Talk:Quebec/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Quebec. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Request for comment - Quebec as a nation
Considering that this has been a news item [1], should the article mention that Quebec is a nation (any required qualification: non-sovereign, cultural, etc. accepted)?--Ramdrake 18:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- For clarification and to avoid quote-mining, the motion passed actually recognizes the "Québécois as a nation within Canada" [2] and not the province of Quebec as the above reference suggests. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then, a secondary question to this RfC should be: Should this article be considered to be strictly about the geographical area that is Quebec, or also to cover its inhabitants, their culture, language, etc.?
- No, that is not the issue here. Rather, the issue is whether or not the geographical area of Quebec - that is the province of Quebec - can be considered to be a nation and whether or not the references supplied are enough to illustrate this. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- This point is only relevant if this article limits itself to the geography of Quebec, and doesn't talk about its people, their language, their culture, which this article does. So saying the motion doesn't qualify to be included because it applies to Quebecers and not to Quebec is a moot point because this article talks about Quebec and Quebecers. In any case, I'd much rather let the other editors decide than keep up this tit for tat dispute in this section.--Ramdrake 18:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Quebec (as the landmass) cannot make itself a nation, only the people can. So I agree with Ramdrake. My opinion is that I don't think we need sources since the definition of nation is good enough. If people get confused with the concept of nation, all they have to do is click on "nation" for more information. Like for Scotland and Catalonia, I don't find any sources that they're a nation within a nation(-state). Pieuvre 19:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- The motion does qualify to be included. You're missing the point. If you wish to include it, you have to include the motion as it was passed - that is the "Québécois as a nation within Canada" - and not as you interpret it - that is "Québécois" to mean the geographical province of Quebec. You are interpreting what "Québécois" in the motion means for the reader for every source supplied. You can not say that Quebec is a nation because a motion was passed to recognize the Quebecois as a nation. That's being interpretive. But, you can say that the Quebecois are a nation, because a motion was passed to recognize the Quebecois as a nation. Notice the difference? You must list facts as they are presented in the sources.
- Quebec (as the landmass) cannot make itself a nation, only the people can. So I agree with Ramdrake. My opinion is that I don't think we need sources since the definition of nation is good enough. If people get confused with the concept of nation, all they have to do is click on "nation" for more information. Like for Scotland and Catalonia, I don't find any sources that they're a nation within a nation(-state). Pieuvre 19:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- This point is only relevant if this article limits itself to the geography of Quebec, and doesn't talk about its people, their language, their culture, which this article does. So saying the motion doesn't qualify to be included because it applies to Quebecers and not to Quebec is a moot point because this article talks about Quebec and Quebecers. In any case, I'd much rather let the other editors decide than keep up this tit for tat dispute in this section.--Ramdrake 18:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, that is not the issue here. Rather, the issue is whether or not the geographical area of Quebec - that is the province of Quebec - can be considered to be a nation and whether or not the references supplied are enough to illustrate this. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then, a secondary question to this RfC should be: Should this article be considered to be strictly about the geographical area that is Quebec, or also to cover its inhabitants, their culture, language, etc.?
- And Pieuvre, that is not how Wikipedia works with regards to sources. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable enough sources to illustrate a point. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Again and again, you've failed to see it was a mistake from me to mention "Quebec" from that motion. You also fail to understand my "interpetions". And you also failed to see I do know how the Wiki works (to show facts for readers to judge, eh?) And you're moving too far from RfC topic. I already gave my comment (as requested here) that I think there is no need to provide a reference next to "nation" in the intro as the fact itself is already linked in the word "nation" (unless you're going to ask me to provide a source defining what is a nation). The motion of the Parliament is already mentioned further down the article itself. I'm not going to repeat myself in RfC. Pieuvre 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- And Pieuvre, that is not how Wikipedia works with regards to sources. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable enough sources to illustrate a point. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Dorvaq, you are missing the whole point in here. Please tell me the equivalent in french for "The Québécois" if its not "les Québécois" wich is the name of the individuals , the basic element, the citizen of the nation called Quebec ?? Now, we bring the facts and what you bring is confusion. It's useless to discuss with you because you are blinded by your love for the federation of Canada. In political and philosophical way, Quebec is a nation and a Province of Canada, not like Ontario or BC. The Logos changes with the language used. Is that too much for you? 70.83.226.185 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- You know what, I won't give a full response to your question as Lexicon has already done a great job in doing so a couple of times in the above discussion. There's nothing more I should need to add to make the point any clearer. Secondly, don't be so presumptuous by alluding to knowing where I stand in the whole federalist/seperatist issue - you have no idea. Also, I will not dive into that discussion because whether you're a federalist or seperatist is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the motion deliberately avoids referring to the province of Quebec as a nation, and as such should be avoided here as well. — Dorvaq (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the article should simply quote the relevant passage from the motion, and perhaps discuss reactions to it, if this deserves that much prose. Quoting it directly ensures that its meaning is not twisted. Foobaz·o< 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree that we should quote that motion. Doraq convinced me somehow last night. Pieuvre 11:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the article should simply quote the relevant passage from the motion, and perhaps discuss reactions to it, if this deserves that much prose. Quoting it directly ensures that its meaning is not twisted. Foobaz·o< 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- You know what, I won't give a full response to your question as Lexicon has already done a great job in doing so a couple of times in the above discussion. There's nothing more I should need to add to make the point any clearer. Secondly, don't be so presumptuous by alluding to knowing where I stand in the whole federalist/seperatist issue - you have no idea. Also, I will not dive into that discussion because whether you're a federalist or seperatist is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the motion deliberately avoids referring to the province of Quebec as a nation, and as such should be avoided here as well. — Dorvaq (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but the motion of S. Harper has nothing to do with the FACT that Quebec is a nation. Please refer to Gérard Bouchard. This is a Fact, Quebec doesn't need a Canadian governement motion to exist. What have you studied in, Dorvaq? 207.96.176.72 13:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it doesn't need a Canadian government to do that. You can quote the motion passed in 2003 by the National Assembly...something affirmed by the Quebecois themselves for their own identity within Canada. But it does provide a clear source affirming the fact it is a nation. I won't dispute M. Bouchard here since I haven't read that book. But I could assume what he wrote would be his own intrepation. It has nothing to do with what Doraq has studied...took me a while to understand him...but he just asks for a source stating the fact. He does see Quebec as a nation in own opinion, but he believes it should be backed up according to the policies of the Wiki. Pieuvre 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to say, but what could be that source if every source is "a point of view" . Dorvaq as not even 1 source because he can't find any Academic saying Quebec is NOT a nation. ALL academics agree with the FACT that Quebec is a nation. That's it that's all, pieuvre. And if you havn't read or at least know what is Bouchard's "point of view", it's not worth it arguing in here. 70.83.226.185 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Dorvaq doesn't need to provide any sources as Dorvaq hasn't made any claim. You're the one making the claim, and as such you have to provide the sources. I haven't said Quebec isn't a nation, but you have claimed it is, which makes the burden of proof yours. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- And three sources were supplied, which you contested on different grounds, which makes the burden of proving the sources wrong yours, no?--Ramdrake 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ramdrake, why do you keep doing that? I haven't contested the sources; I've contested the misleading way they were being interpreted and used in the article. I don't need to source the mis-use of another source. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- You reject these sources as misleading on the principle that what was meant was that Quebecers but not Quebec form a nation. There are several other editors here who say this distinction is moot, so it would be up to you to provide a source which says that the distinction is important, or for example that the Harper motion specifically excluded the notion of Quebec (as opposed to Quebecers) as a nation.--Ramdrake 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ramdrake, for God's sake, and for the last time, I am not rejecting the sources and I do not need to provide a source to show that your sources do not say "Quebec is a nation". All one has to do to see this is to look up the sources and they will see that the sources do not state that "Quebec is a nation". Whether or not you interpret "Quebeckers" to also mean the province of Quebec in Harper's motion or in Bouchard's essay is called interpreting for the reader. That is why I am asking you to stick to what the sources say, which is what we're supposed to do as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It doesn't matter that 2 anonymous IPs (which I suspect are the same editor along with Pgsylv), Pievre and yourself think that the distinction is moot, as the fact of the matter is your sources do not specifically state that "Quebec is a nation". It's even completely irrelevant whether or not I think there is a distinction, because when there is contention - and I'm not the only one saying this - it's always a better idea to stick with what the sources say. — Dorvaq (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note, I no longer think it is moot. But I'm done here for now since I gave enough of my piece. I'll just observe. Pieuvre 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ramdrake, for God's sake, and for the last time, I am not rejecting the sources and I do not need to provide a source to show that your sources do not say "Quebec is a nation". All one has to do to see this is to look up the sources and they will see that the sources do not state that "Quebec is a nation". Whether or not you interpret "Quebeckers" to also mean the province of Quebec in Harper's motion or in Bouchard's essay is called interpreting for the reader. That is why I am asking you to stick to what the sources say, which is what we're supposed to do as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It doesn't matter that 2 anonymous IPs (which I suspect are the same editor along with Pgsylv), Pievre and yourself think that the distinction is moot, as the fact of the matter is your sources do not specifically state that "Quebec is a nation". It's even completely irrelevant whether or not I think there is a distinction, because when there is contention - and I'm not the only one saying this - it's always a better idea to stick with what the sources say. — Dorvaq (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- You reject these sources as misleading on the principle that what was meant was that Quebecers but not Quebec form a nation. There are several other editors here who say this distinction is moot, so it would be up to you to provide a source which says that the distinction is important, or for example that the Harper motion specifically excluded the notion of Quebec (as opposed to Quebecers) as a nation.--Ramdrake 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ramdrake, why do you keep doing that? I haven't contested the sources; I've contested the misleading way they were being interpreted and used in the article. I don't need to source the mis-use of another source. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- And three sources were supplied, which you contested on different grounds, which makes the burden of proving the sources wrong yours, no?--Ramdrake 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Dorvaq doesn't need to provide any sources as Dorvaq hasn't made any claim. You're the one making the claim, and as such you have to provide the sources. I haven't said Quebec isn't a nation, but you have claimed it is, which makes the burden of proof yours. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to say, but what could be that source if every source is "a point of view" . Dorvaq as not even 1 source because he can't find any Academic saying Quebec is NOT a nation. ALL academics agree with the FACT that Quebec is a nation. That's it that's all, pieuvre. And if you havn't read or at least know what is Bouchard's "point of view", it's not worth it arguing in here. 70.83.226.185 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it doesn't need a Canadian government to do that. You can quote the motion passed in 2003 by the National Assembly...something affirmed by the Quebecois themselves for their own identity within Canada. But it does provide a clear source affirming the fact it is a nation. I won't dispute M. Bouchard here since I haven't read that book. But I could assume what he wrote would be his own intrepation. It has nothing to do with what Doraq has studied...took me a while to understand him...but he just asks for a source stating the fact. He does see Quebec as a nation in own opinion, but he believes it should be backed up according to the policies of the Wiki. Pieuvre 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that Pgsylv is acting in bad faith.
| “ | we all know Quebec is a nation and a province... until it becomes a nation and a country | ” |
Pgsylv 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC) ...a nation and a country. He wants to expose his sovereignist POV Tomj 19:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
i tried to stop him on the french one, at least to formulate it in a less confusing way. 66.158.134.50 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please stick to the facts. Please read Charles Taylor and Gérard Bouchard. Both of them have showed that Quebec is a nation. By the way "The Québécois" is meaningless. We are not refering to S. Harper motion but to the facts corroborated by Bouchard's and Taylor's writings. Pgsylv 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are completely mistaken , Bouchard and Taylor express their opinions in their writings. Given the Undue weight policy, there is no need to mention nation in the intro. Bouchard is a sovereignist: [3] . Tomj 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are completely mistaken, Bouchard and Taylor demonstrate, in a rational way, that Quebec is a Nation. Not one single Academic contests this fact (unless you have a reference). So, unless you get a scientific reference saying Quebec is NOT a nation, dont change the first lines of this Article.Pgsylv 18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are completely mistaken , Bouchard and Taylor express their opinions in their writings. Given the Undue weight policy, there is no need to mention nation in the intro. Bouchard is a sovereignist: [3] . Tomj 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please stick to the facts. Please read Charles Taylor and Gérard Bouchard. Both of them have showed that Quebec is a nation. By the way "The Québécois" is meaningless. We are not refering to S. Harper motion but to the facts corroborated by Bouchard's and Taylor's writings. Pgsylv 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"Get out of your dreams dude" -Tomj ... What is that supposed to mean? By the way, I'm not what you call a "dude". I'm not a teenager and I don't accept you talk to me this way. Pgsylv 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll stop arguing with you.It's a dead-end. The "Quebec nation" is an extremely complicated debate. It's your choice to push that idea on Wikipedia.I think I'll go pack my things to get out of that so-called "nation" Tomj 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good thing. you had no references anyways. My Work is serious, not yours. Pgsylv 18:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- And by the way, that Quebec is a nation is Gérard Bouchard's (among others) POINT OF VIEW Wikipedia is not about that ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomj (talk • contribs) 18:41, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
- When ALL the Academics have that POV, it means it is a consensus. It means it's a fact, it means we can write it in Wikipedia. Your POV (Quebec is NOT a Nation) isn't shared by the majority. Taht's it. Sorry you got mad. Have you moved yet? Pgsylv 19:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's just ridiculous. All academics do not think Quebec is a nation. Truth is, the idea is so not mainstream that academics don't need to talk about it. Serious Egyptologists don't publish in academic journals "the pyramids weren't built by aliens", but that does not mean that they agree with the crack-pots who think they were. BTW, watch this: [4]. Lexicon (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- What? This is ridiculous? You want to bring this discussion on that level? You insult me? Let me tell you one thing: give the name of only ONE academic in Quebec that says that Quebec is not a Nation. Only ONE. By the way, it's funny that you compare the fact that Quebec is nation with UFO theories... there is no link at all. You have weak arguments and they are ridiculous. Pgsylv 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's just ridiculous. All academics do not think Quebec is a nation. Truth is, the idea is so not mainstream that academics don't need to talk about it. Serious Egyptologists don't publish in academic journals "the pyramids weren't built by aliens", but that does not mean that they agree with the crack-pots who think they were. BTW, watch this: [4]. Lexicon (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's very funny Lexicon... you sent me a video in wich Stephane Dion is giving its POV. He is a POLITICIAN. You want me to quote Jacques Parizeau or Bernard Landry. I see you don't know what means Scientific Method. And by the way, saying "Quebeckers" are a nation but not Quebec is the stupidest thing ever heard in this country. What is sad is that Dion has a PHD in Political Science (you didn'T knew that either). Pgsylv 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- The point was that Stephane Dion was explaining what the motion meant. He was explaining the meaning of the motion which actually fits with the language of the motion. The motion speaks of Quebecers, not Quebec. That's really just about all that can be said on this without going into personal point of view. It's obvious that you're not going to bother to try to understand that there really is a difference between "Quebec" and "Quebecers" (although I'm sure without a doubt you understand there's a difference between "Canada" and "Canadians"). I'm not going to bother to discuss this with you any longer. People will continue to revert your changes, however, no matter how many times you revert them back, for the simple reason that you are incorrect. Lexicon (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more. Tomj 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- The point was that Stephane Dion was explaining what the motion meant. He was explaining the meaning of the motion which actually fits with the language of the motion. The motion speaks of Quebecers, not Quebec. That's really just about all that can be said on this without going into personal point of view. It's obvious that you're not going to bother to try to understand that there really is a difference between "Quebec" and "Quebecers" (although I'm sure without a doubt you understand there's a difference between "Canada" and "Canadians"). I'm not going to bother to discuss this with you any longer. People will continue to revert your changes, however, no matter how many times you revert them back, for the simple reason that you are incorrect. Lexicon (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm giving all parties fair warning here. Stop the edit warring. Enough of the reverting back and forth. I will enforce 3RR if I have to. I will protect the page if that will stop it. Solve the issue here and not in edit summaries. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct. However, WP:RS states that we need to back sentences up with citations. If a user violates WP:REDFLAG without any citations it could be considered vandalism. So in reality we should not even be having a discussion because a user does WP:OR and claims something without citations. Watchdogb 03:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I brought the fact that Quebec is a nation. Gérard Bouchard and the majority of the specialists on that question agree with the fact that Quebec is a nation. This is my reference. From a philosophical and political point of view, it has been demonstrated. Now, what Stephen Dion is saying on Youtube is not appropriate in here because we cant rely on a biaised POV, a partisan one (S. Dion is the chief of the Liberals). Finaly, the difference between Quebeckers and Quebec is that Quebec is the nation and Quebeckers are its citizens. I changed the version. Pgsylv 03:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Look at what you just said...you say that Dion's point of view is "not appropriate," but Bouchard's is? The only difference between the two points of view is that Dion is a federal politician while Bouchard is a separatist author. Andrew647 00:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- So where is your citations ? As far as I can see there is NOTHING. You seem to be speaking from OR which is not allowed in wikipedia. Also please note that WP:REDFLAG "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Further, minority views should be such and not be written in WP:Lead. Watchdogb 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have reverted the "Quebec is a Nation" sentence. I really thought that was some kind of vandalism but it seems that we are giving a nonsense such time. Earth is NOT flat ... Of course there will be sources that say that the earth is flat. However, those kind of citations fail WP:RS. Same goes with Quebec is a nation. There will be sources that claim it is. Those sources will fail WP:RS. Anyway, in this case the citations are a bunch of names. This is wikipedia. Provide sources to back up the claims. Not names. I hope we all understand that this edit is blatant vandalism to promote someone's OR. Simple as that. PS: The names given as sources do not even seem to be notable (at least to the topic at hand). PPS: There is no need for warning or 3RR. Vandalism can be reverted specially sentences without citations Watchdogb 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have just put it now. Pgsylv 03:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have reverted the "Quebec is a Nation" sentence. I really thought that was some kind of vandalism but it seems that we are giving a nonsense such time. Earth is NOT flat ... Of course there will be sources that say that the earth is flat. However, those kind of citations fail WP:RS. Same goes with Quebec is a nation. There will be sources that claim it is. Those sources will fail WP:RS. Anyway, in this case the citations are a bunch of names. This is wikipedia. Provide sources to back up the claims. Not names. I hope we all understand that this edit is blatant vandalism to promote someone's OR. Simple as that. PS: The names given as sources do not even seem to be notable (at least to the topic at hand). PPS: There is no need for warning or 3RR. Vandalism can be reverted specially sentences without citations Watchdogb 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Page number please. Again one of the reference you have given says "he bill clearly stated that Quebec would retain its boundaries as they currently exist within Canada". Isn't that enough ? to prove your point wrong Watchdogb 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- p.227 .... what is " he bill " ??? of course Quebec will retain its boundaries within Canada. Nation doesn't mean Country. Pgsylv 03:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As a policy interpretation, WP:REDFLAG doesn't apply here. This issue is also widely disputed in the Canadian media, and has had heavy reporting from both CBC TV and CTV. It's not from out of the blue. As for the messages on my talk; if it is protected it will be on whatever version is present at the time (and is not an endorsement of that current version). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 03:33, 22 August 2007(UTC)
- Good, then you can back it up with RS ? Should be really easy right ? WP:REDFLAG applies as long as there aren't enough citations backing up a particular exeptional claim. Thanks Watchdogb 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, you misunderstood me. I meant that it's been in the news before and is something I've even heard of before this edit war happened. It's old news (I think the BBC will do, no?). REDFLAG just says editors should look out for outlandish claims, which this is not. It's got international coverage. It's not from left field. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good, then you can back it up with RS ? Should be really easy right ? WP:REDFLAG applies as long as there aren't enough citations backing up a particular exeptional claim. Thanks Watchdogb 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I won't change it anymore. Pgsylv 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Further, WP:Lead says that "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article". Adding "Quebec is a nation" in the Lead violates both the sentences. Also, note that this is English wikipedia. You citation is not in english and cannot be used unless a translated version exist. Thanks Watchdogb 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- La question de la nation est primordiale. Il a été démontré à maintes reprises que le Québec est une nation et il n'en revient qu'à ses citoyens de décider s'il est une nation ou non !! Et 70% des Québécois se reconnaissent comme tel ! Translate with babelfish. Les deux solitudes ne se comprendront jamais. Pgsylv 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Après on veut s'ouvrir sur le monde et former une nation... Tomj 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've crafted a formulation that should take care of the objection that the people, not the province was recognized as a nation. I also made the subject of nationhood into its own subsection so it can become evident the subject is broached in the article proper.--Ramdrake 12:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Beautiful! Good work Ramdrake. Thanks for the work Watchdogb 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wonderful! That's the kind of wording I've been trying to think of. Pieuvre 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I hope it will solve the matter. Tomj 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- It will be okay, but Quebec is a nation and you could say it the way you want, it will always be a nation (just like Scotland). Anyways, thank you Ramdrake. Pgsylv 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am a proud resident of Quebec. And i am a proud CANADIAN. Quebec is a part of Canada. All those who dream of Quebec as a nation/country have to realize that its just a dream of minority population of Quebec. In facts and as favoured by majority Quebec residents, Quebec is a province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.32.130 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Beautiful! Good work Ramdrake. Thanks for the work Watchdogb 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- La question de la nation est primordiale. Il a été démontré à maintes reprises que le Québec est une nation et il n'en revient qu'à ses citoyens de décider s'il est une nation ou non !! Et 70% des Québécois se reconnaissent comme tel ! Translate with babelfish. Les deux solitudes ne se comprendront jamais. Pgsylv 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Further, WP:Lead says that "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article". Adding "Quebec is a nation" in the Lead violates both the sentences. Also, note that this is English wikipedia. You citation is not in english and cannot be used unless a translated version exist. Thanks Watchdogb 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: No it should not be called a nation unless it meets the general acceptance outside of Canada since it seems to be the only one of a newly created "category" of nation--a class all to itself. As the news story indicates, this is a parliamentary motion about how it is characterized within Canada. It is not recognized as a nation anywhere else, nor, it would seem, is it that widely acknowledged as such in Canada since it made headlines many months after its passage when the PM used the terminology in a speech. Its nationhood should be addressed in the same manner as mainstream reference sources, which at this point are still treating this parliamentary wording as a controversial new news story. Professor marginalia 00:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Nationhood in context
Placed "nation" statement in political context; people have different points of view on what "Quebecois nation" means. I think we can all agree, no matter what our political point of view, that the whole subject is politically volatile and subject to POV iinterpretations. --Soulscanner 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't agree. 70% of the people in Quebec are considering theirselves as Quebeckers. See statcan for statistics. The Quebec Nation is not "volatile" . 70.83.226.185 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- We had a consensus with the others before you came in. Please respect the discussion. The Quebecois Nation is meaning less in this case. Pgsylv 22:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we really had a consensus. Soulscanner is right, it is not an issue for the lead section, which is for major issues discussed later in the article, and ones that are central, at that. This issue is neither. Lexicon (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, yes, there was something like a 5-way consensus before you came to the article. If you feel strongly about it, we can reopen the discussion and check to see if consensus has changed. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you could respect the current consensus. The recognition of the Quebecers as a nation is indeed a major issue in the political history of the province.--Ramdrake 13:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nice work people. We have effectively made this well written article into a political battle ground. We all agreed a statement that was acceptable by both parties. However, it has significantly been transformed to reflect a particular POV. Seeing that the article has been tagged with a NPOV, rightfully so, I think the article is at loss here. Good job ! Watchdogb 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't see what the added, very polemical statement is doing in the intro. As far as I can tell, it only serves to belittle the idea of nationhood for the Quebecers, especially considering the fact that the 2006 Harper motion is only one of several that confirm this state of affairs (the 2003 motion passed by Quebec's National Assembly could as well have been used as an example).--Ramdrake 20:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with including polemical statements, as long as they are clearly identified as such. However, it's important that the context be explained. I would hope that we can find a way to come to a real consensus here. --Soulscanner 20:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was always told that including a polemical statement, especially in the introduction, was something frowned upon here at WP. Besides, the introduced statement isn't described as being polemical.--Ramdrake 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, I see very few regular contributors to the article commenting on the addition of "Quebec being a nation". Presenting this motion without context implies that it is important regarding Quebec's status, which is debatable. It is also unclear whether all of Quebec's residents are "Quebecois". The fact that this debate exists is not polemetic; it is a doumented fact. Removing this referenced fact goes against Wiki policy, as does removing a Wiki neutrality tag before a dispute like this is resolved. I've opened a section on the talk page to resolve this dispute. Give it a week so all regular contributors weigh in. If this does not work, we'll need to go to more formal measures. But the neutrality tag needs to stay until a real consensus is achieved. --Soulscanner 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was always told that including a polemical statement, especially in the introduction, was something frowned upon here at WP. Besides, the introduced statement isn't described as being polemical.--Ramdrake 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with including polemical statements, as long as they are clearly identified as such. However, it's important that the context be explained. I would hope that we can find a way to come to a real consensus here. --Soulscanner 20:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't see what the added, very polemical statement is doing in the intro. As far as I can tell, it only serves to belittle the idea of nationhood for the Quebecers, especially considering the fact that the 2006 Harper motion is only one of several that confirm this state of affairs (the 2003 motion passed by Quebec's National Assembly could as well have been used as an example).--Ramdrake 20:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Quebec nationhood motion should not be in the lead sentence
Some feel the "Quebec nationhood motion" should be in the lead sentence. Others feel that it does not belong to the lead section at all. There was no consensus here, as no vote was held on the matter, and the regular contributors to this page have not weighed in on the debate.
The Parliamentary motion in question, while important, is not as vital in defining to Quebec's current legal and "national" status as other legislation and other current and recent events in Quebec. For example, the two referenda on sovereignty are much more important to understanding the nature and significance of Quebec nationalism and the Quebec sovereignty movement than the Parliamentary motion mentioned here. Without understanding the context of the debate, the multiple and overlapping definitions of nation (see the Wikipedia article, which documents the different defenitions), and the fact that the statement "Quebec is a nation" is contraversial and an ideological position that is related to a popular political opinion means that it does not hold the same weight as "Quebec is a province in Canada", which is a simple question of fact. Quebec nationalists and sympathizers on the Canadian left agree with the statement, many federal Liberals and Conservatives would see the motion as meaningless, and Trudeau Liberals and neo-conservatives would see it as dangerous in that it recognizes ethnic nationalism.
I'll also point out that the statement, without context, is also misleading in the sense that it indicates that Quebec nationalist aspirations have been satisfied with this recognition; as anyone familiar with Quebec politics knows, it is considerably weaker than what most (if not all) nationalists are willing to accept.
Personally, I think this motion should not even be mentioned in this article. As a compromise, I propose that mention of Quebec nationhood, if it is to be left in the lead section, be moved to a paragraph in the lead that briefly puts this statement in the context of Quebec nationalism and the Quebec sovereignty movement.--Soulscanner 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes - as per arguments above --Soulscanner 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes - I just came across this article by chance and came to the talk page when I spotted the lead. Its a very clumsy lead, leaping from pronunciation to a sentence that openly admits that people argue over whether it is important. Just seems like it should be about where it is, how many people, for example. A lead section should introduce the topic to you, not beat you around the head with a random salmon. Narson 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I just moved the confusing part out of the lead. It should read better now. Also, please consider that a similar notion was passed by the National Assembly in 2003, and that this statement is supported by most Quebec historians and politologists. The nationhood of its people is significant, given all the facts.--Ramdrake 23:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, I appreciate that Ramdrake did not remove the POV tag this time. It shows good faith. However, deleting an important and referenced fact does not; it advances a Quebec nationalist POV; it presents a controversial, complex political assertion as a universally accepted fact. This question is as to whether mention of the Quebecois nation belongs in the lead sentence or in a paragraph later that puts this statement in the context of Quebec nationalism. The meaning of Quebecois nationhood is controversial. The fact is that the person who drafted the motion, the Prime Minister of Canada, considers belonging to the Quebecois nation a matter of personal identity, and thus does not include Quebecers who do not consider themselves part of the Quebecois nation. So do most Canadian academics and politicians outside Quebec, particularly in Western Canada. The article should not advance the Quebec nationalist POV as fact, but should balance all ideological political POV. Deleting referenced facts is to advance a POV is against Wiki policies. --Soulscanner 01:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I just moved the confusing part out of the lead. It should read better now. Also, please consider that a similar notion was passed by the National Assembly in 2003, and that this statement is supported by most Quebec historians and politologists. The nationhood of its people is significant, given all the facts.--Ramdrake 23:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Note to Editors
I know that there's been a dispute here, so it should be pretty well watched right now. If some guy comes along, blanks the page and replaces it with:
Quebec {{stub}}
then go to WP:AIV and ask for him to be blocked. He is a long term vandal with over 90 sock puppets blocked over the last year. 1 edit is enough to identify him. I don't care what people at AIV say, tell them that Royalguard11 told you so. This last time he got 4 vandal edits in. I don't want to have to semiprotect the page yet, but a couple more hits this week and I'll have to. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 21:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Quebec is a nation
My reference is Charles Taylor in "Reconciling the Solitudes" p.141 . It's important to put it at the beginning of the article just as in the Scotland article.The definition used here is the civic nation, not the ethnic one. We suppose Quebeckers have one language, one territory and they identify themselves as Quebeckers. Pgsylv 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Soulscanner, what are you tryning to do ?
If you want to add that there is a debate around the notion of the nation of Quebec, find references ! (CBC is NOT ) Pgsylv 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- The CBC references given by Soulscanner are acceptable as per WP:Reliable sources. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- However, my point is that the caveat belongs in the section Quebec as a nation (as I had already moved it there, but now someone put it up in the intro again, so it appears redundantly).--Ramdrake 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- As of 2006, the Candian House of Commons recognized "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada" although there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means.
- On November 27, 2006, the House of Commons passed a motion moved by prime minister Stephen Harper declaring that "this House recognize[s] that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.", although there is considerable debate and uncertainty over what this means.
- As you can see, the entire passage is redundant and not just the uncertainty part. Therefore, if you are going to argue removal over redundancy, then the entire sentence should be removed as it already appears in the Quebec as a nation section. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- The most important thing is to introduce Quebec as a nation and a province. I have put Charles Taylor. I don't think CBC is a good reference in this case because its a Philosophical and Political issue. What as S. Harper has recognized is ambigous. It's preferable to use Academic writings. Pgsylv 20:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- CBC references are more than acceptable under reliable sources guidelines, and they certainly do indicate that there is a debate over Harper's meaning in referring to Quebec as a nation. Please do not remove this again; if you feel it's inappropriate, discuss your reasons here to build consensus rather than reverting continuously. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Quebec was a nation BEFORE S. Harper recognized it. Charles Taylor demonstrated it ! Go read, it's on Google Scholar, follow my reference. Pgsylv 20:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Charles Taylor is a fine philosopher, but Prime Minister Harper does not agree with him. Nor do his old professors at the University of Calgary Political Science department, who hold fat to the principle that all provinces in Canada are equal. If we include the political opinion of one, then we need to balance it with the opinions of others. Deleting legitimate references they present opinons you disagree with is pushing POV, and against Wikipedia policy. The notion that Quebec is a nation is controversial and should not be presented as an uncontested fact. --Soulscanner 23:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, given the sources, I don't think that Quebecers forming a nation is controversial (how strongly was the motion contested in chambers?), even though its exact membership was deliberately left open to some interpretation. If you say that Quebec's (or Quebecers') nationhood is contested, so far you haven't proven that, and I would dare say you're demonstrably wrong. If you say that the definition of membership was left deliberately open to some interpretation, and that it doesn't confer any specific additional powers to Quebec, then you're decide right. But please don't mix the two.--Ramdrake 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Lets keep the sources there for now so that people can decide for themselves whether the subject is controversial. I think the intensity and length of the debate here proves that it is. Also, at question is the importance of the motion. If the motion is open to a broad spectrum of conflicting interpretation and doesn't change Quebec's status at all, why put such a minor and ambiguous piece of legislation in the lead without a mention of context? Are there not more definitive and important laws and events that define Quebec's status? Does it not overweight (see WP:WEIGHT) the subject to reflect the WP:POV of Quebec nationalists? If this statement is to be included, this context needs to be explained. Not everyone, including the Prime minister, considers this subject as important as Quebec sovereignists.
- I recommend moving the topic as a compromise by between those who wish to push the nationalist interpretation and put it in the lead and non-nationalists who wish to see it deleted. I think the subject is complex and controversial enough to warrant more context. --Soulscanner 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also, you need to distinguish between Quebec the province, Quebecers (Quebec citizens), and the Quebecois people (people who identify as Quebecois). It is a very confusing topic, and I think this topic is more appropriate for the Quebecois page, where these distinctions are fully explainedand referenced. --Soulscanner 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, given the sources, I don't think that Quebecers forming a nation is controversial (how strongly was the motion contested in chambers?), even though its exact membership was deliberately left open to some interpretation. If you say that Quebec's (or Quebecers') nationhood is contested, so far you haven't proven that, and I would dare say you're demonstrably wrong. If you say that the definition of membership was left deliberately open to some interpretation, and that it doesn't confer any specific additional powers to Quebec, then you're decide right. But please don't mix the two.--Ramdrake 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Charles Taylor is a fine philosopher, but Prime Minister Harper does not agree with him. Nor do his old professors at the University of Calgary Political Science department, who hold fat to the principle that all provinces in Canada are equal. If we include the political opinion of one, then we need to balance it with the opinions of others. Deleting legitimate references they present opinons you disagree with is pushing POV, and against Wikipedia policy. The notion that Quebec is a nation is controversial and should not be presented as an uncontested fact. --Soulscanner 23:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok Soulscanner, but give me at least one reference with the page. You are doing name droping. Pgsylv 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- In: Oxford American Dictionary, "Quebecois: a native or inhabitant of Quebec. " In all dictionaries you have that definition, not what you post on your article "Québécois" wich is horribly confusing. Don't revert my change. Pgsylv 17:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The consensus that you agreed to was to have it in its current state. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- In: Oxford American Dictionary, "Quebecois: a native or inhabitant of Quebec. " In all dictionaries you have that definition, not what you post on your article "Québécois" wich is horribly confusing. Don't revert my change. Pgsylv 17:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all. Pgsylv 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Um...
- It will be okay, but Quebec is a nation and you could say it the way you want, it will always be a nation (just like Scotland). Anyways, thank you Ramdrake. Pgsylv 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Does this ring a bell? — Dorvaq (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all. Pgsylv 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Does this ring a bell? ve crafted a formulation that should take care of the objection that the people, not the province was recognized as a nation. I also made the subject of nationhood into its own subsection so it can become evident the subject is broached in the article proper.--Ramdrake 12:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Um... Pgsylv 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Wording of the lead
Okay, it's obvious that there's dispute over what should and shouldn't be in the lead paragraph of this article. I'm coming in as basically an uninvolved editor, and would like to see this low-level edit war come to an end; I've got some questions that may help direct the discussion more effectively, and hopefully help towards a resolution.
- As the article already has a section on the nationhood question further on, do editors feel it important to refer to the concept of Quebec as a nation - similar to the way the Scotland article is worded - in the lead paragraph?
- No. Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland are all countries in the U.K., so all qualify as nations as well. In Canada, many see Quebec is a province like Ontario, Alberta, etc., whereas many in Quebec see that nation confers a special legal status that makes different from the others. That is why recognizing the Quebecois a nation in a way similar to the Acadians, Metis, and several first nations gets around that thorny issue. It is an important and complex distinction that would be glossed over by mentioning it in the lead sentence as an iron-clad fact without any context about the nature of Quebec nationalism. I feel the issue be better discussed in the Quebecois article, but I'm willing to compromise by moving it further down in the lead paragraph in a section that contextualizes the statement. --Soulscanner 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The irony of it is, I did originally move the caveat down to the "Quebec as a nation" section, but it seems somebody recopied the caveat back into the intro. To the risk of repeating myself, I see a short sentence saying the people of Quebec have been recognized as a nation as of 3006 in the intro, as this is plain, incontrovertible fact. The debate about what it means, while notable enough to be in the article (as a significant viewpoint on which to report), I don't think should be in the lead, as the statement of recognition is clear to a significant number of people (myself and a large proportion of Quebecers included, I'm assuming). Couched that way, does this position look like something people can rally arround or at least compromise with?--Ramdrake 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, becasue it does not address the issue of emphasis. I don't doubt the fact that Quebec is recognized as a nation. But people have different opinions on what that means. I question the significance of this fact. Is this recognition more important than the fact that Quebec is mostly French-speaking? Is it more important than the fact that it has a Sovereignty movement? Is it more important than the fact that it has had two referendums on sovereignty? I do not think so. I think you need to make a case for why this recognition is more important than these.
- I also moved the caveat back because I feel the whole sentence (with caveat) should be moved further down the lead as depicted below. --Soulscanner 20:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The irony of it is, I did originally move the caveat down to the "Quebec as a nation" section, but it seems somebody recopied the caveat back into the intro. To the risk of repeating myself, I see a short sentence saying the people of Quebec have been recognized as a nation as of 3006 in the intro, as this is plain, incontrovertible fact. The debate about what it means, while notable enough to be in the article (as a significant viewpoint on which to report), I don't think should be in the lead, as the statement of recognition is clear to a significant number of people (myself and a large proportion of Quebecers included, I'm assuming). Couched that way, does this position look like something people can rally arround or at least compromise with?--Ramdrake 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Would it perhaps be preferable to reword the lead entirely so that the "nation" reference is included, but also include the fact that it's still uncertain as to that definition? The way it's worded right now is kind of clunky and doesn't help the reading of the paragraph very much; it may work better to rewrite, perhaps add a sentence to include this information.
- This is why I have proposed a compromise to put this subject in a paragraph below that explains Quebec nationalism and the Quebec sovereignty movement. It would be less clunky there. --Soulscanner 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- As the nation question is still somewhat confusing but probably important, is there a different approach that might be amenable to everyone?
Hopefully this can generate some discussion that helps ease up the constant edit/revert cycle we've got here. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the mention of nationhood is important in the lead, as this concept has been approved (legislated upon) by both the National Assembly of Quebec and the Canadian Parliament, in addition to having been a subject of interest in one way or another for decades.
- I'm skeptical about the need to include a caveat, although my strongest objection is about the present wording, which should be rewritten. IMHO, something along the lines of: As of 2006, the Canadian House of Commons recognized "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada is the only part which belongs in the lead. The fact that some people still question the nationhood nevertheless should be in the article proper, as it is much less notable. Premier Harper was rather clear that the criterion of inclusion was self-identification, and not whether one had ancestors in the Quebec French community. He was also clear that this recognition did not grant any additional specific powers to the province, so I'm unsure what legitimately remains to be questioned or clarified.--Ramdrake 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mind, but change Quebecois for Quebec. Quebecois is the name of a native from Quebec ! An inhabitant ! And I prefer Charles Taylor, because its definition is not the legal one but the politico-philosophical one. And it corresponds to the definition in Wikipedia too. Finaly, the article "Quebecois" is confusing and it means Quebecker. Pgsylv 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why are we discussing here while Soulscanner is editing without discussing ? Pgsylv 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The whole subject on Quebec's nationhood is definitely worth mentioning, and I also now see Ramdrake's point on the caveat. The wording that was originally accepted to by a few editors — including Pgsylv — was the wording presented by Ramdrake (see above). The issue now is not so much a wording problem, but more of a behavioral issue with Pgsylv, who first agrees to an acceptable compromise, then decides to edit against consensus and revert the introduction to an earlier version. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- If that's an issue, I think we can write it off as saying that everybody is entitled to making mistakes. Yes, Pgsylv's behaviour has been insistent to the point of disruption, but if we find a compromise he can rejoin, I think we can satisfactorily resolve two issues at once. I'd much rather find a solution than someone to blame for the problem.--Ramdrake 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, but lets wait until we have resolved this issue. It is complicated enough without having another editor disrupt the debate. I think Ramdrake moving the issue to focus on the Parliamentary motion is a step in the right direction; at issue is whether putting this in the lead sentence without a caveat puts too much weight on the subject. It is difficult to discuss this when someone constantly reverts the text that is being discussed. --Soulscanner 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- If that's an issue, I think we can write it off as saying that everybody is entitled to making mistakes. Yes, Pgsylv's behaviour has been insistent to the point of disruption, but if we find a compromise he can rejoin, I think we can satisfactorily resolve two issues at once. I'd much rather find a solution than someone to blame for the problem.--Ramdrake 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The whole subject on Quebec's nationhood is definitely worth mentioning, and I also now see Ramdrake's point on the caveat. The wording that was originally accepted to by a few editors — including Pgsylv — was the wording presented by Ramdrake (see above). The issue now is not so much a wording problem, but more of a behavioral issue with Pgsylv, who first agrees to an acceptable compromise, then decides to edit against consensus and revert the introduction to an earlier version. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- All I ask is to stop the confusion around "Quebecois" and "Quebec". The nation is called Quebec in all litterature , except in S. Harper motion, for political reasons. He said he was not refering to the legal concept of nation but to the philosophical one. If S. Harper is doing Philosophy at the Parliament fine, but there are better Academics that could do the job just like Bouchard and Taylor. I suggest we use their wording. Plus, in all dictionaries you will find that "Quebecker" and "Quebecois" are synonymus. Pgsylv 19:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Pgsylv, while I understand your point, please consider that 1)the Federal government is the highest (read most authoritative) level of government to have made this recognition (and also the highest that is entitled to make it) and that, even should we all agree that "Quebec" rather than its people ("Quebecois" or "Quebecers" your pick) actually forms the nation, somewher down the road, someone may disagree enough to remove the mention, By writing down only what is incontrovertible fact, we ensure a greater stabiliity for this change in the future. There is an old expression which I think applies here: "A bad compromise is better than a good war". Wouldn't you agree? (And please, to any and all editors, I'm not implying this is a bad compromise at all).--Ramdrake 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- And to say that all this time that I've been arguing, "word it as the reference words it", it felt as though my comments were falling on deaf ears, but you now — in your own words — agree... interesting. Anyhow, as long as the caveat with its references remains in the "Quebec as a nation" section, then the "uncertainty" portion should be removed from the introduction. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The wording is only part of the issue. There is also the question of whether putting this in the lead sentence overemphasizes the importance of this Parliamentary motion; it would be more appropriate to put it in a brief paragraph in the lead section that explains Quebec nationalism, where the caveat would read better. Is the parliamentary motion important enough to put in the lead? Does it compare in importance, for example, to the fact that most Quebecers are French-speaking or French Canadian or events such as the referenda of 1980 and 1995? Is this as important as the fact that there is a strong independence movement in Quebec? I do not believe so, which is why it should be mentioned after these more significant facts. --Soulscanner 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- And to say that all this time that I've been arguing, "word it as the reference words it", it felt as though my comments were falling on deaf ears, but you now — in your own words — agree... interesting. Anyhow, as long as the caveat with its references remains in the "Quebec as a nation" section, then the "uncertainty" portion should be removed from the introduction. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with Ramdrake here; the single sentence as he suggests in his first response to this section provides probably the best compromise that I've seen; it acknowledges the nationhood question and provides a factual statement as to the government recognition. I'm sure the philosophical discussions regarding whether it is Quebec or the Quebecois that "nation" should refer to can be placed into the later section, using Pgsylv's references at that point. Getting into deep philosophical discussions in the lead of an article probably isn't the best route to take. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't address the issue of whether the topic is appropriate for the lead. The real political issue here is the amount of autonomy Quebec should have within Canada. This motion, while related to this, does not really address it. The two referendums Quebec had on sovereignty are far more significant events than the passage of this symbolic Parliamentary motion, which has no real legal affect. --Soulscanner 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Pgsylv, while I understand your point, please consider that 1)the Federal government is the highest (read most authoritative) level of government to have made this recognition (and also the highest that is entitled to make it) and that, even should we all agree that "Quebec" rather than its people ("Quebecois" or "Quebecers" your pick) actually forms the nation, somewher down the road, someone may disagree enough to remove the mention, By writing down only what is incontrovertible fact, we ensure a greater stabiliity for this change in the future. There is an old expression which I think applies here: "A bad compromise is better than a good war". Wouldn't you agree? (And please, to any and all editors, I'm not implying this is a bad compromise at all).--Ramdrake 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Very good. I think it's important to show that there is difference between Quebecker and Quebecois. Quebec is just a province with french canadians living there and all around Canada. It's wonderful how Canada has given so much to the french canadians in the province of Quebec of the nation of the Quebecois with inhabitants called Quebeckers. We have showed that we all love this great nation wich is Canada from coast to coast and that's why we care about little definitions. So if I go on wikipedia I will find very complex things about Quebec. At least I know that it exists and that's the important thing with wikipedia. Farewell. Pgsylv 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, can I propose that the sentence beginning "As of 2006..." be moved into the third paragraph, immediately after the sentence discussing the referendums? Then I'd like to bring the first and second paragraphs together, as the geographical information makes far more sense as the first paragraph. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree 100%. I had done this previously, but the article was reverted. I feel this puts the issue on proper context (or as much as can be done in a paragraph). But let's wait for Ramdrake to consent. --Soulscanner 05:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)