Jump to content

Talk:Poutine/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Poutine as a Quebecois dish

@Bearcat and EzekielT:

The consensus is to label poutine as a Quebecois dish.

Labeling poutine a Canadian dish is culturally appropriating Quebec culture. Quebec has its distinct culture. Quebec was even recognized as a distinct nation in 2006 by the Government of Canada: http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/39-1/house/sitting-87/journals#DOC--2543815.

No, Harper later elaborated that the motion's definition of Québécois relies on personal decisions to self-identify as Québécois, and therefore is a personal choice. Quebecois were the "nation" (in the "cultural" and "sociological" sence of the word "nation"). Harper also said "Do Quebeckers form an independent nation from Canada? The answer is no and it will always be no!". -- EzekielT Talk 17:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The same way haggis is identified as a Scottish dish, poutine has to be labelled as a Quebecois dish.

This is not about the politics of Quebec being in Canada or independent, it's about the cultural distinction of Quebec, which is consensually recognized.

This question has been analyzed in a peer-reviewed article published in 2016, which settles that poutine is a Quebecois dish: https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/cuizine/2016-v7-n2-cuizine02881/1038479ar/

Other articles have also been published on the topic which affirmed poutine as a Quebecois dish and rejected the Canadian label: http://lactualite.com/politique/2016/02/03/la-poutine-un-plat-pour-les-quebecois-de-sauce/ https://poutinepundit.wordpress.com/faq/ https://montreal.eater.com/2017/5/30/15713902/poutine-quebec-canada-cultural-appropriation-nicolas-fabien-ouellet Axolotlxl (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Firstly, "consensus" for Wikipedia purposes is a consensus of Wikipedians, not a consensus of people outside of Wikipedia.
    Secondly, Scotland is a country in its own right, not a province, so what we do for a Scottish topic is not relevant to the question of what we should do for a Québécois one — the United Kingdom is defined as a union of countries, not as a federation with provinces, so the fact that Scotland is part of the UK does not make it equivalent to a Canadian province or US state: it's still a country, just one that shares part of its national sovereignties with three other countries in a very different type of political union than Canada or the United States is structured under. So how we write about Scotland or Scottish topics is not relevant to how we should write about Québécois ones.
    Thirdly, Québécois culture is part of Canadian culture — it's true that there are cultural distinctions between Quebec and English Canada, but that does not make something that is Québécois somehow not Canadian, because "Canadian" does not just mean English Canadian.
    And fourthly, the introduction as written does directly state poutine's particular connection to Quebec. This is not a question of labelling it as Canadian or Québécois to the exclusion of the other, because the article isn't doing that — your only apparent issue appears to be with what words we do or don't use to phrase the fact of its connection to Quebec, which is not the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition, Québécois, First Nations, Black Canadians, Inuit, Indo-Canadians, etc. together form Canadian culture, even if they're quite distinct from each other. By saying "Quebec has its own culture, dinstinct from Canada." [sic], you're implying there is a mainstream "Canadian" culture exclusive from Quebec when there actually isn't. Québécois, Chinese Canadians, First Nations, Acadians, Black Canadians, Inuit, Métis, Indo-Canadians, Anglo Canadians, etc. all form subcultures making up the greater Canadian culture. -- EzekielT Talk 05:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

In fact, only 18.7% said of (and that's including mixed responses) English ancestry in the 2016 Census. And, let's not forget, there's also a large area in Canada that is neither English nor French speaking. Nunavut, the second largest territory in Canada by population, has an Inuktitut-speaking majority and contains the Inuit culture (just another subculture of Canadian culture).

And Québécois are Canadians, Quebec is a part of Canada, and the Québécois culture is a subculture of Canadian culture. As you can see on the Canadian culture page: "The culture of Canada is a term that embodies the artistic, culinary, literary, humour, musical, political and social elements that are representative of Canada and Canadians." (Canadians, as in all Canadians, including Quebecois). -- EzekielT Talk 17:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat and EzekielT:

Which is what I said about Scotland, so you ain't schooling me on anything I didn't already know and say. And again, Quebec culture is distinct from English Canadian culture, and nobody denied the fact — but it is not distinct from Canadian culture as a whole, but is part of Canadian culture as a whole. And the article already mentions Quebec right in the first sentence — what you're failing to provide is a reason why what you're proposing is in any substantive way different from what the article already says, a reason why saying that it's Québécois would somehow be different from saying that it's from Quebec. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Scotland is still recognized as a country, unlike Quebec. You believe the First Nations are less distinct than the Quebecois?? -- EzekielT Talk 17:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

No, Harper later elaborated that the motion's definition of Québécois relies on personal decisions to self-identify as Québécois, and therefore is a personal choice. Quebecois were the "nation" (in the "cultural" and "sociological" sence of the word "nation"). Harper also said "Do Quebeckers form an independent nation from Canada? The answer is no and it will always be no!". -- EzekielT Talk 17:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

And also, Quebecois are Canadians, there is no difference, and they are not mutually exclusive terms, like Bearcat said. -- EzekielT Talk 18:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Quebecois are no more distinct than the other ethnic groups of Canada. If the Quebecois are distinct and not part of Canadian culture, then all of the ethnic groups would be considered distinct and there would be no such thing as "Canadian culture", because Chinese Canadians, First Nations, Acadians, Black Canadians, Inuit, Métis, Indo-Canadians, Anglo Canadians, etc. are all even more distinct than the Quebecois are. -- EzekielT Talk 18:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, it's not helpful to get into arguments about which cultures are more or less distinct than which other cultures — they're all distinct aspects of Canadian culture, it's true, but they're all still part of overall Canadian culture and there's no point in debating which one wins the "most distinct" trophy. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of Acadians, Cajun food in the US is not labelled as "Americain" but as the Cajun Cuisine. First Nations identify themselves by their national identities (not as Canadian), they are, just like Quebecois, distinct culturally.

@Axolotlxl: So, basically, you believe there's no such thing as "Canadian"? What do you believe "Canadians" are? Just trying to see your opinion... -- EzekielT Talk 18:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • What I am bringing forward is the multinational aspect of the Canadian territory, and that in many ways (culturally being one) minority nations do not identify themselves as Canadian. Axolotlxl (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: Which minority nations? By the way, we're all still Canadians, whether any of you like it or not. If you have Canadian citizenship and live in Canada, you're Canadian. -- EzekielT Talk 19:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: And which ethnic group or culture do you keep calling "Canadian", then (you know, when you say Quebec has a "distinct" culture from Canada)? -- EzekielT Talk 20:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, culturally and sociologically distinct, means that even for Harper Quebecois cuisine is distinct, hence poutine as a Quebecois dish. People who identify as Quebecois have consensually expressed that poutine is a Quebecois dish, not as Canadian (as containted in the peer-review article).Axolotlxl (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, consensus for the purposes of Wikipedia content is a consensus of Wikipedians, not a consensus of Québécois. For one thing, all of the rest of Canada also gets a say in any establishment of any consensus around whether Québécois and Canadian are mutually exclusive labels or not — and for another, one peer-reviewed article is not in and of itself determinative of the consensus of all Québécois, but only of the opinions of the writer of that article. And anyway, you still haven't answered how "from Quebec", which the article already says right in the very first sentence, is somehow inadequate to communicate poutine's connection to Quebec. What's the difference in meaning between "Québécois" and "from Quebec"? Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The inadequate communication is to say that poutine is a Canadian dish, while it has been used to stigmatize Quebec culture, and while Quebec culture is distinct from Canada. It is misleading and inappropriate to label poutine as a Canadian dish. The peer-review article is not advancing an opinion, it is peer-reviewed material which means that other experts have been assessing the content. Axolotlxl (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Quebec culture is not distinct from Canadian culture: Quebec culture is part of Canadian culture. It's distinct from English Canadian culture, yes, but English Canadian culture is not the sum total of all Canadian culture. Quebec culture and Canadian culture are not different things: Canadian culture is a thing that includes English Canadian culture and Quebec culture and immigrant cultures and indigenous cultures. Again, the article says "from Quebec" right in its very first sentence, and you have yet to provide any credible reason why that somehow fails to communicate its particular connection to Quebec.
And incidentally, peer-review does not equal broad cultural consensus. It doesn't demonstrate that the article under review is correct, particularly in the humanities — it merely reviews whether there were obvious blatant flaws in the research process or not (e.g. "researcher manipulated the data", "researcher concludes the opposite of what their research actually shows", etc.), and does not inherently anoint the argument as Absolute Universal Truth. A peer-reviewed article can still be controversial, or even simply wrong. (For example, the utterly disproven claptrap about a purported link between vaccines and autism was first advanced in a peer-reviewed scientific paper.) Peer-review is not necessarily a question of agreeing with the conclusion — it's an evaluation of the process, not a decree that the paper's argument is necessarily confirmed as absolute truth. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Actually, Quebec cuisine is linked to in the lead: "Poutine (/puːˈtiːn/; Quebec French: [put͡sɪn] ⓘ) is a Canadian dish originating from the province of Quebec, originally made with French fries and cheese curds topped with a brown gravy.". -- EzekielT Talk 19:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Go with the sources....as Quebecois is meaningless to those outside Canada.
  • Andrew F. Smith (2012). Fast Food and Junk Food: An Encyclopedia of What We Love to Eat. ABC-CLIO. p. 574. ISBN 978-0-313-39393-8. poutine (French-Canadian for "mess") is a Canadian dish composed of french fries topped with cheese curds and brown ..
  • John Robert Colombo (2011). Fascinating Canada: A Book of Questions and Answers. Dundurn. p. 177. ISBN 978-1-4597-0028-4. Poutine is a French-Canadian dish, high in cholesterol, that ...
  • Jane Hughes (2013). The Adventurous Vegetarian: Around the World in 30 Meals. New Internationalist. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-78026-173-7. Poutine is a French Canadian culinary innovation.
--Moxy (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

My concern with calling it a "French-Canadian" dish is that it might be misinterpreted as a dish that was originally made by French immigrants to Canada. While many Quebecois have French ancestry, it is not correct to generalize Quebecois as "French-Canadians". Jith12 (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jith12: Also, some may actually misinterpret poutine as being created by French-Canadians (those with both Canadian and French citizenship). -- EzekielT Talk 21:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


This discussion is, to quote the immortal words of Fernand Lachance, une maudite poutine. @Axolotlxl, Bearcat, and EzekielT: Is there a formal proposal being made here? dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 21:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat and Dragfyre: Not really, we're just explaining to Axolotlxl that Quebec culture is not separate from Canadian culture, that Quebec culture is part of Canadian culture, and that Québécois and Canadian are not mutually exclusive, since all Quebecois are Canadians, and Quebec is a part of Canada. The current lead "Poutine is a Canadian dish originating from the province of Quebec, originally made with French fries and cheese curds topped with a brown gravy." is the one we believe we should keep. -- EzekielT Talk 21:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck: You were in the original discussion years back (about the same issue), what do you think about the current lead "Poutine is a Canadian dish originating from the province of Quebec, originally made with French fries and cheese curds topped with a brown gravy."? So far, me and User:Bearcat are the ones in support of keeping it that way. -- EzekielT Talk 22:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: Do you agree or disagree with us now? Do we need to explain further, or do you understand now that Quebecois culture is part of Canadian culture, just like the First Nations, Indo-Canadian, Acadian, Chinese Canadian, Métis, Black Canadian, Inuit, Anglo-Canadian, etc. cultures? -- EzekielT Talk 22:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat, Dragfyre, EzekielT, and Görlitz: Me and User:Walter Görlitz: disagree. The up-to-date and credible sources on the topic (already listed above) are for labelling poutine as a Quebecois dish, and against labelling poutine as a Canadian dish. According to these sources, here is the accurate way to describe poutine: Poutine is a Québécois dish originally made with French fries and cheese curds topped with a brown gravy. By the way, regarding EzekielT point of citizenship: Scottish have UK citizenship and passports, yet their haggis is consensually described as a Scottish dish (not a British one) because they are a distinct nation/culture. What is Scottish is not necessarily British, what is Quebecois is not necessarily Canadian. The 2017 debate on the particular topic of poutine has settled on the consensus that poutine should be labelled as a Quebecois dish, not as a Canadian one. Axolotlxl (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: Quebecois is Canadian! -- EzekielT Talk 22:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: You cannot compare Scotland, which is a country, to Quebec, which is a province, like Bearcat said. -- EzekielT Talk 22:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: The UK is a union of 4 countries. Canada is one country. There are no "countries" within Canada, there is just one country: Canada. Quebec is not a country, unlike Scotland. Quebec is part of Canada, and the Quebecois are Canadian. -- EzekielT Talk 22:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: Also, Quebec is equal to the status of Ontario and the other provinces. -- EzekielT Talk 22:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: Exactly which culture do you keep referring to as "Canadian" (you know, when you say Quebec has a "distinct" culture from Canada)? -- EzekielT Talk 22:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

One more time: the word "Canadian" most certainly does not mean "from all other parts of Canada except Quebec", such that something from Quebec is not Canadian — Canadian means "from any part of Canada including Quebec", so it is by definition impossible for something to be Québécois but not Canadian at the same time. There is no "consensus" that poutine is Québécois but somehow not Canadian — you have one academic paper which argues that calling it Canadian is cultural appropriation, and no evidence of any "consensus" around calling that an objective truth. For something that is Québécois to not be Canadian at the same time, you have to be defining "Canadian" in some very non-neutral way that doesn't correspond to the fact of what the word means. And anyway, in what weird alternate-reality universe has poutine ever been a symbol of anti-Québécois oppression? Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: This is published material. Not from one source, but from many. See Maude Poutine https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166321360. I stand from the point of view of a Quebecois. You are clearly emitting opinions here and have not informed yourself with the up-to-date references on the topic, nor have followed the debate in Quebec this summer. There is consensus on labelling poutine as Quebecois and that labelling poutine as a Canadian dish is problematic (read the references).Axolotlxl (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

So clearly your interpretation of "objective" is "agrees with my opinion" and your interpretation of "biased" is "disagrees with my opinion". What is your definition of what the word "Canadian" means, if Quebec is part of Canada yet somehow not part of "Canadian"? Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: Why did you keep removing the Canadian cuisine template and country = Canada from the infobox, anyways? In addition, you singled out Quebec from Canada, acting like Quebec is its own country, by editing the sentence to this: "Today, poutine is celebrated throughout Quebec. The dish has also gained popularity in Canada and the United States.": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poutine&diff=811609479&oldid=811609007. -- EzekielT Talk 23:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not understanding from this discussion why, if it's indeed the case, a food that originated in Quebec and is associated with Quebecois culture can't be categorized as such. Yes, Quebec is a province and region within Canada, but Canada is the world's second-largest country by landmass and Quebec is one of several identifiable regions and cultures within it (its official designation as a distinct culture is entirely irrelevant). Tourtiere is categorized as Quebec cuisine, for example. We don't categorize maque choux as "American", or salt cod as "Canadian", or pasty as "cuisine of the United Kingdom"; they're cajun, maritime, and Cornish. As far as categorization is concerned, nothing should be categorized as Canadian cuisine and Quebec cuisine; Canadian should be a parent category to Quebec (Quebec should not be a separate categorization tree). And if there's no template for Quebec cuisine (I don't know) then using the Canadian cuisine template is fine. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat, Axolotlxl, Ivanvector, Dbrodbeck, and Dragfyre: No, they are not distinct cuisines. Quebec cuisine is part of Canadian cuisine, as already stated. All cuisines created in Canada, even including Chinese Canadian cuisine, are part of Canadian cuisine. Also, poutine is popular across Canada, unlike USA's maque choux. -- EzekielT Talk 02:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't "popular across Canada", you seem to have based that on the existence of celebratory festivals in two cities in central Canada. East of Quebec we know what it is but it's hardly popular; I'm hard-pressed to think of a single restaurant near me that serves it at all (I'm in PEI, the potato province). Also I'm kind of amused that Toronto has its own cuisine page, being the multicultural patchwork that it is. (Poutine is popular there, I can attest.) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Like what User:Moxy said, "as Quebecois is meaningless to those outside Canada.". In fact, it may be even misleading, as people outside Canada who have no knowledge of Canada's political geography may be wrongly misled into thinking Quebec is its own country not part of Canada.

  • What is suggested here is that we should stop talking about a Quebecois culture. This is wrong in every imaginable way. This just adds to the argument that poutine should be labeled as Quebecois, not to negate the culture to which the dish actually belongs. If people don't know about Quebecois culture, labelling it as Canadian will just reinforce this ignorance by negating Quebec culture. Wikipedia is here to educate. Read the up-to-date references on the topic.Axolotlxl (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The consensus of poutine as a Québécois dish is what the up-to-date references have established. Also, I suggest that instead of using country and region in the info box, the term “Associated national cuisine: Quebec” is used, just like the haggis page uses “Associated national cuisine: Scotland.” This is both more accurate and in line with the up-to-date references. Axolotlxl (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: "Quebecois dishes" are still Canadian dishes, anyways. Because Quebecois culture is a part of Canadian culture, Quebec cuisine is a part of Canadian cuisine, the Quebecois are Canadians, and Quebec is a part of Canada. Also, be sure to check out the other points I've made below. -- EzekielT Talk 05:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: Quebec is not a country, unlike Scotland, which is a country. Using "Associated national cuisine: Quebec" would add more confusion, because Quebec is not a nation. Quebecois are Canadians, and Quebec is a province of Canada. It is of equal status to other provinces such as Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, etc. By the way, it would be unfair to dishes from other provinces such as schmoo torte. If we created a Quebec cuisine template, we would have to create cuisine templates for the other Canadian provinces and territories (to be fair), which is too painstaking and unnecessary to do. -- EzekielT Talk 04:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@EzekielT: Quebec, just like Scotland is a distinct nation, with a distinct culture (see my reference above). Ontario, for example, is not a nation in itself. Here is the Cuisine québécoise page to translate into English.Axolotlxl (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: As I said, Quebec is not a country, unlike Scotland, which is a country. The UK has a very different political structure, and as such, Scotland cannot be compared with Quebec. The UK is a union of 4 countries. Canada is one country. There are no "countries" within Canada, there is just one country: Canada. Quebec is not a country, unlike Scotland. Quebec is part of Canada, and the Quebecois are Canadian. Using "Associated national cuisine: Quebec" would add more confusion, because Quebec is not a nation. Quebecois are Canadians, Quebec culture is part of Canadian culture, and Quebec is a province of Canada. It is of equal status to other provinces such as Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, etc. It would be unfair to say Quebec culture are somehow not part of Canadian culture while considering the other provinces' cultures part of Canadian culture. By the way, it would be unfair to dishes from other provinces such as schmoo torte. If we created a Quebec cuisine template, we would have to create cuisine templates for the other Canadian provinces and territories (to be fair), which is too painstaking and unnecessary to do. -- EzekielT Talk 04:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

And by saying "Poutine is a Canadian dish originating from the province of Quebec", we've already attributed the dish's origins to the province of Quebec. As Bearcat already said, "Again, the article says "from Quebec" right in its very first sentence, and you have yet to provide any credible reason why that somehow fails to communicate its particular connection to Quebec.". -- EzekielT Talk 05:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Canadian culture, by definition, includes Quebec culture, because Canadian culture encompasses all Canadians: "The culture of Canada is a term that embodies the artistic, culinary, literary, humour, musical, political and social elements that are representative of Canada and Canadians.". It is impossible to use "Canadian" in a way that excludes Quebecois, because Quebec is a part of Canada, and all Quebecois are Canadians. Canadian means "from any part of Canada (including Quebec and all other provinces and territories", so it's impossible for something to be Québécois but not Canadian at the same time. -- EzekielT Talk 05:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Axolotlxl: See "Culture of Manitoba" and "Culture of Alberta". And what is special about the Quebecois being "distinct", anyways? Pretty much all the ethnic groups of Canada are distinct. There is no main "Canadian" ethnic group forming Canadian culture, and Canadian culture does not exclude Quebecois culture. In fact, Canadian culture includes Quebecois culture. Together, the Québécois, Chinese Canadians, First Nations, Acadians, Black Canadians, Inuit, Métis, Indo-Canadians, Anglo Canadians, etc. all make up what is called Canadian culture. Without us all, there would be no Canada, Canadian culture, nor Canadian cuisine. -- EzekielT Talk 04:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No need for guesswork..... follow sources ....--Moxy (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Moxy: See Canadian culture. "Throughout Canada's history, its culture has been influenced by European culture and traditions, especially British and French, and by its own indigenous cultures. Over time, elements of the cultures of Canada's immigrant populations have become incorporated into mainstream Canadian culture.".

@EzekielT and Moxy: The sources (which I provided) indicate that poutine is a Quebecois dish and that it should not be labelled as a Canadian dish because it gives ownership of the dish to the wrong culture, plus it negates Quebec culture and is cultural appropriation. EzekielT keeps mentioning an opinion that Quebec is not a nation, while it has been recognized as a distinct nation by the Government of Canada in 2006 (I provided the source above). I use and provide up-to-date references on the topic, others are commenting based on their own opinion, and even negating facts (recognition of Quebec as a distinct nation). By they way, it is a rather colonialist view to say that First Nations identify as Canadian. Go talk with the Mohawk to see if they identify with the Canadian culture, here is an article that indicates that, no they don't: http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ottawa-in-explosive-situation-over-rejected-iroquois-passport. Axolotlxl (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Quebec is not the one recognized as a nation. The Quebecois were, but in the "cultural" and "sociological" sence of the word "nation". Harper also said "Do Quebeckers form an independent nation from Canada? The answer is no and it will always be no!". Furthermore, Harper later elaborated that the motion's definition of Québécois relies on personal decisions to self-identify as Québécois, and therefore is a personal choice. It stated that "the Québécois are a nation within a united Canada", not that it was distinct form Canadian culture. Canadian culture encompasses all Canadians, which, by definition, includes the Quebecois. Isn't this too obvious? Quebec is a province of Canada, just like Ontario or British Columbia! -- EzekielT Talk 04:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. I think there's a bigger issue about the subcategorization of Canadian regional cuisines in general, but that won't (and shouldn't) be settled here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poutine/Archive_3&oldid=1136240322"