Talk:Parti Québécois

message: (beginning of paragraph under History)  Critics, both francophone and anglophone, have however criticized Bill 101 for restraining citizens' linguistic school choice, as if forbids immigrants and Quebeckers of French descent from attending English-language school.
: Was 'as if forbids' supposed to be 'as it forbids' or 'as if it forbids'?  Either could easily have an almost invisible typo resulting in the current language, but the two have very different meanings. Scott 20:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be 'as it forbids' or 'as if it forbids'? 

message: I'm not quite sure as to what the PQ's campaign slogan is in the current election. I put OUI, because that is what's at the bottom of all of their campaign signs. However, at the same time, their website (as well as the posters themselves) seem to suggest that their slogan is Reconstruisons _________ (Notre Région/Un Québec en Sante/Un Québec Plus Instruit/Un Québec Plus Vert).
Could someone shed some light on which of these is their actual slogan for this election? Or is a mixture of the two?
SimFan10076 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I just found out, according to Radio-Canada, the slogan is actually «Reconstruisons notre Québec» SimFan10076 05:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Campaign Slogan? 

message: "As the letter Q is relatively rarely used on an everyday basis..."
This may be true in English, but not in French. "Qui," "quoi," "quand," and "quel" are the French words for "who," "what," "when," and "which." 
JohnnyB 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Funny. I thought this was the english wiki... --Dez26 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the text said the Q logo is distinctive because the letter isn't used in a regular basis. That isn't true in French. JohnnyB 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's too late to answer, but to clear up. The party's official name in French remains the same in English. No one speaks of "Quebecker Party" in English, only the "Parti Québécois". Pieuvre 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: Where is such a section? Why isn't it in this article? It would seem the most relevant place.  I hope someone can lead me to a Wikipedia link on that. Toddsschneider 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Party Policy 

message: :Image:Logo Parti Québécois.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Logo Parti Québécois.svg

message: The introduction says that the party supports Quebec separation and "annihilation" of Canada. That doesn't sound right and looks like some kind of subliminal message. I guess Canada would not exist as it currently does, but I think annihilation is a little strong, and is being used purposefully here to represent a POV. Just wanted to hear comments before trying to edit it.  Paxuniv (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annihilation  of Canada?

message: The party was re-elected in the 1981 election, but in November 1984 it experienced the most severe internal crisis of its existence. The incident resulted in the resignation of Premier René Lévesque. In September 1985, the party leadership election chose Pierre Marc Johnson as his successor.
What kind of crisis was it? I think that it's not properly explained in the article. J-C V (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal crisis in 1984

message: The section on party policy in this article is very bad. Look at articles about other political parties and you'll see that 'party policy' deals with (surprise surprise) the main policies of that party. Here, 80% talks about one single bill that never was passed. It can be mentioned, of course, but it's not the only policy of the party. The reactions to it are irrelevant for the section and I suggest they be removed. 'Party policy' should give an overview of the positions of the party and its major political aims, not go into a long discussion about what newspaper columnists elsewhere think about one detail of those aims. JdeJ (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party policy 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Qc-pq-1968.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: This is a very minor grammatical issue but I was reverted earlier for deleting the article "the" from "... legacy of the PQ is the..." I am a little puzzled by the reversion because my edit appears to be consistent with English news media (e.g., ) and grammar. With few exceptions, "the" is usually used when referring to generic nouns (e.g., cat, animal, etc) or nouns preceded by adjectives (big cat, large animal) but not to names (e.g., Canada, Toronto, Parti Québécois). Thus, the excessive use of "the" in this WP article is peculiar, especially to readers of English. It would be as strange as referring to someone as "leader of the Canada" instead of "leader of Canada" or to an object as being "a property of the Wikipedia" instead of "a property of Wikipedia." danielkueh (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of proper nouns that use "the" in English (especially when the name contains an adjective), such as the United Kingdom, the CBC, the Mayflower, or the Republican Party. In fact, the references that you, yourself, cited use "the PQ" or "the Parti Quebecois" three times each. The only exceptions are in the headlines (see Headlinese) and when "PQ" was being used as an adjective (as in "another PQ government").  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Arctic.gnome, I agree that "the" is sometimes used when referring to certain proper nouns. I'm not arguing for a wholesale removal of "the" from this article. However, I do think it should be used more selectively. In this instance, is it really necessary to use "the" after a preposition such as "of," especially with respect to origin (e.g., leader of PQ)? The two references clearly do not use "the" to indicate origin. There are other examples (non-headline) as well  danielkueh (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not using "the" in that case sounds very odd to me. The only times I can think of hearing that usage (outside of headlines) is by someone who was just learning English. On Google, the phrase "leader of the Parti Quebecois" gets about 394k hits, whereas "leader of Parti Quebecois" gets about 11k. The difference is even bigger with other parties: "leader of the Liberal Party" gets 8.6M whereas "leader of Liberal Party" gets 41k (most of which look like headlines). For the Republican Party the difference is 10M versus 29k; for the Labour Party it's 8.2M versus 56k. Using "the" before "of" looks like it's literally hundreds of times more common. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny that you say that (learners of English omitting "the"). From my experience, it seems to be the opposite. Anyway, I used Google to compare search results between "leader of PQ" and "leader of the PQ." The numbers appear to be on the side of "the PQ". So I concede the point. Thanks for humoring me. :) danielkueh (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is funny, and it's interesting that there are some publications that write it your way. I wonder if there is some regional or contextual differences that I'm not seeing.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd and redundant use of the definite article "The" 

message: "The conservative and ultramontane political clique of Duplessis inherited power from the reactionary clique which collaborated with the imperialist and anti-catholic businessmen who established a British Federal Dominion in Canada in 1867."
What a load of Orwellian historical revisionism and flat-out nonsense! The French Canadian leaders, both political and religious, wanted Confederation, as did the Maritimes; they insisted on it. And who were these people? They were largely homogeneous French Canadians, and Irish-Scottish "British" roots established here for generations and born here, entitled to self-government and cultural and political self-preservation.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee, at pages 137-139 in Hansard will tell you the ethnicity of the Founding Canadians; read that and tell us they are not entitled to self-government on their own soil, on the federal principle. We know the French Canadians are almost homogeneous in Lower Canada (to become Quebec); now, Statesman McGee, speaking of the ethnicity of the Maritime Founding Colonies to be Joined in Confederation in Hansard at p. 138:
“I may observe, however, that this population is almost universally a native population of three or four or more generations.  In New Brunswick, at the most there is about twelve per cent, of an immigrant people;  in Nova Scotia, about eight;  in the two islands [Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland], very much less.  In the eye of the law we admit no disparity between natives and immigrants in this country; but it is to be considered that where men are born in the presence of the graves of their fathers, for even a few generations, the influence of that fact is great in enhancing their attachment to that soil.„
Now, as to the generosity of the majority of the statesmen who founded Canada, McGee again, p. 137:
"It will be observed Governor GORDON speaks of four counties in the north of New Brunswick which still bear a marked French character.  Well, gentlemen of French origin, we propose to restore these long-lost compatriots to your protection:  in the Federal Union, which will recognize equally both languages, they will naturally look to you;  their petitions will come to you, and their representatives will naturally be found allied with you.  Suppose those four New Brunswick counties are influenced by the French vote, and two in Nova Scotia, and one in Newfoundland, you will, should you need them, have them as sure allies to your own compact body, to aid your legitimate influence in the Federal councils.  (Cheers.)„
In that passage, we see that the Founding Fathers planned a way to reunite the French Canadians across the Colonies by offering to the future Quebec the opportunity to represent the political demands of French Canadian minorities in the other provinces, at the federal level. They are offering to the French Canadians a path to reconstitute New France at the federal level. These are decent, good men who care for their Catholic, French Canadian neighbors.  
You can look it up yourself in the Google copy of the Debates.  Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, Legislative Assembly, Thursday, February 9, 1865, Pages 137-8 / Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, 3rd Session, 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada. Quebec: Hunter, Rose & Co., Parliamentary Printers. 1,050 pages.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.231.71 (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "imperialist anti-catholic businessmen" ?

message: I am shocked to realize 2 main differences between the English and the francophone versions of the Parti Québécois.
In the anglophone version the title "Collpase and temporary loss of party statute" suggests a kind of personal pleasure, while the francophone one which is way more neutral talks about the post 2nd referendum era and calls it "weakening".
But the most shocking bias of the anglophone version is the indirect idea that the party would have ties with the far-right because of some isolated members while the party is clearly social-democrat.
In the francophone version, there is absolutely no allusion to any links with the far-right unlike on the English version.
Could we reduce the partiality gap between both versions?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.173.183.250 (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete bias between the anglo and the franco version 

message: I have removed the tie with extreme right section.  That part was seriously biased and poorly supported with an attempt to link the extreme right with the party Quebecois using a dubious investigation from a news paper who had serious bias against the sovereignty movement. Post media news references must be used with extreme caution the are the equivalent of the British daily-mails.
The theory was supported only on the fact that some of the PQ supporters where also hard right supporters.
The link between the fact and the theory is simply none existant for the simple reason that you don't choose your supporters like an actor dont choose his fans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FA48:6D9F:E3E0:C4FC:B9C7:7450:1B72 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested ties with extreme right