Talk:Quebec sovereignty movement/Archive 1

message: I propose this: 
# We move the recently created Quebec Sovereignism to Quebec sovereignty movement. It deals with information on the movement, its position, its history (summary) etc.
# We make Quebec independence movement, Quebec sovereignty, etc. point to it. A lot of people will search for these I guess.
# We recreate History of the Quebec sovereignist movement as History of the Quebec sovereignty movement. This presents a detailed history of the movement.
# We recreate Sovereignty-Association as it was before. It deals with the concept of Sovereignty-Association as it was in the 1980s.
If you agree, add your name below. Thanks. -- Mathieugp 16:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the motion.  This sounds like a good plan.  Good article names and subdivision of the topics--Indefatigable 03:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving to [[Quebec sovereignty movement]] 

message: So, the same could be applicable to Quebec and Canada if Quebec would become a new country one day (in many many years to come, i guess).
*Proponents of Quebec sovereignty also suggest that their intention to maintain economic and political links with Canada would render the issue moot.
** Impossible – you can't have soverignty without control of your borders.
: Yet Canada and the US are sovereign and they have a free trade agreement. -- Mathieugp 02:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the US/Canada border is quite a specific case : within the European Union, for instance, borders between member-states can be passed without any control and there are no "check points", no border officers between these sovereign states (just like nowadays, between Quebec and Ontario : imagine that with a Quebec sovereign, things would just be the same on that point), there is just a sign mentioning that you enter a new State, for instance "BIENVENUE EN BELGIQUE" ("welcome in Belgium", in French) or "WILKOMMEN IN DEUTSCHLAND" ("Welcome in Germany", in German). Explanation for North Americans : the E.U. is a free Union of Sovereign countries, it means that "Sovereignty-partnership" proposed by Quebec sovereignists is just like the one already existing in Europe, a continent which is always taken as a "reference" by Canadian federalists... Cebueq01 09:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check-points and officers at border ? Not in the European Union between sovereign member-states ! 

message: Some paragraphs introduced recently by JillandJack are biaised, because they give an exagerated importance on a theory (if Quebec becomes an independent state, its borders would be those of 1867) which is contested by many experts and is illegal under international law.
In a study requested by Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa in 1991, Henri Dorion, a geographer and expert on the issue of international borders, had studied the question of the territorial integrity of a sovereign Quebec. In the introduction, it is clearly stated that "The theory of the uti possidetis, under the terms of which the change of statute of a territory does not have impact on its delimitation, although questioned by some, enjoys indeed an unambiguous international recognition" (our translation). Under the terms of international law, the land borders of an independent Quebec would be the same as they are as a canadian province (even the Labrador border is likely to remain as it is). However, the sea borders between Quebec and Canada would have to be defined. The whole study, titled Les frontières du Québec: l'État de la question, is available on the Quebec Government website.
For this reason, the paragraph beginning by the phrase "The boundaries of the Province of Quebec have been altered several times since Confederation...", and the following ones, should be removed, and it should be added that under international law, the most plausible theory is that the land territory of a sovereign Quebec would be the same as it is as a province, so the whole section would be NPOV.
--Mattcliche 03:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
:: There is something even better on the subject of Quebec's territorial integrity right here:
:: http://www.uni.ca/territoire-f.html
:: The original, in PDF format, directly from the Quebec government:
:: http://www.saic.gouv.qc.ca/publications/territoire-f.pdf
:: -- Mathieugp 04:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "uni.ca" is a Canadian patriotic website and thus, carries a strong bias on the current subject. It can't be considered a reliable/neutral source because of its activist content. Hugo Dufort 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-sovereignty territory: POV edit introduced by [[User:JillandJack|JillandJack]] 

message: I was asked by user Curps to comment the edit dispute over various articles related to Quebec's "evil separatists". The said edit dispute involves user JillandJack and various other users. User JillandJack's recent contributions can be looked up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=JillandJack
As one can verify on this page, various articles were slightly modified by JillandJack to turn each instance of the word "Quebec" to "Province of Quebec, Canada" or something close. In addition, a small subset of the articles we are concerned with were heavily modified, such as Quebec sovereignty movement, Quiet Revolution, FLQ, Lower Canada Rebellion etc.
I have created some and contributed to most of the articles touched by JillandJack. Most of these articles suffer from not being finished. They contain a lot of valid informations, but there are important points missing and a lot of statements are vague, out of place or simply irrelevant. Worst, often there are no sources at all or the sources are only to be found in French. There are a lot of things wrong with most of the articles dealing with the politics, history, and culture of Canada and Quebec and Wikipedia is demonstrating quite eloquently how much these topics are problematic in this part of the world. (But once could ask, "Is it really better elsewhere?" :-)
In any case, regarding JillandJack's modifications, I personnally decided to not revert any of them because his/her behavious with other users (who had also noticed the said modifications) strongly suggested that it was a waste of time. Rather, I made use of all the patience I have to actually read all of his/her modifications and I tried to point out what I believed was innaccurate in them (see above). I think that this how we are supposed to go about resolving these kinds of problems on Wikipedia.
JillandJack: I believe that most of what you added to Quebec sovereignty movement, Quiet Revolution, FLQ, Lower Canada Rebellion and others is severely biased and that virtually every single one of your assertions is not backed by facts. Can you prove me wrong? Are you willing to do the work of finding relevant sources for all the stuff you have added? If you are, and if you present valid data, all of us who do not think your recent contributions present neutral and accurate information will have to admit they are wrong. The ball is in your camp...
-- Mathieugp 04:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of revert wars 

message: The edit of User:Curps of "02:50, 17 Feb 2005 Curps (separatism is used only by opponents of sovereignty; "independentism" is not used at all) " is incompatible with the statistical realities gathered by us on that same date (February 17) as detailed below. Given the overwhelming numbers, we are changing the name of this article to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions "to give priority to what the majority of English speakers most easily recognize." Note too, that the term Quebec separatists or Quebec separation and Quebec separation movement is always the first or second choice wheras in every single instance, the term sovereignists / sovereignty is the least used by as much as a 10:1 margin.
Google: (web)
* Quebec sovereignists: 5,600
* Quebec separatists: 34,700
* Quebec sovereignty: 177,000
* Quebec separation: 490,000
* Quebec independence: 734,000
* Quebec sovereignty movement 75,000
* Quebec separation movement: 83,900
* Quebec independence movement: 149,000
Google: (pages from Canada)
* Quebec sovereignists: 2,100
* Quebec separatists: 16,100
* Quebec sovereignty: 81,200
* Quebec independence 178,000
* Quebec separation: 217,000
* Quebec sovereignty movement 26,300
* Quebec separation movement: 27,700
* Quebec independence movement: 36,800
MSN: (web)
* Quebec sovereignists: 1,054
* Quebec separatists: 17,750
* Quebec sovereignty: 88,942 
* Quebec separation: 206,319
* Quebec sovereignty movement 38,042
* Quebec separation movement: 46,163
* Quebec independence movement: 150,371
Yahoo: (web)
* Quebec sovereignists: 1,540
* Quebec separatists: 26,200
* Quebec sovereignty: 104,000
* Quebec separation: 200,000
* Quebec sovereignty movement 47,100
* Quebec separation movement: 49,500
* Quebec independence movement: 86,500
Yahoo: (Canada)
* Quebec sovereignists: 1,220
* Quebec separatists: 13,000
* Quebec sovereignty: 41,100
* Quebec separation: 81,900
* Quebec sovereignty movement 14,200
* Quebec separation movement: 14,400
* Quebec independence movement: 17,900
JillandJack 23:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of article name

message: Is there any opposition to a) renaming this article back to 'Quebec sovereignty movement' (the actual name of the movement) and b) reverting to a past version just before JillandJack started the vadalism? -- Mathieugp 16:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: a) Yes, the old name is more suitable (and commonly used). b) Strictly speaking it's not vandalism, just very NPOV editing. We should do a diff to see if any good edits are in there, possibly by third parties; these could be kept or added back in after a revert.  But certainly, an NPOV version will resemble the pre-JillandJack version much more than the current version. -- Curps 19:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree on both counts. However, I do caution that a new username (Oirvine) reinserted JillandJack's edits almost verbatim after the post-ban revisions that Curps and I did yesterday. DW/Angelique/Jill/etc. may in fact have more usernames lurking in the system to get around a ban. I'm seriously considering requesting protection; I'd simply protect it myself, but it's against Wikipedia guidelines to protect a page that you've personally been involved in editing. Bearcat 22:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think page protection is necessary.  This is just one person making NPOV edits, and there are a number of us who object to his edits, so the 3RR rule will keep him in check.  We just have to keep an eye on the page; I have added it to my watchlist. If he tries to use sockpuppets, he will give himself away by his style, especially personal attacks and his pattern of editing. -- Curps 23:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Ansering to Curps first edit) Yes, we can look for possible good edits inserted by other people in between JillandJack's edits. -- Mathieugp 01:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting to pre-JillandJack vandalism 

message: Our favorite banned user partly rewrote the first paragraph of this article in a POV manner and also added:
"The Supreme Court of Canada, through its ruling on the Secession of Quebec declared this assertion as unconstitutional and invalid in accordance with both Canadian law and the criteria required under international law as adhered to by the United Nations. "
First of all, there is no "ruling" on the secession of Quebec by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is however an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on three very biased political questions related to the secession of Quebec. Nothing in this opinion ever invalidated the assertion that Quebecers, as a people, have a right to self-determination. None of the three questions had anything to do with it. -- Mathieugp 18:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no implication for "Quebec people", since that is not a legal term, but for the Government of Quebec, the statement is exactly correct.  And even separatists consider secession in terms of (unpartitioned) territory not people.  Peter Grey 20:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JillandJack / A. Lafontaine 

message: I think the recent edits by anonymous user 69.123.66.156 (who is probably not a newbie for he/she knows how to use the wiki syntax too well) force us to expand on the fundamental thesis of the sovereignty movement on questions of nationalism, language and culture, federal-provincial relations etc.
I believe the English version of this article is likely to be permenantly subject to revert wars if we neglet to go in as much detail as possible on the philosophical foundations of this political movement. 
I believe the anonymous user deserves answers to his questions. Why do sovereigntists consider that Canada cannot be reformed? I guess I can point him/her to this document for at start:
Québec's historical position on the federal spending power 1944-1998
The rest of the official documentation from the Quebec government is here:
http://www.saic.gouv.qc.ca/institutionnelles_constitutionnelles/documents_institutionnels_constitutionnels_en.htm
The anonymous user also wonders how come Quebec sovereigntists believe that the French language and Quebec's culture can only be safeguarded if Quebec becomes independent. Legitimate question again. The answer is also very difficult to summarize in one paragraph. One first has to be fully aware of the linguistic situation. A complete understanding of the language statistics, the sociological reality of assimilation, the competition between Quebec's territorial language policy and Canada's coast-to-coast institutional bilingualism policy, the issue around the quality of Quebec francophones' spoken language, the cultural isolation etc. are all pre-requisites to understand the point of view of the sovereigntists.
There is a lot of work to do, but the challenge is interesting. -- Mathieugp 02:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. However, you have to realize that an article named "Quebec sovereignty movement" is not going to be a place where you see one argument by the separatists and the rebuttal by the "federalists". The whole point of neutrality policy is that there should be NO particular viewpoint. The arguments of the sovereigntists will simply be presented as they are, with no editorializing, leaving the readers to decide if it make sense to them or not. That being said, this article should, in a neutral manner, make it clear that there are opposing views and arguments, and that one can learn about these in other relevant articles such as maybe the currently embryonic and badly named "Quebec federalist ideology". -- Mathieugp 14:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to expand 

message: On the subject of assimilation, here is the reality of assimilation of francophones in Canada globally, again from professor Charles Castonguay : http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=50628
-- Mathieugp 03:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standing joint committee on Official Languages in Ottawa (1998) 

message: The article states that the U.S., The U.K. and Poland suport a strong canadian federation, but why these countries? in particular why Poland? Is there some Historical links or should it be removed? Ken 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be removed, or at least citations should be added. I know that Bill Clinton was in favor of a "strong and united Canada" - see http://www.cbc.ca/breakingpoint/chapter8_5.shtml . But the Clinton administration isn't in power anymore, and I never heard anything about Poland or the UK opposing. MartinToupin 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you want to say that a country has a position regarding Quebec sovereignty, you need something more official than an opinion expressed by a former leader. If this is all the facts we have, then we should say "Bill Clinton once said he was in favor of a "strong and united Canada"", not "USA are against Quebec sovereignty". NotLoggedIn 67.69.13.58 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The UK is not in any sense the head of the Commonwealth of Nations.  The Queen has the title Head of the Commonwealth, but no country has special standing within that organization.  --thirty-seven 17:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries against Quebec Sovereignty. 

message: I removed this paragraph:  
:A large reason why the independance movement continues is that the Quebecois feel isolated in a country that essentially consists of two different peoples; the Quebecois and the English. Therefore, the Quebecois make little distinction between cultural differences across Canada (ex. Newfoundlanders, Acadiens). This is evident in the recently successful film Bon Cop Bad Cop. 
I removed this for several reasons: 
*It seems like original research.
*Stating as a fact that Canada is "a country that essentially consists of two different peoples" to explain why the independance movement continues is begging the question.  If we could find an example to cite (which should be easy) to show that separtists and/or other Canadians think of Canada this way, divided between English and French, it would certainly be appropriate to note this as a reason for an ongoing independance movement.
--thirty-seven 19:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  At the end of the 20th Century 

message: I don't presume to have solved all the problems with this part, and it needs sources for a lot of statements, but I have tried to clean it up and maintain the thrust of the content, even if I have toned down what I think were some excessively biased pro and anti-sovereignist slants.  I added a link to the Quebec bashing article.  The reference to Manitoba legislation restricting access to French language education in response to the sovereignty movement doesn't ring a bell, but I've left it alone (other than editing for grammar).  I presume the original author wasn't reaching back into the 19th century and the Manitoba Schools Question issue Corlyon 00:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rest of Canada

message: Removed:  "However this belief is questionable given that in other parts of North America, such as California, the Hispanic culture has been preserved and Spanish has become a semi-official language. appended by an anon user to the cultural aspect of the pro-sovereignty movement. To suggest that there are parallels between Francophones in Quebec/Canada and Hispanics in the United States is specious at best. The Spanish-speaking population of the United States is largely comprised of first or second-generation immigrants who emigrated to the United States in the 20th century, the Francophones in Canada are mainly descendants of the French who settled Canada in the 17th and 18th century, prior to the arrival of the Anglophones. Future generations of Hispanics will likely be absorbed and become largely indistinguishable from American Anglophones in the melting-pot of American culture. There is not a state in the United States in which the Spanish-speaking population represents about 90% of the total population, as French does in QC. Spanish is not  "semi-official" language of the United States. Vanillagorillas 07:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing this from the article.  It is editorializing and inappropriate for this article.  Whether or not the comments are a good argument are irrelevant to that.  --thirty-seven 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hispanics in the United States? 

message: Can someone care to explain how, in the spirit of staying neutral, can the criticism part of this article, primarly it's first paragraph, remain what it is.
I would also like to understand why Stephane Dion's letters are even mentionned if nothing of what they contain is even discussed.Vineon 04:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The section about the novel "Separation" is way too long. It is not normal that so much details are given about a minor fiction work written in 1976 that is only loosely related to the "real-life" Soverignty movement. Maybe it deserves a separate articles in Wikipedia. Hugo Dufort 10:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It should be cut down to a couple of sentences at most. I don't think the novel/movie is notable enough to deserve its own article.--Boffob 12:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec sovereignty movement in fiction