic, so I can't do anything about this anyway... I'm hoping for a proper linguist to pick it up... :)--Tallard 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I just don't understand how a linguist speaking about the pronunciation in English can say that the anglophone residents of Quebec can be wrong and a pronunciation used by non-anglophones and non-Quebecker anglophones is correct. Which linguist did you hear this from? Do you have a source? I'm really surprised. I'd like to check what these linguists wrote and drop them a line. CWPappas 05:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The linguists and translators I worked with years ago in Montreal at an Int'l translation firm. Just think of it this way, had the French spelled it kebek, would you be saying kweebec, kuubec today, NO. So the common English pronunciation is erroneously mimicking the French alphabet instead of the French phonetics. That's the reasoning. But as I mentioned, I personally don't know the online linguistics resources, don't have access to good sources here in Whitehorse, and haven't been in touch with that company since 1999, so I'm waiting patiently and hopefully for a proper linguist to come around and discuss this. oh and just for precision, I AM a Québécois anglophone, doesn't that just kick! :) --Tallard 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read any dictionary.  Dictionaries document how the language is used, they do not prescribe, which is why they identify all common pronounciations, the opinions of unnamed translators and linguists nowithstanding.  --Soulscanner 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you cannot apply one language's phonology to a word's usage in another language. For example, the word "Paris"...it is a French word pronounced par-ee but in English the proper pronunciation is pa-ris. Same thing with Saigon... the people living in Saigon pronounce it Shai-gon. In Greek, Greece is prounounced ellas but in Engish there is an enirely different word...the "new" word, or pronunciation, is not incorrect in the adopting language even if the pronunciation in the original language is possible within the adopting language's phonology. CWPappas 06:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paree is not the issue here, I'm not aware of the issues at hand there. I am aware of the Québec and Brussels issues... the fact is the linguists I knew 7 years ago said the proper way was to forget the u influence. The name Brussels in French had the reverse scenario, Bruxelles ended up being spelled with an X although the proper pronunciation was SS, it is simply a written French alphabet issue. CALL to PROPER LINGUISTS PLEASE :)--Tallard 09:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The word "Paris" may not be the issue here but it is the same principle...when a word in one language is adopted into another, the adopting language's own phonology dictates the proper pronunciation in that language, not the pronunciation in the original tongue. CWPappas 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of Quebec 

message: Dear Soulscanner, this one's entirely for you. You state in the mediation subsection that those asking that nation be treated on an equal footing with province are «pushing a POV» and that is proven. You are wrong. Contributers asking for equal footing are stating facts, but those pushing different footing are pushing their POV, but contrary to your opinion, that statement is not verifiable, because that would require a publication regarding our very conversation!!!! Maybe in 5 years...
For your perusal, this is Wikipedia's first definition of Nation
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
*Nation is an ethical and philosophical doctrine and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. Members of a "nation" share a common identity, and usually a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. A nation extends across generations, and includes the dead as full members. Past events are framed in this context; for example; by referring to "our soldiers" in conflicts which took place hundreds of years ago. More vaguely, nations are assumed to include future generations.
*A nation is not a state, and while traditionally monocultural, it may also be multicultural in its self-definition. The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.
*Almost all nations are associated with a specific territory, the national homeland. Some live in a historical diaspora, that is, mainly outside the national homeland. A state which explicitly identifies as the homeland of a particular nation is a nation-state, and most modern states fall into this category, although there may be violent disputes about their legitimacy. Where territory is disputed between nations, the claims may be based on which nation lived there first. Especially in areas of historical European settlement (1500-1950), the term "First Nations" is used by groups which share an aboriginal culture, and seek official recognition or autonomy.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This very essence of Quebec. According to Wikipedia, Quebec is a Nation. And frankly we don't even really require Harper's statement to state that fact because Wikipedia's own definition of Nation does not require «international approval».--Tallard 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tallard, Soulscanner is not criticizing editors who push for an equal footing of nation and province: Soulscanner said that "'Quebec is a nation' is a contentious statement that depends on one's ideological and political point of view."  This means that each editor's opinion on the subject is their point of view and that intellectuals, as well as us editors, cannot come to a consensus.  This is true.  The points of view that are presented by each editor must be referenced, which most of us have done.  Soulscanner is not judging anyone's opinion, nor is he presenting an opinion him/herself.  Soulscanner is stating facts, not points of view.  Please read carefully.  Andrew647 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying «Quebec is a nation» is exactly in line with Wikipedia's definition, it's only contentious to the few who refuse to accept the facts. Unless you wish to rewrite Nation...If you disagree with Wikipedia, then that's a POV--Tallard 17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is contentious because there are facts arguing against it.  I haven't said that I disagree with Wikipedia; however, as stated below, referencing wiki to wiki is not appropriate.  Another fact is that I could rewrite nation to find a loophole so that Quebec is excluded from the status, but that would be inappropriate and against my values.  Andrew647 22:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insisting that [[Nation]] have equal footing is '''NOT''' a POV 

message: Well now that the first paragraph is dealt with, we can move on to other ones.
1. «La belle province» is a cheesy nickname used by very few people. It could indeed be in a nickname subsection but certainly not as one of Quebec's fundamental attributes... Someone previously brought up  that I had insufficient proof for this. However I feel the burden of proof was on whomever put the line in there in the first place. It has no business this close to the lead.
2. The bordering people and provinces/states. To say that NB borders Quebec to the East is technically false. Indeed, «most» of NB is «somewhere» East of Quebec, and only a couple of miles actually «border» in an East-West way. Most of the border between NB and Quebec is a North-South border. Technically we should say East of Quebec is Labrador and SALT WATER, to the SE is NB & Maine, and on the South border is USA(NY, VT, NH). We may be able to get skirt this issue by not using the word «borders». I'm from the Gaspésie, 20 743 km² (half the area of Switzerland), too large to be considered a pimple of geography LOL, NB has always been my south border :)--Tallard 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to ask everyone's opinions on each and every subject within the article.  If you feel that saying NB is to the East can be said better, go ahead and make the changes.  We've had discussion about La Belle Province, and I believe that as a motto/statement of notoriety, it should be mentioned;however, it may not be affectionately known as, so the present format may be reworded.  As far as I can tell, the only significant debate was regarding the usage of the word nation.  Therefore, make any changes you feel should be done, and if you feel others might not agree, leave a note saying what you have done.  If there is a disagreement, it can be changed back again.  Andrew647 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd paragraph (so large and reads badly) 

message: Very little reference is maid to the Referendum of 1995.  This event had a great deal of impact on the private sector of Quebec and effected the jobs and products produced by the province.  It is my opinion that it should be e mentioned in a seperate section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.199.117 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec Referendum 

message: I have to raise another issue (sorry): the wording of the text implies that there has been some kind of official national status conferred on the Quebecois, when this is not the case. There was a motion in the House of Commons, and it was agreed upon by the majority of members, but this does not create any law or even real national status for the Quebecois.  Even declaring "themselves" (whomever "they" may be) does nothing to create anything officially recognised. So, though what I've since done may not be the ideal solution, the sentence had best somehow make this clear. --G2bambino (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this brings up a good point. Even though some may use "nation" as in "country", Quebec is not recognized as independent by any country in the world. Even Canada says that the Quebeois form a nation (in the social form) within a united Canada. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Quebec isn't recognised as independent; but nor is it recognised as a nation by "Canada." The House of Commons, and perhaps the National Assembly of Quebec - some years ago - define "les Quebecois" as a "nation." --G2bambino (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read the introduction. It doesn't say that "Quebec is recognized as a nation"; it says the "people of Quebec are recognized as a nation". There is a major distinction here. The only question remaining is whether "Quebecois" means the people of Québec. I say that's a safe enough assumption.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't allow assumptions. Does the resolution cover all Quebecers (not just Francophone Quebecers), is open to debate. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we do something productive then? How about we ask a lawyer, or maybe a professor in constitutional studies, or maybe email Harper and ask him. We don't get to interpret legislation, that is the courts job. Nor can we "assume" was Harper's motivation was behind the bill (for all we know, it was so the government presented it and not the Bloc, who were coming out with their own bill like the next day). The issue is open to debate, but definitive answers can only be given by people who have the right qualifications (a judge, lawyer, professor, Harper). Besides partisan politics and Quebecers ego, this legislation has absolutely no effect on anything. We mine as well debate how Canadian the Dali Llama is now that he has honourary citizenship. We are collectively wasting our time here. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't even legislation. --G2bambino (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not certain I understand the purpose of this discussion.  The motion is purely symbolic, as stated somewhere in the archives, and it does not confer any national benefits.  Although it is ambiguous as to who is included, Ramdrake has provided some intelligent points on who is included in a nation, regardless of territory.  Since that fact is backed by the wording of the motion (the people descriptive), what is the issue here?  Andrew647 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion pertains to a previous incarnation of the sentence in question. --G2bambino (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recognised by whom?

message: I've noticed several areas in the article calling Montreal the francophone capital of North America, and the cultural capital of Quebec.  I would argue against that, but I cannot back up my argument with anything other than discussion with my Quebecois friends.  I would call Montreal a multicultural centre (of Quebec or Canada), but Quebec City is the true cultural capital of Quebec (to Quebecois at least, I'm not certain how English Quebecers feel).  It's somewhat a rant, but that's the information I get from discussion.  Andrew647 06:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no slight intended to my friends in Quebec City, but Montreal is a larger cultural capital than the "Old Capital". Yes, Montreal is a multicultural centre, but it remains very much a francophone city, and a cultural pole for Quebec, Canada and indeed all of North America (not saying it is the cultural pole of North America, just one of them). So, while Quebec may indeed be more typical of the Quebecois culture specifically, I'd say that doesn't prevent Montreal from being the francophone capital of Norht America. This from a French-speaking Quebecois, but hey, that's just my opinion. Or, laet me make an analogy: Paris is today very much a cosmopolitan city, but would you say that because of it, it's not the francophone capital of Europe? I'd say that wouldn't make much sense.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no question that a majority of Quebecois would tell you that Quebec City is indeed the francophone capital of Quebec. Larger does not necessarily mean better or stronger, and you can say that Montreal is the most diverse city in Quebec, and the largest, but as far as the cultural and linguistic capital, Quebec City shall never lose that distinction. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never say never, but your point is well taken. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, well let me preface it- it will never lose it unless Quebec is overrun by a horde of invaders, is swept under by a natural disaster, or ceases to exist. :) Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montreal 

message: Why you made by linguistic racism ?? The only official language in Québec is French ! 
In effect the Quebec speaks French, furthermore as others provinces Canada and Alberta speaks English ainci that of other one provinces of the Canada! What makes that the Canada is a bilingual country (French, English).
Lipton1995 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the topic right above this for the compromise. Please just don't change thing unilaterally here. We try to operate this page on at least some consensus (and lots of compromise). It works a lot better than just pushing your version over other's. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You said it, not us. English can be used, which makes it a de facto quasi-official or coequal language. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certain election materials are distributed in Aboriginal languages. If you don't recognize that there's an issue of where to draw the line, then we might as well include that in the infobox too. Joeldl (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  French (the only official language in Québec) 

message: May I please ask User:ArmchairVexillologistDon to please provide citations that the "official" name of the province is "Province of Quebec" as opposed to just "Quebec"? If such is indeed the case, all the articles fr every province in Canada should also be changed accordingly. However, for starters, I've put up a "citation needed" tag so that he can provide the appropriate, authoritative references. Failing that, we should just revert to "Quebec", IMHO.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec or "Province of Quebec"? 

message: So that means war ! , just kidding , you convinced, me you will no see this text again. Thanks for explaining --Alex 8194 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ) I took your lesd and linked at the top to the well-written article about Quebec French and relegated the link to the faulty poorly-written article about demolinguistics to the bottom
--Paulalexdij (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the accent 

message: There are several things about Quebec more significant than the symbolic motion referred to in lead
* French-speaking majority
* Seccessionist movement
* Civil Law
* Official language
* Laws disallowing yellow margarine
This tag will not go until someone can show that the Quebecois nation motion is a more significant fact in Quebec than any of these.  --Soulscanner (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The French language and the secessionist movement are already mentioned in the lead and have been for a while.  I think most users will find it self-evedent that national identity is more important to an academic view of Quebec than their margarine laws.  That only leaves the civil law, and I agree that it should be mentioned.  I'll add it and take down the tag.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put the tag back. I'm afraid I was somewhat unclear about my point. Referring to the Quebecois nation motion in the lead sentence implies that it is more consequential than, say, the [{Quiet revolution]], the 1980 and 1995 referenda, the Clarity Act, etc., which appear later in the lead. This puts an undue emphasis on it. In proper context, it belongs in the paragraph on the the Question nationale. It pushes POV in the first sentence. It is unusual to put politically contentious issues in the lead sentence. It invites vandalism and edit wars from those more interested in political debates than writing good articles.  --Soulscanner (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Secondly, mention of the of meaning "Quebecois nation" cannot be mentioned as an absolute fact, like the fact that Quebec is a province or that the majority of Quebecers are francophone. The meaning of  "Quebecois nation" is a very contentious subject, and some significant public figures in Canada even deny that it exists. I'm not here to argue one way or another on that subject; I'm pointing out that you need to mention those viewpoints (even briefly) if the topic is to be mentioned.  A statement like "Quebec has a strong nationalist movement that considers Quebec a nation within Canada." That is a fact nobody can deny, even if you disagree with Quebec nationalists. It gets to the point of Quebec nationalism without getting into awkward issues of who is Quebecois, what's meant by "nation", etc.     --Soulscanner (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Speaking of awkward, the word homeland is unfortunate too. It  conjures up images of Black South African townships during the Apartheid era that Quebec doesn't deserve. The words foyer and patrie just do not translate well to English. I think the above statement would also work around that awkwardness. --Soulscanner (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to have the 'Quebecois nation motion' removed from the lead months ago, but gave up. Good luck, Soulscanner. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Arctic Gnome, you removed the nation motion, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in lead 

message: Hi all. I'm not sure what the rationale is behind collapsing this section into the lead. I'm not opposed to this, its just that most feastured articles on contries/provinces/cities feature such a section. See the Canada Australia article for good models here.  I also think that this makes the lead too long. I also think the picture  of Samuel de Champlain, who is responsible for the name, made the article more attractive. Please discuss this change here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 10:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Etymology and Territorial Expansion 

message: The english term for "Québecois" is: Quebecker
Well, not for Soulscanner !! And his 1980's references AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
03:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A hint 

message: I have reduced the rating of this article from A to B. The simple reason is that it isn't even a good article. The bigger reason however, is that this article is far from A quality. We need more sources for 1, ALOT more sources. Considering the size of it, I consider 34 footnotes to be very pitful, especialy since alot of the are not even in proper format. Secondly, this article needs some re-writing to expand some sections, cut some cruft, and improve the overall prose. May I suggest following the aformentioned points, nominating it for GA status, and going through a peer review process before even thinking that this article is close to A quality. -- Reaper  X 03:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what shall we do to bring this article back where it was? I could go hunt sources since I'm the best providing informations than doing some major edits. Pieuvre (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the thing it, it never 'should have been' an A-class. I can't be too specific, I haven't given the article a detailed analysis yet. May I suggest looking at good article criteria. -- Reaper  X 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I wasn't answering to you, but asking to the editors here. We'll try to work on it. Thanks. ;) Pieuvre (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I started cleaning up the mess a while ago. The sections in the Canada page would be good to use for Quebec. I used this model to cleanup Etymology and Geography sections. The History section needs to be condensed ... vandals amd POV pushers love history, it seems. --soulscanner (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Soon, I'll start hunting up the sources and add them in. That's the best I could do - providing the information. I prefer to leave the editing to someone else. Pieuvre (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I consider 34 footnotes to be very pitfulI totally agree with this. The history section is just ridiculous as it is. Sadly, I have to salute the fact that this article was downgraded. Luc Boudreau  —Preceding comment was added at 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating and GA