Talk:Québécois (word)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV

This has lasted long enough. It's time to properly source all assertions and rewrite the article in a NPOV manner. Otherwize, we should revert to an encyclopedic definition or just redirect to Quebec. -- Mathieugp 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the whole "Controversy" section can be eliminated. Does everyone agree? This article is also very relevant, particularly today when we have had the term used in a Parliamentary motion for the first time. --Soul scanner 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a rewrite, but the point has been, is and continues to be that Wikipedia's role is to describe the way words are used, not to cast pronouncements on how they should be used. Again, like it or not, Canadian English does use the word Québécois to draw a distinction between French-speaking and English-speaking residents of Quebec, so Wikipedia simply cannot pretend that it doesn't. We can discuss why that usage is controversial; we cannot pretend said usage doesn't exist. Did any of you actually read the hoohaw that greeted Lawrence Cannon's statement today?

Question: Why did you use the word Québécois in English? I think we're all wondering why did you use the word Québécois in English and not Quebecer? And my question, especially for Ms. LeBreton, and I guess that's why people are suspicious. Is that a reference to some sort of ethnic identity of what it is to be (inaudible)?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I'm an English-speaking Canadian and I refer to -- I call -- I say Québécois. I believe -- I believe that in the country and certainly we've seen evidence over the past few days as cabinet ministers have been around the country there's a wide degree of acceptance for the prime minister's leadership on this issue.

Question: (Inaudible) with all due respect people (inaudible).

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I know Anglophone Quebecers who call themselves Québécois so you know —

Question: They call themselves Quebecers. I'm sorry, with due respect, I live in Quebec and English people talk to themselves about Quebecers, not Québécois. Why did you use this French word in an English motion? Explain to us the rationale for that. There's a word in English for that and please explain to us why you're not using it.

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, écoutez, c'est bien clair là, bien clair la motion qui a été présentée par le Bloc québécois parlait de Québécois et de Québécoises dont ne référait pas à autre chose que des Québécois et des Québécoises.

Question: Why in English?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: Bien, in English the Quebecer is a Québécois. Alors il faudrait que vous demandiez à monsieur Duceppe parce que nous on sait —

(...)

Question: Can you — to follow up on Hélène's question, just to make it very, very clear, especially to my readers at The Gazette, when you talk about les Québécois does it include every resident of Quebec regardless of which boat their ancestors came over on?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Let's be clear on this. Four hundred years ago, four hundred years ago when Champlain stepped off and onto the shores in Quebec City he of course spoke about les Canadiens. Then as the debate went on on parlait des Canadiens français. Et au Québec on parle des Québécois maintenant qui occupent cette terre-là, Amérique. Il est fort possible — non seulement il est fort possible, il est tout à fait évident qu'il y ait des Canadiens français qui demeurent à l'extérieur du Québec, qui demeurent en Ontario, qui demeurent au Nouveau-Brunswick, qui demeurent partout au pays. Et donc dans ce sens-là nous on a répliqué à la motion que le Bloc québécois a mise de l'avant, une motion qui a dit singulièrement les Québécois et les Québécoises forment une nation. On dit, oui, ils forment une nation et à deux reprises, plus à quatre occasions, à l'occasion d'élections ils ont manifesté leur attachement au Canada. Ce soir, cette résolution-là, après 40 ans, est en train de reconnaître les décisions qui ont été entérinées à plusieurs occasions par des Québécois et des Québécoises de dire nous on fait partie du Canada. Nous on continue de construire le Canada. Et c'est ce que cette résolution-là formellement dit ce soir.

Question: Je ne suis pas une descendante de monsieur Champlain et tous ceux qui n'ont pas des noms canadiens-français ne sont pas des Québécois selon votre définition.

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, pas du tout, madame Buzzetti.

Question: Il y a plein de gens qui sont arrivés (inaudible).

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, non, mais pas — et moi aussi parce que ma famille est débarquée en 1795. Est-ce que je me considère comme étant un Québécois? Oui, je me considère comme étant un Québécois et ceux qui se considèrent comme étant des Québécois ils peuvent bien le porter. Mais je ne pense pas qu'il y ait question de forcer quelqu'un qui ne se sent pas comme étant un Québécois qui doit être nécessairement lié à cette chose-là et ça c'est le dilemme dans lequel le Bloc québécois s'est toujours trouvé. D'une part faire reconnaître par l'Assemblée nationale l'intégrité du territoire et d'autre part dire que les Québécois ou les Quebecers comme vous dites font partie de ce territoire-là c'est faux parce qu'il y a des gens qui fondamentalement ont opté pour le Canada et c'est ce que nous reconnaissons ce soir. Quand on a demandé au Bloc québécois d'accepter cette chose-là c'est ce qu'ils acceptent tacitement, que les Québécois font partie de la nation canadienne dans un effort d'unité nationale et c'est ce qu'on reconnaît.

Question: (Inaudible) Montrealers why they're not Québécois.

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that.

Question: Well, you said that it doesn't — you said it doesn't apply to people that aren't French.

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that they're not Québécois. What I'm saying here, and the reference that the Bloc Québécois has made is that they've made the Francophone pure laine. That's the intention. The intention is to be able to divide. We are taking the same words and we are saying no. On two separate occasions - and I'm repeating myself - on four provincial elections Quebecers have said no, we are voting for a federalist government, we are voting no to your proposal, we are part and parcel of Canadian unity and that's what we are indicating here. We're not playing semantics with the words. We are saying that that is a formal decision that was taken by Quebecers years ago and here's the first, first group of sovereingtists that are admitting this fact of life. Mr. Duceppe got up in the House the other day and you heard him talking about il faut reconnaître la réalité. On reconnaît la réalité. Les Québécois vous ont dit non à deux occasions. Et maintenant les Québécois vous ont dit — non seulement ils vous ont dit non, parce que la proposition ne se sépare pas, les Québécois vous ont dit formellement depuis qu'on est ici on chemine à l'intérieur du Canada. On est non seulement partie du processus, we are also making the country and that's what they've been saying to us.

Honestly. How can you read that and not see that there's an issue here with competing interpretations of what the word refers to? I agree wholeheartedly that Canadian English should use Québécois in the same manner that Quebec French does, but the role of Wikipedia is to provide an objective and NPOV description of how the word is used in English, not to dictate how it should be used. NPOV on Wikipedia is not served by pretending a controversial usage doesn't even exist; it's served by providing the context for a reader to understand why the usage is controversial. Bearcat 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When I read that I see that some politicians continue to try to make it an issue. They are playing on the ambiguity of words, an unfortunate consequence of the imperfection of all natural languages. The words guilty of being ambiguous here are "nation" and "Québécois". Some are trying, and have been trying for a very long time, to convince Canadians and anyone listening in the world wide English-speaking and French-speaking communities, that people who cannot trace their ancestry to New France are not considered Québécois by Québec nationalists. Some people who claim to be more moderate render this slightly differently by saying that such is the case of only a minority of supposed "hard liners" within the ranks of the PQ, a secessionist political party. Thank to the common reason of man, the academic and scientific communities of Canada and Quebec refuse to play this game of ethnic division and manipulation of the electorate using sophistry.

Indeed, politicians. The Bloc brought up the issue to whip up resentment against English Canada and fire the flames of seperatism and again underscore this as a malicious rejection of French Quebec. So Harper replied with a motion to blunt this, emphasizing that this did not change the legal status of anyone in Quebec. He was merely recognizing a reality that the majority of francophones identify primarily Quebecois, and that the majority of non-francophones do not. It is also a myth that intellectuals are motivated purely by reason. This is a naive attitude. Intellectuals in particular come with their own ideological prejudices and make their living rationalizing them. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the chronology of events. First, the irrational ideological blocus against recognizing the specificity of Quebec within Canada in the 1960s. Against British wisdom as made obvious by the situation in the UK. The refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Quebec's decades-old demands for internal autonomy, against the whole of Quebec civil society, which ignores Ottawa and moves forward with its project. In a decade, Quebec is completely transformed and a peaceful pro-independence movement reaches maturity. Instead of recognizing the errors of the past, repairing the injustices and let's be honest, grow up and drop the imperialist discourse of domination, which would have resulted in Quebec "separating" inside Canada instead of outside, thereby killing the secessionist movement, a handful of Dominion nationalists, afraid to loose everything they own in Quebec, afraid to see their financial empires dismantled, afraid of socialism and feminism and other things they do not understand even though they themselves created it by refusing equality and justice to all, recruit a few Quebecers with French names and present them to the Liberal Party of Canada. Les trois colombes as the media will call them have the dirty job of crushing the resurrected separatist movement, by attacking its legitimacy. Colonial indirect rule. We brought you peace, order and good government, how dare you defy us? Using the old trick of the Straw man, the political adversaries of equality amongst nations create an imaginary separatist movement which they paint as hugly as possible so people can hate it and find it justifiable to want to hurt it and ultimately kill it. It didn't take long for ignorant and naive people who had only seen the straw man to start throwing tomatoes and garbage at it. Decades later, there are a lot of people who have seen both the straw man and the real man. The illusion is fading. They are aware that the discourse must change as it is becoming an ambarassment. So here we are with Michael Ignatieff who proposes that Ottawa recognizes Quebec as a civic nation, something that should have been in the constitution of the Dominion from the start, something that many politicians from both Quebec and Canada were always willing to recognize, notably Lester B. Pearson before Trudeau replaced him. Something that almost became a reality with the Meech Accord. Believing that something positive was happening, that the climate was changing, the leader of the Bloc Québécois presented of motion that went in the direction of Ignatieff's motion. A reminder that the Bloc had tried to do the same a year or so before. Only, Duceppe isn't even asking to modify the constitution because he knows the political game, unlike Ignatieff. What's the problem with Ignatieff's motion for the ruling class? It is simple: Ottawa recognizing Quebec as a civic nation means discrediting Trudeau's legacy, admitting that Quebec nationalists, both the federalist and the sovereignists have a valid point since the beginning. That is when Harper, who supports partitioning Quebec along ethnic lines in case of secession, proposes a counter-motion. -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

International law does not require that Canada grant Quebec internal autonomy. It does grant all provinces a certain amount of autonomy, and grants Quebec considerably more (in immigration and language, for example). If Quebec wants more, it can vote for independence (not sovereignty asociation), or vote specifically for which items it wants autonomy. If voting for independence, it would be granted after negotiating borders, repayment of debt, etc. to the satisfaction of enough parties to warrant a constitutional ammendment. If voting for specific items, it would need to be negotiated with the other provinces and federal governemnt and also be ratified with a constitutional amendment.

Separating inside Canada would have weakened the federation to the point of collapse. It would have been required to grant other provinces the same autonomy, which they all would eventually demand once the precedent has been set. Weakening the federation would pull the provinces one by one into the orbit of the U.S., with eventual statehood. Preserving federal powers is not done just to spite Quebec. It's done with the entire nation in mind.

As for statements of colonial rule, this only shows that your view is based on inflammatory rhetoric as opposed to a grasp on reality. It does not take federalists to spin that into something based on exagerated anti-Canadian and anti-anglophone rhetoric. Quebec has it's share of Parliamentary seats based on it population, has it's language is recognized as an official language, and has 1/3 of the seats on the Supreme Court. That is more than its share of democratic representation on the federal leval. All federations have debates on separation of powers from time to time, and just because Quebec provincial politicians have lost a few and do not like it does not make the federal goverment colonial. I invite you to continue with the rhetoric, though, because it shows everyone patient enough to read this dialogue that you speak from an extreme point of view.

The Bloc Quebecois intoduced the motion only to provoke the kind of tirade against Canada in Quebec that you are unleashing here. Everyone knows that. That debate is dead in Quebec, even if some idiot in English Canada says something stupid about it. The Quebecois understand that there are anti-French bigots in English Canada, just like there are anti-English bigots in Quebec.

There is nothing wrong with Trudeau's legacy. It protects the rights of linguistic minorities across the country, and is used as a model for coexistance between different linguistic and ethnic groups the world over. His point that French deserves strong representation in a strong federal government is perfectly legitimate. You may disagree with it, but there is not need to pretend that there is anything anti-Quebec about it.

Harper merely proposes that Quebec be divided along the same lines as Canada. Those areas voting to stay in Canada stay in Canada. Those that vote to stay in a seccessionist Quebec stay there. It's based on a civic majority within a territory, just like Quebec. If harfpers proposal is along ethnic lines, so is Quebec's. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As made very clear by the Common declaration of sovereignist and federalist intellectuals from Canada and Québec, there are different versions of what constitute Canada.

These are merely the opinions of a few professors in their ivory towers. Their influence on the political and social reality in Quebec is limited. The influence of politicians is far larger as they are the ones who write the laws and are accountable to the public. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these would be the opinions of those who educate the voters, who then elect the politicians to represent them. Talk about anti-elitism. -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

They educate a few political science majors, most of whom don't even agree with them. Most Canadians don't even know who they are. They don;t even represent th majority of academics, Their manifestos are as good as something I would put together with a bunch of my professor buddies. That you have to reach to such obscure sources shows how marginal your views really are. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, some Quebecers, typically anglophones of all origins, currently do not identify to Quebec the way most Quebec francophones do because they already consider themselves Canadians living in Quebec.

Indeed. That is the definition of a Quebecker. It is a purely civic definition of the term. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Some Quebecers, including a now large majority of francophones or all origins, do not identify to Canada the way most anglophone Canadians do.

True. They iodentify with their province becasue they see this as the only place where they can live comfortably in French. This is relates to all sort of factors such as identification with language, identification with culture, identification with ancestry, etc. As such, it arises out of a need for the political hegemony of francophones and French-Canadian culture, and also Quebecois ethnicity. It is a fact that a large number of Quebecois list "Quebecois" as their ethnicity on the Canadian census. In any case, it's origin has to with an emotional sense of belonging; it has nothing to do with reason, although reason copmpells us to recignize it as human. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The census asks for the ethic origin or your parents, not for your ethnic origin. Many Quebecers know that their parents were born in Quebec of parents born in Quebec etc. etc. A lot of us find it strange to have to pick "French", since we conceive the French and the Quebecers as two distinct national cultures, just like the British and the Americans do. Since 2001, "Canadian" is a proposed choice for the ethnic origin of your parents. Does it mean that the millions of people who pick this choice are believers in ethnic nationalism? That they need to belong because they are emotional? That is none-sense of course. If you think it through, you'll realize what your prejudice against the majority of Quebecers is: that we are inferior, morally and intellectually. That our civilization was and still is inferior because it is not British. -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It means that they recognize the word Quebecois in the ethnic sense of the word. My point and only point is that the majority of francophone Quebecers consider Quebecois to be an ethnicty, since the word "French Canadian" has become obsolete. Changing the name has not changed the "sens d'appartenance" of the word; it just associates with a more limited territory. I also made it quite clear that it is as normal as German, Cree, Irish, Croatian, Jewish or German nationalism. It is perfectly normal and universally human to be proud of your ethnicity and all that goes with (language, religion, ancestry, culture, shared history, shared territory). What I am saying is that it would be wise to recognize that not everyone in Quebec identifies with this nationalism, and that it is unwise to force this identity on them. Calling Durham's proposals to forcibly assimilate French Canadians unwise or even racist does not mean you are calling the English inferior. Similarly, calling policies designed to forcibly assimilate non-Quebecois living in Quebec unwise or racist is not calling the Quebecois inferior. It's just calling them wrong. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not change the fact that everyone that is a citizen of Canada is an equal member of the body of Canadian citizens and that everyone that is a citoyen du Québec (i.e., essentially anyone that is a Canadian citizen and resides in Quebec for more than 6 months) is an equal member of body of the citoyens québécois.

This is the same as in any province. The same residence rules apply in Ontario, Alberta, etc. If the definition of Quebecois is meant purely in a civic context, why then the need to distinquish between, say, Quebnecois and Albertain? Becasue of the ethno-cultural overtones of the word, of course.--Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not the same as any province. You are missing the historical perspective. Newfoundland, having evolved distinctly from the rest of Canada from its foundation until 1949 is about the only province that could compare here. The institutions of the Quebec community of citizens that exist today trace their origin in New France buddy. Long before the Dominion gave birth to a "New Nationality" as the self-proclaimed fathers of "confederation" called it, there already was a nationality all formed in Quebec, shaped by centuries of legal and political history. The institutions are the matrix of society. In Canada, there is a political nation within another political nation. How many times are we going to have to say this? -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Several patent innaccuracies here. Firstly, Quebec's democratic institutions date back to 1791 and 1867, when the elected National Assembly was set up. This is a distinctly British institution in all its aspects (one could legitimately call these colonial as it was founded by a colonial government). It's civil legal system (Code Napoleonic) also dates back to 1867, but was based on that of Napoleon, who came long after New France had fallen.

Quebec's institutions do not go back to New France. The ETHICITY (i.e. language, ancestry, culture, religion and history) of the vast majority of Quebec's francophones (the Quebecois or French Canadians) goes back to New France. That is what sets Quebec apart from the other provinces. Hence, any sense of "territorial nationalism" or "sens d'appartenance" in Quebec nationalism is also embued in the mind of ethnic Quebecois (i.e. French Canadians) with all the other associations (in order: shared language, culture, history, ancestry and religion) that the word Queebcois conjures up. This isn't calling them inferior: it makes them just like Germans, Swedes, Scots, Serbians, Croatians, Irish, etc. etc. All are ethnic groups have asserted their hegemony over their territory the way the Quebecois seek to do. If you took this ethnic "sens d'appartenance" out of the meaning of Quebecois (particularly the attachment to language), you would weaken the sense of differnce with the rest of Canada, and the desire for autonomy would be proportionally weakened. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is only one legal definition of Québécois. This mean that the citizens of Québec are part of two communities which the majorities consider to be nations in the political sense of the word.

Again, the legal civic definition yopu describe applies to the resident of any province in Canada. That is precisely what the Tory motion underscores. That the sens eof 'nation' is made in a sociological context and carries with it no change to the current legal status of any Quebecer.--Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Retired judge Henri Brun makes an interesting point in an opinion letter entitled La motion Harper: peu mais tout de même pas rien (Le Devoir, December 2-3 2006) :

Selon la motion Harper, ce sont les Québécois qui forment une nation. Dans la version anglaise de la motion, le même mot «Québécois» est utilisé plutôt que «Quebeckers». De cela, certains ont déduit que la nation reconnue était celle des seuls Québécois francophones.

Nous pensons que tel n'est pas le cas. Le mot «Québécois», en langue française, désigne tous les habitants du Québec. Son utilisation, au sein d'une phrase anglaise, peut très bien signifier qu'on a tout simplement voulu employer la langue commune des Québécois pour nommer la nation québécoise plutôt que la langue maternelle d'une des minorités qui se trouvent au Québec. Et si le mot «Québécois» devait pouvoir receler un second sens dans le contexte de la version anglaise, il faudrait, selon les règles d'interprétation, retenir le sens non ambigu qu'il a dans la version française.'

which translates to:

"According to the Harper motion, it is the Québécois who constitute a nation. In the English version of the motion, the same word of Québécois is used instead of Quebeckers. From this, some have deduced that the nation just recognized was that of Quebec francophones alone.

We think that such is not the case. The word Québécois, in the French language, designates all the inhabitants of Quebec. Its use, within an English sentence, could very well mean that we have wanted to use the common language of Quebecers to name the Quebec nation instead of the native language of one of the minorities of Quebec. And if the word Québécois was found to conceal a second meaning within the context of the English version, we would have to, according to interpretative rules, retain the nonambiguous meaning the word has in the French version."

This is his opinion. He might even really believe that this is the way it should be. Stephen Harper (who put forward the motion) and Stephane Dion (who supported it and was consulted by Harper on it), though, already said that they were talking about the "sociological" and "cultural" sense of the word, for which there is plenty of evidence. When it comes down to interpreting the motion legally, and courts judge the intent of the people who framed the motion, they will probably give more weight to the people who wrote the law rather than the opinion of a judge who did not. Although some might pretend that this sociological sense of the word is non-existant need only watch a hockey game on RDS. Martin St. Louis, who has lived in the U.S. for years, and Martin Brodeur are considered "un joueur Quebecois". Sheldon Souray and Bob Gainey, Candian citizens who have lived in Quebec for years, are not. Frankly, I deeply resent this kind of attitude, but at the same time I don't blame the Quebecois (in the ethnic sense of the word) for identifying more with Celine Dion and Martin St. Louis more than Sheldon Souray or the members of Arcade Fire. But if you really disagree with what you deem as "incorrect" usage, complain to the folks at RDS who reinforce it among francophones; don't bitch about anglophones rolling their eyes and blowing the whistle on this kind of thing. The fact is, people like you only complain when anglos mimic the ethnic sense of the word use in French, and let it slide when the francophone press and nationalist politicians make reference to it. All this sophistry about Quebecois refering to the purely civic sense of the word in French is nonsense and anyone who lives in Quebec knows it. In English, we just have more precise terminology to distinguish between the ethno-cultural and civic senses of the word, and that needs to be made clear. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Of course it is his opinion. Nobody said the opposite. I show you that in French, there is only one legal definition of Québécois, and that consequently the French motion recognized the community of all Quebec citizens as forming a nation within Canada, and all you find to reply is that English is more precise a language and that francophones reject non-francophones because of hand-picked anecdote A and hand-picked anecdote B. Talk about chauvinism. Do you even realize that you are writing this in the talk page of an encyclopedia and that possibly hundreds of thousands of people might read some day? -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I do. And they will see that you fabricate insults where are none. Saying that Quebecois is a more ambiguous word in French than in English does not imply inferiority. The word "snow" is more ambiguous in Inuktitut than in English. That deosn't make English inferior (I suppose now you'll say that I'm imnplying that English is superior to Inuktitut). As far is the motion goes, what the differnt MP's voted for is on the record. You can cannot deny that Dion and Harper defined Queebcois in its sociological and cultural sense, and not the legal sense; they said so explicitly in Parliament, so any judge will have that record to work with. That is the defintion that will stand up in law. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the much more interesting subject of the ambiguity of the word "nation", philosopher Michel Seymour has distinguished 7 types of national communities (there could be more than those 7 types of course) :

1. Ethnique: quand on se représente comme partageant la même origine ancestrale.

2. Culturelle: quand on se conçoit comme ayant différentes origines ancestrales mais qu'on est rassemblés autour d'une même langue maternelle, d'un même ensemble d'institutions et d'une même histoire.

3. Civique: quand on partage le même pays et que celui-ci est conçu comme un État mononational.

4. Sociopolitique: quand on participe d'une même communauté politique qui n'est pas souveraine mais qui contient en son sein l'échantillon le plus important dans le monde d'un groupe partageant à la fois la même langue, les mêmes institutions et la même histoire.

5. Diasporique: quand on fait partie d'un groupe dont les membres ont la même langue, la même culture et la même histoire mais qui sont étalés sur différents territoires discontinus et qui sont minoritaires sur chacun de ces territoires.

6. Multisociétale: lorsque l'État souverain apparaît aux yeux de la majorité comme étant composé de plusieurs cultures sociétales nationales (Royaume-Uni).

7. Multiterritoriale: lorsque le groupe se trouve sur un territoire continu mais qui ne correspond pas aux frontières juridiquement reconnues. Par exemple, le peuple kurde occupe un territoire non fragmenté (le Kurdistan) mais qui déborde les frontières officielles des États existants.

which translates to:

1. Ethnic: when we think of ourselves as sharing the same ancestral origins.

2. Cultural: when we think of ourselves as having different ancestral origins, but are nevertheless united by a common mother tongue, a common set of institutions and a common territory.

3. Civic: when we share the same country and that this country was made to be a mononational State.

4. Sociopolitical: when we participate to the same political community that is not sovereign but contains in its midst the most important sample in the world of a group sharing the same language, the same institutions and the same history.

5. Diasporic: when we belong to a group whose members have the same language, the same culture and the same history but have been dispersed on various discontinuous territories and are a minority inside all these territories.

6. Multisociétale: when the sovereign State is thought of by the majority as being made out of multiple national and cultural societies (United Kingdom).

7. Multiteritorial: when the group is located in a continuous territory but one that does not correspond to juridically recognized borders. For exemple, the kurds occupies a territory that is not fragmented (Kurdistan) but its borders do not match the official borders of existing States.

Again, this is his personal opinion. It's highly subjective and based on his hard-line nationalist sentiments and more designed to justify his own emotional sovereignist convictions. In fact, all communitees are different and complex, and categorizing them demeans all of them in that it cameoflages important differences; at the same time it ignores the common defintion, which is that communities are based on an individual's personal decision to identify with and participate interactions within these communities. It can be based on common ancestry, geographic proximity, religion, etc. It deosn't really matter, becasue all can be equally important and feed an emotional and largely irrational sense of belonging. If you look at the "ethnic" conflict between Croat and Serb, for example, you'll see a common ancestry and even a common language on both sides; it is mostly a question of identification with religion, written script, and even varying degrees of identification with Western and Eastern European society (Croatia with Catholic western Europe; Serbia with Orthodox Slavic societies). In Quebec, it is a mattter of an identification with language and an ancestral culture that is much, much stronger among French-Canadians than other Quebecers. See ethnicity and see that ethnicity is also based on a shared language (French in Quebec) and Religion (Catholicism) as well as ancestry (French settlers). The reality is the Quebec nationalism is as "ethnic" as that found in Croatia, Norway, Catalonia, or Serbia. It is dangerous to deny it because it lulls us into a flase sense of security that we are somehow different in Canada than other humans. Just because nationalists can't admit to being ehtnic nationalists doesn't make it so. There's nothing wrong with it, by the way, it's just expectations that immigrants, anglophones, and First Nations are going to share in it will lead to resentment. I can admit myself that if I were a French Canadian, I'd be a Quebec seperatist too. So I don't blame the Quebecois for being nationalists; I do however resent politicians and demagogues that attempt to exploit these sentiments to forward their pet political ideologies by appealing to these emotions rather than reason. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you identified with humanity first, you would identify with all legitimate national struggles at once and not write ethnicizing comments like "I can admit myself that if I were a French Canadian, I'd be a Quebec seperatist too. " I wish for the independence of all nations and I am confident I am in the right when I say that political borders must be drawn to respect the needs of human collectivities and not to respect the legacy of British imperialism in America. -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am doing precisely that. I'm recognizing that it is perfectly human to identify with your ethnicity. it doesn't matter if your Cree, Swedish, or Quebecois. However, wiping out the British colonial legacy is somewehat one sided and based on anti-British prejudice. Lets extend to that to the legacy of French and Spanish Imperialism and we may have something balanced to talk about. We would have to wipe out common law in the U.S. and Canada, civil law in Quebec and Louisianna, burn down the National Assembly and the Parliament buidlings, rename the Champlain, Jacques Cartier, and Victoria bridges (The Lafontaine Tunnel and Mercier Bridge are arguably from here) , and give the St, Lawrence Valley back to the Mohawk, Abenaki, MicMac and Innu. I'd have to go back to Germany, and you'd have to leave your Amerndian part here, send your french part back to Normandy, and your Irish part back to Kilkenny. it could get gory. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unbelieveable. When did you write that? In any case, that is pure none-sense. 1) You cannot go "back" to Germany because you were born here. You have the right to consider yourself at home in Quebec.

Geez, thanks for giving me that right. --Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

2) French colonialism in North America ended in 1763.

In that sense, British Colonialism ended in Canada in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster.--Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

3) Spanish and Portugese colonialism ended a long time ago.

Yet their colonial lagacy remains in the languags spoken in Latin America. --Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

4) The St. Lawrence Iroquoians "vacated the St. Lawrence valley sometime prior to 1580". I visited the exposition at Pointe-à-Callière and it was very interesting. I recommend it.

I didn't mention them. I mentioned the Mohawk, the Abenaki, the MicMac, and the Innu. They were still there. --Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

5) All new nations born out of European colonization (the Americans, the Canadians, the Quebecers, the Acadians, the Mexicans etc.) are distinct from Europe. There is no way to go back in this regard.

That is my point. They are all part of the European colonial legacy. It's all part of who we are. The National Assembly is part of the British colonial legacy. It is not all good, and it is not all bad. --Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

6) All Amerindian claims for self-goverment in Quebec are legitimate and can be met without sending people of European ancestry back to a place they might have only seen on a post-card before. Deportation is a crime against humanity, and the Amerindians are not asking for more crimes to be committed, they are asking for justice for all, they are asking for their just demands to be met, much like Quebecers are. The Quebec territory is big enough for 12 nations to coexist peacefully.

So it goes for all of Canada.

7) The legacy of British imperialism in America is the system of Indian reserves and the locking up of Quebecers inside a province. How could anyone in Canada be proud of this? -- Mathieugp 05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And the Quebecois used that system to restrict the Cree to small tracts of category one, two and three lands around their reserves; this was done int he 1970's, not in the 1800's. The legacy of Quebec nationalism on Cree territory is huge Hydro projects, the destruction of their land and userpation of their sovereignty. How can any Quebecois be proud of that? Why do you criticize Canada for something that Quebec uses everyday to keep the Cree and Inuit down? --Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is probably a neutral and encyclopedic way to write about this, in all its aspects, but the right article for it surely is not Québécois. Maybe Controversy over the meaning of the word Québécois in Canadian English? -- Mathieugp 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I think the section of Quebec Nationalism would be the place. We should focus less on history and more on contemporary expressions of nationalism in Quebec. What exists here serves as a fine summary of the use (or if you prefer, abuse) of the word Quebecois. It is extremely important that English-speaking Canadians and even other people in the world understand the difference between Quebecker and Quebecois in English, as well as the many ambiguous and overlapping meanings that it has in French. The fact is, an Albertan moving to Quebec will have to be here a long, long time (much longer than six months) before his coworkers at the office (francophone or anglophone) will start to refer to him as a Quebecois (if ever), no matter how much he insists on it. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was called a "French" by the Albertans because of my accent, even 3 years after I was there and I didn't accuse them of rejecting me. It is only when your Albertan buddy will start to think of himself as a Québécois that his coworkers will do the same. It might take a year, two years, three years, ten years, that depends on the indidividuals. What is certain though it that even if he never ever started to identity with his new community, sign of his assimilation, it would never change the fact that after 6 months he would be, before the law, a "Québécois" like the others. And unlike all those Quebecers whose native language is not English or French, he would even be in a privileged position to ask the government of Québec to communicate with him in his native language. -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you seek to asimilate anglophones? Apparantly, assimilation is only wrong when Durham wants to do it to you. If the Quebecois do not want to become English Canadian, why would English-speaking Canadians want to become French Canadian or Quebecois? What is wrong with respecting minority as efined by the canadian constitution and the United Nations, and the European Community? Why are you unable to accept the English-Speaking minority community or people in Quebec as fully 100% Quebecois? According to you, you are not Quebecois until you assimilate the many Irish did in the 1800's. this why English-speaking Quebecers distinguish between Quebecker and Quebecois: A Quebecker does not have to assimilate and the definition is purely civic; to be Quebecois, you have to assimilate becasue the definition is ethno-cultural. We do not want to assimilation and we should not have to. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Francophones distinguish between Quebecois and anglophones too; hence Celine Dion;s non-acceptance speech at ADISQ a few years back "Je ne suis pas une artiste anglophone ... je suis une Québécoise" ... there's nothing wrong with it, by the way ... francophones have every right to distinguish themselves culturally from others ... why would anyone wish to deprive them of that distinction? It goes to the heart of Quebec nationalism ... calling anglophones Québécois, who identify with the culture of "English" Canada, would kill the most important sense of the word --Soul scanner 12:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[1]. I find this really icky, and presumably based on an opinion I disagree with, but it is an example of the distinction that is drawn in English usage. Bearcat 12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You can pretend that it isn't, but it is there in French usage side too (see Celine Dion quote above); again, I see nothing wrong with it; there are two linguistic communitees in Quebec and it is perfectly natural for both to maintain a distinct identities. The sad thing is that it has been politicized. [2] What's particularly funny about the reference is how the immigrants suggest a strictly a civic and territorial sense of being a Quebecer, « If you live here, you are a Quebecker, if you leave tomorrow, you are not. », the article seems to imply that this is something less than an ethno-cultural-linguistic "sens d'appartenance" that makes you a true Quebecois --Soul scanner 09:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For edits from new users

We've discussed these definitions before: Encyclopedic articles describe the way terms are used, not the way some would like them to be used. I've provided references to the Oxford (British) and Marriam-Webster (American) dictionaries that provide authoratitive definitions, suitable for beginning the article. The article represents a composite definition of these two sources. The links require subscriptions, but you should be able to access them from any library. If anyone wishes to change the introductory definition, please provide comparable authoratitive sources. --Soul scanner 05:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the contraversy section, I will support anyone who wishes to remove it. I think it can be best relegated to this discussion section as it contains more subjective rants and original "research" (I use that term lightly) that are unencyclopedic. --Soul scanner 05:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I must object a bit here, my friend. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, and not a dictionary, thus it makes sense to provide a more recent and academic definition that is reflective of current usage. Dictionaries are often very behind the times, especially in matters such as these, as we are all well aware. When I have time, I will find proper sources, and I invite others to do the same. However, there should be no dispute that in French, throughout the French-speaking world and not only in Quebec, Quebecois refers to anyone from Quebec. Laval 08:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy forbids "original research". Dictionaries provide definitions based on research of how often these words are used in referenced sources. The definitions given are from the most recent editions of authoratative dictionaries. If you can find dictionary or other authoraticve sources that cite frequency of usage, then bring them forward. --Soul scanner 09:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything you have added to this "article" is original research supporting your flawed thesis on the "Quebecois" as everything you have ever added to Wikipedia clearly shows. The various dictionary definions can be added to Wikitionary. -- Mathieugp 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added nothing to the article. The article clearly documents (and anyone who reads it can see) several definitions of "Quebecois" that exclude different portions of the population. --Soulscanner 15:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can review all the edits you have made to the article. How can you write something so untrue as "I have added nothing to the article." The various dictionary definitions of Quebecois in English belong to Wikitionary. -- Mathieugp 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to the journal article. There is nothing in my edits that isn't referred to in the journal. There is no original research. It is in fact you who provide no objective references to back up your edits. --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the dispute, it is largely irrelevant in an encyclopedia of whether there should or shouldn't be a dispute about the French definition of Quebecois. The fact is that there is. I've also provided a full reference and link to a scholarly article that documents this dispute, discussing the ambiguity of the term when it is mentioned in French in a political and cultural context. I've also provided references and links to where it is disputed in current events. The fact is that sometimes in French, Quebecers distinguish between anglophones and Quebecois. Some like it, some do not, but it is a fact that this happens. To hide this fact is largely an objective by those who are embarrassed by the debate for political reasons. --Soul scanner 09:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are the one using an annecdote which you take out of its original context to support your thesis. Most of the time, not sometimes, Quebecers consider French to be their language, to be the language reflecting their national culture, something English cannot do. That is the main fact, but you will never find a valid logical inference to go from that fact to your flawed and unencyclopedic conclusion. -- Mathieugp 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not an anecdote. It is a documented event discussed in peer-reviewed literature and fully contextualized, remains a subject of debate in Quebec, and is representative of how the word is commonly used by many anglophones and francophones in Quebec. Many Quebecois are embarrassed by it, particularly Quebec nationalists who do not agree with it, but that is no reason to bury your head in the sand and pretend that it does not exist. I can tell you many, many 'anecdotes' from personal experience of where francophones distinguish between Quebecois and anglophones, so a politicized attempt to deny it just does not hold up to any objective scrutiny. The article makes plenty of references to other scholarly articles that document the debate among Quebec nationalists about who to include in their definition of Quebecois, and it is disingenuous to deny the existence of the debate. --Soulscanner 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly deny the existence of a debate on this. For a debate to exist, there needs to be multiple people with multiple thesesis confronting each other. Here, we have only one POV. Mathieugp 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article examines the wider issue of the definition of Quebecois. Yet you say there is only one POV. You have obviously not read the article. Consider the definition given by (Hero & Balthazar, 1988, pp. 55, 80)

"During recent decades, francophones in Quebec have modified the way that they refer to themselves. They generally called themselves "Canadiens français" (French Canadians) until the early 1960s, but they have increasingly called themselves "Québécois" (Quebecers) since the Quiet Revolution."

Reading the article through did make me realize that Celine Dion never said what some journalists claimed she said and the whole thing is sensationalistic as the article suggests in the intro. The source really is Don Macpherson (how original) and GESCA journalists. The full quote of Dion makes it quite clear what she meant and that invalidates your assertion completely. This is a very interesting article indeed and I intend to use it in the future to demonstrate how deep the misrepresentation of francophone Quebec really is. One day this double-language will have to stop. -- Mathieugp 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the passage, made with reference to a well known and authoritative scholar (Balthazar), that directly confirms the short introductory definitions in my edit. It is a definition that you wish to deny in order to mislead people as to how the word Queebcois is used in Quebec.--Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken here. I do not object to writing that Anglophones do that. -- Mathieugp 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The media-fabricated controversy you are talking about is unknown to the majority of Quebecers who do not read English language corporate and anti-Quebec media day after day. The only thing they remember, if they do remember, is that Celine Dion refused to be considered an anglophone because she was singing in English, her second language. She refused an award that belongs to Arcade Fire and the likes.-- Mathieugp 20:36, 16

Precisely. She said she was not anglophone, but that she was a Quebecoise. This meant a "francophone or French Canadian living in Quebec", the common French usage established by the Balthazar reference above and the one documented with my edit. And you continue to deny that this very common and normal definition exists. --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do deny this to be a formal definition and even as common usage in the population. According to the Montreal Gazette translation (which we should double-check because they are not reliable and neutral at all here): "I am not an anglophone artist and the public understands that. Everywhere I go in the world, I say that I'm proud to be Québécoise". There is no opposition between being a Québécois(e) and being an anglophone here. To claim that is litterally a misrepresentation of what she said and only Anglophones ignorant of Quebec's francophone and general culture can fail to see this. Celine Dion is a francophone famous for singing in English worldwide. She was and still is often referred to as an example of the international success of Quebec artists and the export of Quebec culture worldwide. During the Lucien Bouchard years, she was routinely used as an example in goverment-sponsored speeches to the point of getting many people sick and tired of hearing about it. Some of the people who got tired and sick of it were Quebec artists and ordinary citizens wondering if really a francophone Quebecer singing pop songs in English was such a good export of "Quebec" culture. Many will agree that Japanese rock bands singing in English and making it big in the USA are not exactly contributing much to authentic Japanese culture. This, no francophone Quebecer (even people like me who do not own a TV) missed it because it really became common place to critize the exploitation of her success abroad. You can see how sovereignist/federalist divisions might come into play here. I specifically remember one Bloc MP saying bluntly that Celine was not contributing to Quebec culture and was some sort of a turncoat. This might have been after though, I am not certain. In any case, the criticism of Celine's success in imitating Anglo-American singers entered the mass media and journalists eventually spoke to Celine who said (I cannot recall exactly of course) that she was shocked and that she considered herself to be contributing to Quebec culture and was not selling out. Anyone doing some research here will be able to confirm I am not making this up. So her statement is indeed, as Parizeau said it is. She showed courage and patriotism and she deserves to be praised for taking the stand she took. She replied to her detractors that night and showed she was a Québécoise and not just someone going for easy commercial success by singing in English. But of course Don Macpherson did not miss it. He did not miss any occassion to misrepresent the majority of Quebecers to his readers in the typical fashion of the adversaries of the all things Quebecois. -- Mathieugp 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are literally lying when you state that "The article makes plenty of references to other scholarly articles that document the debate among Quebec nationalists about who to include in their definition of Quebecois". There are no such references in the article first of all and second those references do not even exist. Moreover, anything pertaining to how francophones use Québécois in their language is irrelevant to an article about the use of Quebecois by (some) Anglophones. -- Mathieugp 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are just being silly and abusive. This is unacceptable on Wikipedia. You should read before you talk. Here are the relevant scholarly references that offer the definition:

Balthazar, Louis. (1994). Interview with Louis Balthazar. In Gilles Gougeon, A history of Quebec nationalism (pp. 107-114). Toronto: James Lorimer.

Hero, Alfred Oliver, Jr., & Balthazar, Louis. (1988). Contemporary Quebec and the United States, 1960-1985. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

I'll await an apology here. --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll wait for a long time. The article I was referring to was of course the current article, not one of the articles in the references. Duh. And you are lying again because these sources found in one of your sources do not support Don Macpherson's and other journalists' interpretation. The source for the Celine Dion controversy in the English language press should be the Montreal Gazette or some other of the typical corporate media bashing the evil Quebec nationalists as usual, yesterday using an annecdote about Celine today trying to make Boisclair pass for a racist man. How vulgar. If you want to use the Canadian Journal article as a source, you'll have to write up something that actually goes along the lines of the said article. -- Mathieugp 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree on removing the controversy section. Are there any objections? Laval 08:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You won't see me object. I voted to have Quebecois and Quebecer and all variants to redirect to Quebec or to the Wikitionary definition. -- Mathieugp 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quebecois and Quebecer have two distinct meanings in English, as evidenced by several references to authoratitive dictionaries, scholarly articles, and articles on current events. Your attempt to deny that this distinction is commonly made in Quebec is strictly predictable, similar to Andre Boisclair's spin that calling Asians "slant-eyes" is no big deal to white Quebecois and therefore okay. It turn out that most Asians, even Pequistes, object. It's really a political campaign of denial. --Soulscanner 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quebecois and Quebecers have two distinct meanings in English because a certain political power works hard to misrepresent French-speaking Quebec to English speakers. All dictionary definition belong in Wikitionary where people can consult them and think whatever they want of it by themselves. -- Mathieugp 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, before you were argueing that there was only one definition. Now that I've documented and referenced the definition, you concede. Why did you deny it at first? Clearly, you have political motivations. It is progress though. The reason this dichoromy exists in English is because francophones and French Candians living in Quebec refred to themselves as Quebecois, and distinguished themselves from other Quebeckers. The references I cited (among many, many others) clearly show this. This was was done for political reasons to alienate French-speakers from Canada. Anglophones just adopted the word to avoid calling their neigbours French Canadian which they consisder antiquated. It's not an anglo conspiracy, although I understand why someone as eager to denigrate Canada would want to spin it that way. --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not conceded anything there at all. In French, there is only one formal definition. There is no Anglo conspiracy. This is a misrepresentation of the majority of Quebecers which can only work on people who do not master French and do not have an understanding of Quebec's history. -- Mathieugp 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This Wiki article simply attempts to explain the issues surrounding the Quebecois identity. That requires more than a dictionary entry because it is complex and there is a great debate in Quebec on it. There are many definitions to Quebecois, so all should be given and documented. All encyclopedia articles begin with a definition. It is just common sense. You just want to bury the article because you know the facts will contradict your narrow political agenda. The article actually review other definitions given by important Quebec figures that also contradict your claim that there is only one definition of a Quebecer. It is the Dion Affair that ignited the debate about who's a real Quebecer, and anglophones that pushed for the more inclusive form of the word:

- Anglo friends of Donald MacPherson: '"Several anglophones told me this week, before I wrote a column on the subject, that they found Dion's remarks offensive. To them, a Québécois is simply a Quebecer, someone who lives in Quebec and feels attached to it regardless of linguistic identity. . . . '(they agree with you!)

- Bernard landry: "someone who lives in Quebec and who loves it enough to consider it his or her homeland"

- Alain Dubuc: 'They were right, he said, "in not accepting that the term Québécois should be reserved for native-born francophones." Dion had opened a debate as to who was a real Quebecer, he added.' (Gee ... I thought the francophone press did not cover it ... yeah right) --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained above a while ago why an article on the subject is not a good idea. I still claim the same today. I am not the only person to see how writting something neutral on this will be a headache. Dictionary definitions belong in Wikitionary. You can write all the BS you want there if they let you. An article on the subject of the use of the word Québécois by francophones is far more complex and can't seriously be written out of a few English language sources. It also cannot be written in an article meant for the definition of another word, Quebecois, in another language, English. That is plain common sense.

Boisclair's "slant eyes" comment

Your vulgar attempt at defamating Boisclair (who of course never used that English expression alien to most Quebecers) only shows your irrepressible contempt and misunderstanding for those you call "white Quebecois". I'd like to see your fabulous stats about what "most Asians" think. You are of course fabricating false information here again. -- Mathieugp 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read what this francophone Asian Pequiste said about it. What is funny is that immigrants who try to participate in Quebec public life and try to tranfrom the nature of Quebec nationalism are constantly thwarted by the old guard. I suppose she is another anglo trying to defame Boisclair. Give me a break. He's done it to himself. When a committed Pequistes question the leader in teh middle of an election campaign, it is serious. Of course, this story is buried in the francophone press.

PQ insider slams Boisclair for 'slanting eyes' comment. [3]

May Chiu, a prominent Péquiste who was the first Chinese-Canadian candidate to run for the Bloc Québécois, has slammed PQ Leader André Boisclair for using a French expression that means "slanting eyes" to describe Asian students. Chiu — who ran unsuccessfully for the Bloc in the 2006 federal election and is now working on PQ candidate Zhao Xin Wu's campaign in Montreal — warned that Boisclair's refusal to apologize for the comment would jeopardize the inroads that his party has made with Quebec's Asian population.

With one remark in two seconds, I think he has done a lot of damage with the work and the bridges that these candidates have built with the community," Chiu told the CBC on Thursday night. Boisclair spurred controversy when he used the expression les yeux bridés (slanting eyes) Wednesday night in a speech to students in Trois-Rivières, when he talked about the influx of Asian students coming to study in North American universities.

Chiu said Boisclair's reaction to the outcry following his remarks revealed his ignorance. "I think that you've got to be extremely disconnected with reality if you don't realize that calling people slanted eyes has been an insult to Asians for the longest time, and is still used as an insult."

The PQ leader refused to withdraw his comments on Thursday, arguing the expression is commonly used in a non-derogatory way in the French language, and most Quebecers would agree with its use. He also said he was amazed by the discipline and success of the Asian students. But Chiu urged Boisclair do his homework. "He doesn't know the experiences of Asians in Quebec, the experiences of racial minorities. If he thinks Quebecers will stand behind him, they will not stand behind a remark which is so harmful to so many Quebecers of Asian descent."

And you sit here and deny that Boisclair did not to refer to students with "slanting eyes". Incredible! The utter refusal to even acknowledge the ethnic nature of the Quebecois identity boggles the mind. --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He did not say "slanting eyes". I am almost sure he, just like me, had never even heard or seen written that expression before he was asked about it by Anglo journalists. He of course spoke in French and said les yeux bridés which indeed is not used pejoratively in French, at least not intentionally. There are all kinds of nasty words used by racist people to refer to Asians in French. les yeux bridés or les yeux en amandes are rather poetic to tell you the truth. May Chiu is right though. It was a mistake. Many Anglophone Asians will probably think it means what the Montreal Gazette tells them it means an implies. That Boisclair is another racist PQ leader like Parizeau. This dictionary disagrees with the translation of yeux bridés:

http://dictionnaire.tv5.org/dictionnaires.asp?Action=4&param=brid%E9&che=1

That is a poor translation. "Slit" can mean vagina in English, especially when you refer to the human body. It would be way worse that way.

Speaking English as a second language, I have no way of knowing how "slit eyes" or "slanting eyes" differ in meaning if they do, or what connotations they may have acquired in Anglo-Canadian or American society. Boisclair neither. That's probably why he stopped to explain how the English translation might have some connotation it does not in French. -- 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So Boisclair spent a year at Harvard (where everyone is Asian-American, apparantly), grew up in Montreal, and has no idea that refering to someone's physical features might be offensive? I would say he's moving in some very closed circles. Really, someone who wants to be Premier of Quebec should know better.

Some 4 ago, there was an anti-racism campain in which we could see, in the Metro and other places, an advertizing of the cutest little Asian girl holding two almonds over her eyes and smiling. It said "Les yeux en amandes, le coeur québécois." A lot of people will remember it in Quebec. Just like in Englihs, some words and expressions are banned from French vocabulary because they were once or are still used pejoratively. For Asians, examples would be jaune and chintok but in no way shape or form yeux bridés and even less yeux en amandes. -- 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I rememeber that one, and my reaction was the same as with Boisclair. I found it incredibly patronizing. I got this image of a whole bunch of white francophone fonctionaires in Quebec who had never met an Asian (but seem them waling around) coming up with a publicity campaign to satisfy hemselves that they are not racist. Do you understand that Asians do not notice their slanted eyes when they look at each other or themselves, just like we do not see round eyes when look at each either? I guess the intentions are good, but it shows a certain lack of understanding of what life is like from a Asian (or any minority) persepective; had the Asian community actually been consulted on this campaign, it never would have happened; it served as a blatant reminder that minorities are obvioulsly under represented in the Quebec civil service and their voice is not listened to. I had friend who printed out a T-shirt with a smiley face and a square head "La tete carre, le coeur quebecois" in parody of this campaign. A lot of my francophone friends saw it as an amusing act of self-depreciation, whereas the anglophones understood the parody. Two cultures, I guess.

Imagine if someone from English Canada would try to build bridges by a poster campaign on the well known beauty of Quebecoise women: "la belle quebecoise , la belle canadienne". Would you not find this patronizing? Responding to serious political issues with "poetic" compliments about physical beauty? It is inappropriate. And can you imagine the outcry if someone running for Prime Minister did this?

Let's imagine that I am so irrational that I can actually think that being morally inferior might be a national feature of Quebec francophones, even though that is the foundation of racism itself. So since they are morally inferior, they, unlike us, cannot conceive a society where the common denoninator is citizenship and not the ethnic features of a given ethnic group.

The fact that the majority of those morons actually project to built a new country with a new common citizenship, speak of the equality between nations, falls outside of the elements I will choose to consider relevant, otherwize I might end up realizing that some major and providential facts go against my initial prejudice. Now let's imagine that I was brought up thinking that Quebec francophones, being morally inferior because of their religious past and in spite of everything that was attempted to civilize them, are lead by an elite that is too stupid to follow the trends of the Western World, which include the civil rights movements aiming to eliminate social exclusions of all types. The fact that the left-wing groups that are associated with these movements in my culture, support, in their culture, the independence movement of Quebec will be ignored because that is just too confusing to add this variable in the equation. Since nothing valuable could possibly come out of this weak link of the human family, I will not bother to try to understand who they are by myself. Even when speaking their awful sounding language not-as-beautiful-as-real-French and interacting directly with them, I will continue to shut my reason off and not learn a thing of their take on the world. Their language is not really useful anyway and not worth mastering and unlike English does not open doors to science and the job market. Since the depiction of their institutions and leaders, as the corporate media engaged in a political war against them present it to my community is surely as good as anything, I will refuse to consider I might not be well-informed. In spite of my ignorance of what is going on in their human heads and their human hearts, I will judge myself in a better position to judge of their character, their morals and their intentions than they could possibly be themselves. Yes, I can image now. Now that I have an irrepressible negative image of them based on the exploitation of my fears and carefully entertained prejudice against all things French, I can see how it can be self-reassuring that they are so wrong and even when they try to do things right, that is when they copy us, they are clumsy and fail to hide their true vile nature. I can see it now. What a bunch of bastards! -- Mathieugp 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Again. French Quebecers are always the victims. They are always right. They are incapable of showing insensitivitiy and holding on to old stereotypes. What is so hard about about self-examination? Why not instead of expatiating your particular ethno-cultural perspective, you try considering those of others for a change? The fact is, everyone comes to the discussion with their own ethnocultural perspective. --216.208.208.121 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the point. It is not that Boisclair is racist. It's that he is out of touch with the reality of the minorities that he says he wishes to represent. He doesn't even listen to voices from his own party on the issue. But he knows that his political bread and butter is in Herouxville, Lac St Jean, and not TMR or Cote des Neiges, so why should he? It seems that white francophones don't care about this, and simply ignore any complaints, or demonize them as invention of the evil English press. This is why most minorites have given up on political involvement in Quebec. If you stand up for yourself quitely: you get ignored. If you make noise, you get smacked down and humiliated in the public by a defensive nationalist press. And if Don Cherry complains about "French guys" wearing visors, it becomes front page news in the Journal de Montreal. You can insult anyone in Qubec except francophones de souche. --Soulscanner 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe too many Anglo-Quebecers are out of touch with the rest of Quebec and therefore out of touch with themselves as citizens of Quebec, a country that was 259 years-old in 1867? -- Mathieugp 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I think they are very in touch with the attitudes of Quebec nationalists, and this is reflected in the hiring pracices in the Quebec civil service and the underrepresentation of minorities in the Quebec civil service. That is why they do not bother with politics inside Quebec anymore: they will only get dismissed or attacked as Westmount Rhodesians, Imperial Conquerors, or overly sensitive slant eyes unless they put up with the kind of venom you spew. --216.208.208.121 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

--Soulscanner 09:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)== Quebecois identity == Soul scanner, your above comments are completely "original research" as they are your own opinions. You cannot claim that because Celine Dion said this or that a politician said that, that "Quebecois" means what you claim it means. That is the exact definition of original research. Do you have a French dictionary? I challenge you to find a single French dictionary which supports the definition you are claiming. In fact, find any French sources that support such a exclusive notion. You will not find one, because it is only the English language media (not all, but most) that is ethnically motivated, that consistently attempts to inject false ethnic notions into the question of Quebec national identity and culture.

That is not what I did. I was using the article to link to the definition Balthazar's (whose definition defintion is the same as mine) of "Quebecois", which is representative of how Quebecois has been used since the 1960's. You will find this in English dictionaries, and the same one you will find in the Petit Robert: '(repandu v. 1965) "Du groupe ethnique et linguistique canadienne-francais composant la majorite de la population du Quebec"' Celine Dion's statement is just an illustration of how this definition is commonly used in French in Quebec. I could still find thousands of others, but that would be overkill. I'm not saying the other definition is not valid, which is why I include it in the introduction. That is one definition. I'm just saying that there are several, and that we need to explain all of them here because it is very important in understanding the nature of the word and all its cannotations in political debates.--Soulscanner 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to read The Nation in Question (La Nation en question) by Michel Seymour [4]. From your discussions it appears you have very little understanding of the full nature of Quebec society because you are too reliant upon English language sources, most if not all of them based elsewhere in Canada. I quote from Seymour's own summary of the book's conclusions: "Quebec is the result of two major cultural influences, and it does not form an ethnic, exclusively civic or cultural homogenous nation. It must rather be understood as a political community which is sociologically constituted by a national majority of francophones, a national minority of anglophones and by citizens having other national origins. Quebec’s nation is thus pluricultural and multiethnic, even if it would not exist without the language, culture and history of the majority."

Yes, I'm familiar with Seymour. Everything he says is true about Canada too, except the minority/majority statistics are reversed. I recommend reading a little bit by Pierre Dubuc [5]. He says that if what Michel Seymour is saying is true, there would be no need for language laws, and that francophone academics have been hectored into their politcally correct position of civic nationalism by Trudeauists and the English press. I agree with this analysis; of course I differ from him because I think it's a good thing. The Dion incident and Parizeau's referendum night speech forced francophone academics to reexamine their positions, which is a good thing. Like he says, if you take language out of the equation, Quebec nationalism would cease to exist. I would say that more Quebecois would agree with Dubuc than with Seymour, even though politicians are forced by political correctness to adopt Seymour's stand. Of course, I would prefer to live in Seymour's Quebec, but we are not living in that "nation" yet. And the way Quebec is treating Muslim women lately, and my feeling is that it would be a while. If Seymour were part of the PQ, I would consider them. But there are people like Dubuc in it. That's why the PQ has limited appeal in Montreal. --Soulscanner 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, let us put aside this politicking and begin seriously making an attempt at neutrality here. The English Wikipedia appears to have very few francophone editors from Quebec and I have noticed that many of the articles in question in relation to this subject are in dire need of less biased perspectives, to make them more neutral. I am assuming the quality of the articles here is bad primarily because francophone Quebecois have decided that their efforts would be pointless. I would not be surprised if this were the case. Laval 03:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is perfectly neutral. It includes all definitions of Quebecois, the ones I would like to see, and the ones I don't like to see. You are the one who wishes to delete the definition for political purposes. This article focuses on how 'Quebecois' is used as a word in the English language. It is also mentioned how it is used in relevant political contexts. It needs more than a dictionary definition because its usage is complex and at times contraversial. Many of these issues would be better discussed under the Quebec Nationalism, which needs serious work, or a seperate article on Quebecois Identity. Perhaps this article could eventually be redirected there. --Soulscanner 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Above, I posted the 7 definitions of "nation" by Michel Seymour and attempted to translate them in English:

1. Ethnic: when we think of ourselves as sharing the same ancestral origins.

Cultural: when we think of ourselves as having different ancestral origins, but are nevertheless united by a common mother tongue, a common set of institutions and a common territory.

Civic: when we share the same country and that this country was made to be a mononational State.

Sociopolitical: when we participate to the same political community that is not sovereign but contains in its midst the most important sample in the world of a group sharing the same language, the same institutions and the same history.

Diasporic: when we belong to a group whose members have the same language, the same culture and the same history but have been dispersed on various discontinuous territories and are a minority inside all these territories.

Multisociétale: when the sovereign State is thought of by the majority as being made out of multiple national and cultural societies (United Kingdom).

Multiteritorial: when the group is located in a continuous territory but one that does not correspond to juridically recognized borders. For exemple, the kurds occupies a territory that is not fragmented (Kurdistan) but its borders do not match the official borders of existing States.

I wa replied by SoulScanner that "this [was] his personal opinion. It's highly subjective and based on his hard-line nationalist sentiments and more designed to justify his own emotional sovereignist convictions." I'll spare you the rest of his comment. Michel Seymour cannot be "authoritative" because he is just a sovereignist with a rational understanding of complex issues. We need to bow down and admit the supremacy of Don Macpherson, journalist at The Gazette... -- Mathieugp 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Michel Seymour, Gerard Bouchard, and Charles Taylor discuss what the nation should be. Don MacPherson is saying in the article the same thing before the 1995 referendum what Michel Seymour was saying after it. They all want a Quebec that is based on civic as opposed to cultural nationalism.

My problem with Seymor's definitions is that they are designed so that Quebecois nationalism, which is based primarily on language, francophone culture, and a shared sense of history, does not fall into ethnic nationalism. The motivation is political, since it was defined at the time of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, and the word "ethnic" had taken on sinister overtones. But a look at wikipedia article , which give a broad range of references, you can see that ethnicity entails elements of shared language, shared descent, shared culture, shared history and many of the elements used to define the Quebecois nation.

Second; the definition of civic nation as being characterized as a unitary state is designed to negate the federalist vision of Canada. The classic example of civic nationalism is Switzerland, where there is one nation, 4 language communities, and several cantons. So these definitions are highly debatable, and designed to set up a political argument against Canada by painting as a unitary state.

This is largely beside the point, though. We are discussing here how the term "Quebecois" is viewed in English, and in French. This does not adress that issue. --Soulscanner 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have lost all the patience I once had to deal with those kinds of contributors. Maybe Laval has more virtue than I have. Bonne chance mon ami! :-) -- Mathieugp 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

--Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)==Redirect to Quebec== According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thus, the existence of this article makes no sense. I was not aware of this policy before editing this article, but now it is incredible that this article is even present given the nature of such a policy. I found it curious why this article was here, when on the French Wikipedia, the link to québécois redirects to Quebec. No other Wikipedia project has an article for this term and it is certainly biased as it stands here. I suggest whatever useful information that is here (very little) be merged with the main article (Quebec) and that views from francophone academics be included as well. To include the views of someone from McMaster University (David Young), yet censoring the view of Michel Seymour, an academic at the University of Montreal, is abhorrent. If that is not an obvious anti-Quebecism, then what is? I am very disappointed at this, as this is against the nature of Wikipedia. Laval 04:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you will notice that Irish people does not redirect to Ireland, that French people does not redirect to France, and Croatian people does not redirect to Croatia. It is normal to divide the people, territory, if their is ambiguity, which there is in the case of Quebecois.French and Irish redirect to disambiguation pages which seems appropriate here. What I would recommend is renaming this article Quebecois identity or Quebecois people, and moving Quebecois to a disambiguation page.

The "ambiguity" you are referring to exists for most if not all national identities. I have already explained this to you with much detail. Here it is again: Like most civic nations that welcome a great deal of immigrants, Quebec is made out of a majority ethnocultural group and minority groups. There is not much difference between Canada, the US and Quebec in this regard, other than Quebec not being sovereign. Anglo-Americans, being a majority, tend to identify as simply Americans and generalize their perception of reality to all citizens of the USA. Anglo-Canadians, being a majority, tend to identify as simpy Canadians and generealize their perception of reality to all citizens of Canada. Franco-Quebecers, being a majority, tend to identify as simply Québécois, and generalize their perception of reality to all citizens of Quebec. That is perfectly natural as they, being the majority, are setting the social norms and usually come into contact with the Other through their own language and culture. When Joe Canadian says, "we Canadians say "hey", he is generalizing to all Canadians something which only ethnic Anglophone Canadians and people assimilated to the culture of this group, could possibly relate to. Is anyone accusing the Anglo-Canadians of rejecting the other citizens of Canada? How many Canadians do that? Of course not, that would be dishonest and vain. Yet, this dishonest and vain process you apply to people who, identifying as Québécois generalize this to all citizens of Quebec. Canadians are, in one meaning, all citizens of Canada including all those who do not identify as such. In another meaning, Canadians are those who identify as such and they do because they share a common culture through a common language, that they speak as first, second or third language. There is absolutely nothing special about the case of Quebec, except that its English-speaking minority is also part of the Anglo-Canadian majority which seems to lead to all sorts of confusion for them. -- Mathieugp 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is false to compare Canada, the U.S. and Quebec in this manner. From a civic point of view, Canada and the U.S. are civic nations. Quebec is not. From a civic standpoint, Quebec is a province. Hence, it is the province and not the nation of Quebec that welcomes immigrants in an official capacity, just like Ontario or B.C. does. People are citizens of the province of Quebec, not the nation of Quebec.

The citizens of Quebec are the body of a civic nation since the time of New France.

Already false. They were not a civic nation in any sense of the word. They were Subjects of the King of France and a colony of his Empire, which he ruled as an absolute Monarch. Quebec had no representation in any elected Assembly. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, now a State with an absolute monarchy has no body. A nation becomes civic when it institutes an Assembly whose members are elected based on property qualifications? How do you reason that out?

Quebec is a province of the Kingdom of France transfered to the Kingdom of Great Britain. At the time this was happening, the Canadiens already considered themselves a nation (plain fact), behaved as such and continued to behave a such under British rule (another plain fact).

Sure they were a cultural nation in the same sens eas the Acadian, Virginians, and Newfoundlanders. Civically, they were loyal Subjects of the French King as English Colonists were subjects of the English King. Their civic status was that of a Royal colony, not a sovereign nation. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That only says something about the relation between the province and the Kingdom. De facto, internally, they were already a distinct society as were the British colonies in America in relation to Great Britain.

This new national society was shaped by the policies and laws of a provincial state, as is the case for many other American colonies, British or Spanish, that went from colony to nation, from province to independent State. Quebec is a nation that was forcibly, in violation of natural law, public international law and British law, annexed by force to a neighbouring province for the sole purpose of preventing its French-speaking and Catholic majority from gaining the colonial self-government they were entitled to as of 1763.

Natural Law? As a physicist, I can tell you there was no violation of natural law in any Imperial Wars. The laws of physics applied, and the cannon balls all followed the same trajectories they do now. Under International, France transfered it's North American possessions to England. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, I have a hard time believing you could be a physicist. To be such a person, you would have to know how to better use your own reason, which you have countless time demonstrated to be incapable of doing, at least on subjects outside physics. So you are a physicist? Then read about Natural rights, Natural Law. I'll make it easier for you to grasp these new concepts: In the world of ants, there are individuals made for certain tasks needed by an ant colony. Their society is naturally made so that some fly, some don't, some are the Queen, some are the pions. In human society, there is no such thing. All individuals are naturally equal, so no one individual is predisposed, as of birth, to certain functions within the social organization. That is a key notion of the whole concept of equality of man, and the the rights of man by the way. Yet, human societies are in need to have certain individuals exercise specific functions by the nature of human society itself. How to determine who does what and when? On what basis? The political incarnation of such philosophical notions took the form of Article I of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen:

"Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common utility." -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

With the Treaty of Paris, the French subjects became British subjects with the same rights. In addition, some natural rights were recognized to them to insure the respect of the nationality. Unfortunately, there was a huge difference between what the law said and what the enforcers of the law did in the despotic regime that existed in my country back then. As early as October 1774, the Continental Congress informed my people of some of the keys rights that Quebecers were entitled to equal British subjects. You can read about it here : http://english.republiquelibre.org/index.php?title=Letter_to_the_Inhabitants_of_the_Province_of_Quebec

The Quebec Act of 1774 (which restored that Catholic faith and allowed Catholics to hold public office) was among the Intolerable Acts that triggered the American Revolution; New England Purtitans were aghast that having spent seven long years conquering Canada, that the British would allow Catholics the same rights as protestants. Moreover, the Generals that led the Revolution (i.e. George Washington) were among the soldiers that had shelled Quebec and Montreal mercilessly only 15 years earlier. The Canadianans had good reason to be suspicious of overtures from American as they knew the virulent anti-Catholicism that was behind much fo the Revolutionary fervor. --Soulscanner 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet, the Parliament with an elected Assembly came in 1791, and guess what, its representatives struggled during half a century to get this Parliament to serve the interests of the people. They failed. -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All British subjects in that colony, and later in the two colonies of Lower and Upper Canada, were denied their right to provincial self-government in hatred of the French language and Catholic religion of the majority of Lower Canada.

Hold it here. The anti-Catholicism was inherent in the American colonies to the south, particularly the Puritan ones in New England, and one of the main reasons that French Canadians did not join the American Revolution. They were more attached to the Church than the idea of civic institutions. It was the British who gave Quebec it's first elected Assembly (which is still in use today) and eventually (albeit begrudgingly) granted all its North American colonies Responsible government in the 1840's thanks to Patriiotes like Louis H. Lafontaine. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sort of historical evidence for this feel-good revisionist thesis? The Quebecers of Catholic faith were legally cast off from 1764 to 1774. When the legal barrier came down, they found themselves continually underrepresented in all public functions of their native (or adoptive) country. In as much as it was possible for them to understand where their national interest lied, Quebecers participated to the American revolution either by defending their new Sovereign as ordered by the King and strongly suggested by the Church or by fighting along side the Congress (see the Congress' Own). When the military regime of Colborne was done hanging the most intelligent men left in Lower Canada, most being in exile, the Union regime came. In this new system, the overall population was underrepresented by lowering the number of electoral districts. The size of the electorate was reduced by increasing the value of the property a man had to own to be eligible to vote. And the French speakers were even more underrepresented because urban areas were alloted more representation than rural areas. Within this new improved and liberal system whereby the Quebec nation was deprived of any distinct means of legislation and executive government, the already well-established British system of patronage and corruption finally contaminated the only branch of the Legislature that had been resisting it from 1791 to 1840 (in both Upper and Lower Canada) : the elected Assembly. Do you wan to learn more? I can go on for hours on the specific of this transition as well and the one that followed, from Union to "Confederation". A great deal of the key documents are already online. Much much more are not there yet, but it will come. -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not unusual for 19th century ideologues to spew on for hours. That is why the PQ is now a third party. How you can call the attainment of Responsible government in the 1840's revisionist history, I do not know. It is a fact of Canada. It forms the basis of our democracy. Canada is still here because of it, and it has proved a flexible yet stable form of government. While Revolutions and Civil wars rocked the rest of the continent, we generally talked it out in Parliament. Compared to the United States, Mexico, Central America, and Europe (save perhaps Switzewrland), it worked out much better. --Soulscanner 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

By depriving the citizens of Lower Canada, of any means of government, the forced union of Quebec and Ontario caused to Quebec evils similar to those inflicted to Ireland after the forced union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800. The evolution of the union into a confederation could have solved the problem of Quebec all the while saving the people of Ontario from the humiliation of taking part in the ethnocide of the majority of the people in Quebec. But the people who proposed the confederal union were not humanist, enlightened pro-democracy liberals from Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They were the same royalist tory businessmen who had pushed, for entirely selfish and racist reasons, for the re-union of Lower and Upper Canada in 1808, in 1822 and finally got what they wanted in the spilling of human blood in 1837-38.

True, but they got their just deserts with the Signing of the Rebellion losses Bill in the late 1840;'s. The more enlightened minds of Lafontaine, Baldwin, and Elgin accomplished with compromise what the Patriotes could not with bullets. That is the pragmatic Canadian tradition. Our democratic institutions are based on the dialoque between French and English reformers.

--Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Their just deserts??? How about those who were hanged and exiled. Pragmatic Canadian tradition? Despotism causes a great great evil, then a less-despotic regime restores only a small portion of the good the existed before. Why weren't those who burned down the Parliament in Montreal never jailed? Why did people attempted to kill Lafontaine, a naive pseudo-liberal, multiple times? Why was the good and just Union regime ultimately replaced? There was a dialogue between "French" and British and Irish reformers inside Lower Canada before the Union. After the Union, the Liberals were for the first time strongly divided, hence the split between the Bleus and the Rouges. -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

They were exiled because they resorted to violence to overthrow the government, which was entirely unneccessary. I know that as a Patriote, you find violent insurgents like the Patriotes and the FLQ Romantic, but it I differ. I'm just saying that Lafontaine and Baldwin went about getting Responsible government by using peaceful, democratic means as opposed to violent means was far more responsible and successful than the violence of Papineau and Mackenzie King. Upper and Lower Canada achieved more together with pragmatic cooperation than they did seperately with violence and terrorism. The even eliminated the old Feudal and unjust Seigneurial system that Papineau supported. --155.42.21.135 09:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"French Canadianism" as George Brown called it was locked into the province of Quebec and a new federal government, one which they would never control, was put over the heads of Quebecers. It is withing this new federal State that modern Canadian nationalism was born after a long period of British colonial pride. Quebec became a nation within a nation as simply an clearly put by Pearson without any vulgar attempt at ethnicizing the issue from his part, without trying to impose one national project as morally superior to the other. It is within Quebec that the oldest of the two nations was never given up my the majority of Quebecers. After almost a century of destabilization leading the majority of the Quebec people roaming and wandering in ethnic survivance like the Jews, they, in the 1960s, reclaimed their right to build a modern civic nation inside Quebec, be it inside or outside the Canadian union. It is within this context that the Canadien français (ethnic survival, boundary less) to Québécois (civic identity, bound to the territory of Québec) name changed occured. -- Mathieugp 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The attachment of French Canadians to their Church and Religion was organic and sincere and spanned centuries. The change to civic nationalism never occured in the population, and the appeal to "survivance" is very apparant in films like Lise Payette's "Disparaitre" and the ad nauseum repeition fo the cliche that Quebec is a francophone island in the sea of English; Quebec's language laws are based on this ethnic nationalism that goes back to the original settlers. This change only occured in the minds of souless senior technocrats who came of age during the Quiet Revolution. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So much ignorance and contempt for a people trying to make justice for all by legal and democratic means. Are you able not to repeat the same old tune from the same old broken record everytime I try to inform you of things you should at least be aware of to be credible when you discuss Quebec politics. The Quebec language policy tries to undo an evil inherant to the Canadian system, an evil inherited from the forced Union. The antagonizing of "ethnic nationalists" vs "civic nationalists" is a ridiculous oversimplification of reality that does not serve the cause of the Truth. -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do have contempt for political demagugues that appeal to ethnic nationalism for political gain. You are absolutely right there. I do not care if it's Durham courting the Tories, or Parizeau courting Quebec nationalists, it's all the same tribalism. --155.42.21.135 09:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Quebecois (French Canadians), Acadians, Metis define themselves as cultural nations within Canada. English Canadians do not think of themselves as a cultural nation. Culturally, they identify with their ethnicity or their region (e.g. Nova Scotian or Newfoundland). They by and large share a language and culture with their U.S. neighbours, the same way Austrians share a culture with their German neighbors. English Canadians define themselves civically, that is, by their shared institutions and civic values, not their culture. That is a civic nationalism.

The ruling class in Canada defines the "Quebecois" the same way as the Acadians and the Metis for obvious reasons: it cannot lead to any meaningful change of how the Canadian system works. Quebecers define themselves, in fact and in law, as the citizens of Quebec. They have given themselves the whole set of national institutions. Those institutions belong to all the citizens. Much like a minority of the citizens of Canada (most in Quebec) do not identify as Canadians the way the majority do, a minority of the citizens of Quebec (most in the West Island) do not identify as Quebecers the way the majority of them do. Yet, in fact and in law, all citizens of Quebec are citizens of Quebec and Canada and all citizens of Canada are citizens of Canada. There are two sets of national institutions, one set sustained by a provincial state the other set by a federal state. The only thing preventing all citizens of Canada from recognizing this and formalizing this is the chauvinism of a part of the ruling class in Canada. -- Mathieugp 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they define the Quebecois nation like the Metis and the Acadians becaseu they are all cultural nations. The Quebecois happen to be a majority in the province of Quebec, which give them hegemony in that province. In Quebec we have given ourselves provicial institutions, just like the other provinces of Canada. The difference is that provincial powers are used to promote the French Canadian language and culture more than the other provinces becasue the majority is French Canadian. It is based on this cultural identity that they differ from the other provinces, and call provincial institutions national. This doesn't really bother me, but lets not pretend that the ethno-cultural identity of French Canadians doesn't influence the laws that are passed. --Soulscanner 09:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

English speaking Quebeckers and most allophones in Quebec are English Canadian in this regard. They identify with civic institutions just like English Canadians. Hence, they are citizens of the province of Quebec, but generally do not identify as Quebecois, just like anglophones in New Brunswick do not identify as part of the Acadian nation. Similarly, Acadians living in Bonaventure, Quebec, even though they are citizens of Quebec, are mostly part of the Acadian nation and will generally not identify as part of the Quebecois nation (i.e. as a French Canadians living in Quebec).

The result is that francophone Quebeckers not residing in Quebec will commonly be referred to as Quebecois (even though they are not Quebec citizens).

Separatist politicians in Quebec exploit ambiguities in the civic and cultural sense of the word Quebecois. They use rhetoric to inflame animosity and misunderstanding between Quebeckers (be they Anglophone, Acadian, Cree, Mowhawk, or Quebecois) and other Canadian citizens from outside the province. Separatists claim that the failure of English Canadians to recognize a "Quebec nation" means that they deny the existence of a Quebec cultural nation. The recent motion to recognize the Quebecois nation (as opposed to the Quebec nation) has added legal legitimacy to the cultural sense of the Quebecois, but was very careful that Quebec in the civic sense remains a province. So I have no trouble with a civic definition of Quebec citizenship for myself; it's the same in every province or U.S. state. But I simply do not define myself culturally as Quebecois because to me it is the shared values of rights and freedoms embodies in our civil institutions that I identify and as important rather than the collective cultural identity derived from the French language, shared history, ancestry, and cultural references; I choose and derive my cultural identity from number of sources, not just the culture of the linguistic majority. --Soulscanner 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also not denying that Seymour's defintion exists. You'll see that the introductory sentence uses his defintion, but also includes that of Balthazar. Why not include both, as I do? Good introductions include as many senses of the word as possible and seek to explain their contexts.

Those definitions are not the problem. -- Mathieugp 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But all I do here is introduce these definitions. I do not understand your objections. I include the French definition that I find in my 1988 definition of the Petit Robert. --Soulscanner 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article is ostensibly more than a dictionary definition. It begins with a dictionary definition, as all Wikipedia articles do. English and French usage is discussed. Their political and legal implications are summarized. Quebecois has ambiguous cannotations owing to the history of Quebec nationalism. As Balthazar and the Petit Robert point out, Quebecois was defined in the 1960's as French Canadians or francophones living in Quebec for the politcal purpose of breaking with a pan-Canadian identity. The Dion incident caused English-speaking Quebecers (e.g. MacPherson + Johnson) to question this defintion in the early 1990's, because it defines Quebecer based on language, ethnicity, and culture that excludes anglophones. In the later 1990's, francophone nationalist academics began to debate whether to change the definition. Seymour, Bouchard, and Taylor argue for a new civic definition as proposed by anglophones, while activist within the Parti Quebecois like Pierre Dubuc and other academics like Fernand Dumont [6] argue for an ethno-cultural definition. I'm saying both definitions need to be described, not just those of one academic, and that the full evolution of the debate (including the contributions of Johnson and MacPherson) need to be described. The fact that you negate definitions that you disagree with shows that you wish to misrepresent Quebec nationalism. This is intellectually dishonest.

You are mixing up two definitions of two words in two languages. You are completely ignorant of the history that lead to the Canadien-français => Québécois change as well as the nature of the debates on Quebec nationalism. You are not seeing the big picture here. There is nothing in this article that could possibly be informative and enlightening on the subject. To illustrate how much history you are missing, the first project of a civic Quebec nation, using today's modern definition of nation, goes back to 1784. You can read about the System of Government for Canada proposed by Pierre du Calvet here: http://english.republiquelibre.org/index.php?title=System_of_Government_for_Canada . The most enlightened men in the British Parliament were favorable to such a system which never came. -- Mathieugp 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the current usage of "Quebecois"? I fail to see relevance.--Soulscanner 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

People who do not ignore the long history of Quebec see that the change from Canadien français to Québécois is in fact a return to the late 18th century, to the modern idea of nation that came out of the American revolution (an association of equal citizens holding sovereignty and granting nationality rights to immigrants by granting State citizenship). The System of Government of Canada of Pierre du Calvet and Francis Maseres, never translated to English until recently when it was put on line, attests the birth of a modern project of a civic nation within Quebec in 1784, 24 years after the Conquest and 5 years before the taking of the Bastille. The Appel à la justice de l'État was read and clearly understood by Joseph Papineau, notary, and father of Louis-Joseph, who took part in the movement that lead to the sending of petitions asking for an English-type colonial government, including an elective House of Assembly in which all British subjects, of any origin or faith, would be eligible to vote. The French revolution and the birth of a French republic scared the British aristocracy enough that the crippled parliament of Quebec was replaced by a new one and the new settlers of what would become Ontario were at the same time given an entirely separate province. This was in 1791 and it did not take long for the citizens of both provinces to realize that this new system of government was not what they had asked for during the 1780s. -- Mathieugp 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the model adopted by modern Quebec nationalists, who borrow heavily from the romantic idealism of Fichte, which defined a "people" based on a shared culture, history, language, and ancestry (one can see this in the romanticized rambings above). In a purely civic nationalism as defined here, Quebec could join the U.S. as did Vermont, Massachessets, etc. (which it had the opportunity to do when Arnold's Army invaded and occupied Quebec City and Montreal. There would be no problem with being part of Canada either. However, Quebec nationalism is based on a collective identification with language, which is in turn part of the French colonial legacy. Hence, the Quebecois identity also carries with it an ethnic sense. This is obvious to anyone who has ever set foot in Quebec. --Soulscanner 03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. You see things that oppose each other where there are things complementing one another, which is a classic error of reasoning. There is nothing like "purely civic" except in theory books. The model defined in 1784 is of course not special and is the model explicitely or implicitely adopted in Quebec by all Quebec Premiers since Lesage! All currently existing national institutions of Quebec, in fact and in law, belong to all Quebec citizens, from the Assemblée nationale to the new Grande Bibliothèque! Wake up! "Quebec could join the U.S." and "There would be no problem with being part of Canada either"? No kidding! Wasn't Louis-Joseph Papineau and the Parti rouge advocating the annexation of Quebec to the USA?? Were't the former majority of nationalists advocating an autonomous Quebec inside a reformed Canada? Aren't the current minority of them still doing this today? Aren't the moderate Quebec sovereignists favorable to an Association or a Partnership after secession?

You are correct that the differnce between civic and ethnic nationalism is one of degree. Serbian or German nationalism are not all ethnic; they are more ethnic compared to that of the Swiss or Americans. There's nothing wrong with basing cultural identity on ethnicity. African-American culture, based mostly on ethnicity and race, has given us the most influential culture in the globalized world: Jazz, hip-hop, Rock-n-Roll, etc. It's only when you confuse the two that you get into trouble.

"Quebec nationalism is based on a collective identification with language, which is in turn part of the French colonial legacy." Not based on it, but one of the main reasons for its specific and distinct existence as is the case for any nation-state on Earth, including Canada. Why any specific association of citizens at all? Why the association of the citizens of Italy on their given territory and not another? Why not the association of all citizens of North America? Why the association of the Canadian citizens? What's the point? Why not one big association of the Earth's citizens destroying all current States and their associated and identities, young or old? Because there are individuals, inside each State who see a value to their people beyond just existing inside a State.

If you want to understand why a nation without a State or a nation inside a non-sovereign State almost always wants to have it back or have it for the first time in the case of new nations born out of colonies, just consider the liberties a nation has when it has the ability to democratically govern itself. Just consider that the very existence of this nation as a distinct human group is the result of the prior existence of a State enjoying, de facto, a certain level of autonomy for some period of time. Learn how new languages are born and how they construct and describe the world of sense around you as a human person. Learn how for a language to continue existing, it needs a space where a population will be free to use it in all aspects of their everyday lives. Learn how language rights are human rights, neglected human rights, but human rights nontheless. Nature (or God if you believe in this unecessary concept) has created natural human languages. Each has an unmeasurable value to humans. Nations, in the ethnic sense this time, exist as distinct communities first and foremost because of those languages.

Certainly, but if that is the case, The English Canadian and American nations should join, a they share a language and culture and a common border and Switzerland should Afcrican staes should splinter into one hundred tribal zones, and the Cree and Inuit should split off from Quebec. Most nations do not revolve around language. Language is but one human construction to base a sense of identity on. The Quebecois do it now based on language, but for centuries it was also based on Religion. The Swiss base it on a purely civic conception of the nation in response to the larger Imperial entities (i.e. Germany, France, and Italy) that did use language as an Imperial tool to wipe out cultural diversity and local autonomy. Serbs and Croats (who speak the same language) base their nationhood on affiliation with Roman and Byzantine civilization. Americans base it on a Republican ideal. In Canada, it is based on a dialogue between French and English linguistic communities in the context of largescale cosmopolitiain immigration (i.e. bilinguaism and multiculturalism). --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now, even in this purely civic and souless State of Canada which you seem to idealize, one has to learn English or French to become a national through immigration. Oh no! Canada is an Ethnic state! By favouring some languages over others, by having existed for some time giving it a history, its population is gilty of sharing something in common beyond their passport!!

Seriously, a language, when it is the first, second, third or else language of a person can be given the status of an official and public language. Free associations of citizens are a purely abstract notion.

There is nothing abstract about the free association of citizens. That is why autocrats and totalitarians seek to limit it. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The citizens are always real human beings who need to communicate with each other somehow for their community to even exist. When the enlightened nationals of a given State believe in the Jus soli notion as French-speaking people, educated in French law and customs, would naturally do, you can get something like modern nation-states trying to respect the rights of all humans on their territories, both majorities and minorities. Unfortunately, some people want the club of the free nations of the Earth to be select club and do little to encourage, and sometimes everything to prevent, small nations from getting their own State. In our next class, we will learn why humans are sometimes so stupid as to go to war against each other. -- Mathieugp 05:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada isn't. Canada recognizes the right of all provinces to secede. It recognizes the linguisitc rights of anglophone and francophone citizens. Hence, you have nothing to complain about.

Let's talk about small nations in Canada. Lets compare the Quebecois and the Jame Bay Cree. The Quebecois have complete jurisdiction over natural resources. The Quebec government limits the rights of Cree to their resources in a labyrinth of Category I II and III lands around small reserves, and even there insists upon shared jurisdictions. If you believe in the autonomy of small nations, why not grant the Cree and Inuit their own provinces with autonomous powers equal to that of Quebec? --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet you defend Canada, the system that perpetuates those inequalities. I am all for the Crees and the Inuits to self-govern on their own territories. If they did, then I could move up their and become an Inuit myself just by receiving a citizenship card and accepting to submit to the laws and customs (that means learning their language) of my new adoptive community. -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Most Cree and Inuit are francophone or anglophone, so there would be no need to learn their language. They run their own schools, which are run in English, French and Cree by their own choice. Language isn;t as big a deal for them as with the Quebecois. I do not defend the treatment by Quebec and Canadian governments by of the Cree and Inuit. I think that Quebec needs to transfer over jurisdiction over natural resources, health, language and education on their territories so that they can be masters in their own house and develop their own economies. Natural resources, health, and education are provincial matters, and the federal government has no control over these. In the event of Quebec separation, I think if they decide to stay in Canada if they vote in yheir own referendum to do so. Do you? --Soulscanner 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As for going up there, there is no guarantee that they will allow in immigrants from Quebec, especially after the way the provincial government has treated them. If you do, you will be able to get along quite alright in English as long as you respect their sovereignty. --Soulscanner 03:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the discussion above. You will see that Mathieu conceded that the majority in Quebec use Quebecois to refer to francophones in Quebec when speaking of identity, but that the majority is wrong. This is not for us to decide in this article. You will see that the consensus here is that encyclopedia articles document the way things are, not the way we would like them to be. I recommend that you work on your countrymen to change their minds about this definition, because when anglophones try to do it they are ignored or dismissed as extremists: they have given up and recognize this as the price of living in Quebec. --Soulscanner 15:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are literally misrepresenting my thought. I doubt you will convince anyone here by doing that. -- Mathieugp 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Soul scanner wasting peoples time

User:Soul scanner has persistently wasted peoples' time here. His comments above are purely his own opinion and have no grounding in fact, yet this person constantly makes the same pointless arguments again and again. Nothing he says above is true or even remotely factual. Does Wikipedia not have some system of recourse for dealing with this problem? Laval 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that the civic status of Quebec is that of a province, not a nation. There is nothing controversial about that. Actually, you are wasting time; the article cites known and documented usage of Quebecois,a nd includes all usages of the word. You are attempting to advance a separatist political agenda here. I should point out that offering varying point of view in the discussion page does not make this article POV. Discussion pages are for that. I'm very careful to leave that out of the article. The articvle is no more POV than the Websters or the Petit Robert. --Soulscanner 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So now I'm a separatist with an agenda, huh? From where I stand, it is you who has the agenda and anti-Quebec bias. Go ahead and keep throwing around attacks. Laval 09:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that you often fail to login when undoing other peoples work and leaving comments. You should stop doing that because it looks like an attempt to avoid so-called "3RR". As well stop making accusations against me of making malicious edits. The article is not neutral and contains original research, and the validity of its existence is arguably weak. Again you are the one promoting bias and agenda by making a big huff over nothing about this term. In the Quebec article, it deserves at most only a few lines. In the end you will not have your way because what you are doing and promoting is against Wikipedia policy. If others are willing to let you do whatever you want and get away with it, then I should not waste my precious time with Wikipedia. Laval 09:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please identify the original research and I will add a reference. As I said, all claims in the article are referenced. As for being anti-Quebec, that accusation is made by all Quebec separatists when facts they don't like are mentioned. I guess then that the Petit Robert is anti-Quebec. Take it up with them. --Soulscanner 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the controversy section, which itself was pure opinion. David Young's idea that in French, "Quebecois" has a political context is pure original research. Read WP:OR carefully - unless an idea has wide acceptance in the academic community, it is total OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. In French, the fact remains, whether you like it or not, that "Quebecois" is not tied to politics or ethnicity. It is just as neutral as say, "New Yorker" or "Californian". The fact that Young is all you can reference shows how fringe this idea is. And again, this is why this article doesn't deserve to exist and should be merged into Quebec. We don't have articles on Californian (disambig page), New Yorker (disambig page), Ontarian (redirects to Ontario), and so on. By the way, don't ever call anyone a separatist here. It is a joke for you to do so especially since you are clearly an advocate of Canada joining the Union and becoming a mere 51st state. What a world. Stop wasting peoples' time. Laval 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the controversy section. I also changed Young's article for the definition found in the Petit Robert. The fact is, whether you like it or not, Quebecois has been used to refer to the culture and language of French Canadians in Quebec since the Quiet Revolution. That s why dictionaries, who document the usage of language, record it. Again, it is encyclopedic to use words as they are commonly used, not how we would like them to be used. --Soulscanner 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone interested may see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for attempts to somehow put an end to this debate. –Pomte 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote on a redirect

After the removal of the "Controversy" section, things were going in the right direction, i.e., moving towards disambiguation status or redirect. Now User:SoulScanner has expanded the contents to better match his favorite understanding of Quebecois in English, the one where non-francophones are excluded. His ideology is that this exclusion is wanted by "French Canadian of Quebec". That is a POV (in addition to being defamatory of the sentiments of the majority of Quebecers toward minority groups within the body of Quebec citizens).

So, right now the article starts with "A Québécois (IPA: [ke.be'kwa]), or in the feminine Québécoise (IPA: [ke.be'kwaz]), is a native or resident of the Canadian province of Quebec, but may also specifically refer to a French-speaking or French Canadian native or inhabitant of the province.[1][2] The term may also refer to someone who identifies with Quebec's French-speaking majority culture." but then goes on to present the POV that the Quebecois are an ethnic nation nullifying the first definition. The interpretation of the Harper motion is of course inconsistent in French and English and controversial. There could be an entire article just on that. Like many people (User:Laval, User:Recury, User:142.58.101.27, User:iridescent, User:RaveenS, User:metaspheres) I voted for redirect or transwiki. So here is what I propose:

To be consistent with Canadian and many others, I propose that Quebecois and Quebecer redirect to Quebec. At the top of the page, we should have a Quebecois (disambiguation) similar to Canadian (disambiguation) or Scots (disambiguation) or other cases where citizenship/national identity use the same word (ie, most "normal" states in the world as far as I know). The modern Quebec national identity, which is promoted by French-speaking Quebecers (or Quebecois) no doubt, but to which many non-francophones adhere to (a pure fact), could be dealt with in Quebec identity much like Canadian identity. The debate over Quebec nationalism naturally belongs to ... Quebec nationalism.

• For -- Mathieugp 15:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The main thrust of a counterargument to this is that you can't say the same for Canadian that you can say for Quebecois (there's also a debate on where English Canadian should redirect). Here are some fragmented quotes from Google Books and Scholar:

• [7] Quebec nationalists began using the term "Quebecois" instead of "French Canadian" to focus public attention on the distinctiveness of the Francophone
• [8] Fifteen years ago, nobody in Quebec would have used the term "Quebecois" to designate an inhabitant of the Province of Quebec... And now, in the 1970s, a large proportion of French-speaking Quebecers call themselves “les Québécois” (and they include under this term any inhabitant of the province of Quebec who considers Quebec his homeland) ... According to Parti Quebecois sources, private surveys completed between 1973 and 1976 indicate that a majority of French-speaking Quebecers now call themselves "Quebecois". ... 80 per cent of this sample of Quebec youth accepted the term "Quebecois" as fitting them (a percentage which far exceeds anything that has been obtained for a sample of the whole population
• [9] The term Quebecois first emerged in the context of the redefinition of the nationalist project.
• [10] ...the initial dynamism for the development of a Canadian identity, and because the definition of what it means to be a Quebecer is elaborated not only in opposition to, but also in conjunction with, what it means to what it means to be Canadian...

And on and on. There are enough reliable sources to warrant an article on this term as to its cultural extending from the available dicdefs. It is not inherently POV; as with any controversy you can account for all sides of the debate, including denial of it. If consensus is to redirect this, fine, but this long-winded debate will just move there. –Pomte 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental (counter)argument being used is flawed. We could find an equally numerous list of sources for all words designating a national community, and even more for those trying to define themselves in opposition to another national community (Scots/British, Catalans/Spanish etc.) It is in addition inaccurate to state "you can't say the same for Canadian that you can say for Quebecois". What is true, is that in the English language, the word was borrowed from French and used in a different manner, which lead to its current ambiguity as designating both all citizens of Quebec and "just those who call themselves that way". The first link states something incorrect. Only partisanship and/or the failure to read French language sources can lead people to state something like this. The second link is more accurate and supports my argumentation. Something similar might have been written to explain how "British Canadians" came to think of themselves as "Canadians" alone during the same period of time, which was also a redefinition of the national identity and project promoted by Anglo-Canadians. The third link states something that is simply true, but does not support the claimed counter argument. The fourth link seems to be interesting, but again it fails to support any counter argument to what I have stated.

Moreover, Quebec nationalist thinkers also do the same in French. When they write about Anglo-Canadians or Anglo-Canadian things, they often write Canadian like that in italics:

1. De prime abord, on pourrait croire à l’exposé généreux d’un représentant de cette espèce rare, le Canadian francophile, favorable au bilinguisme. Par exemple, Fraser déplore que les universités canadian n’enseignent pas davantage en français et aient abandonné l’exigence d’une langue seconde comme critère d’entrée et de scolarité, au moment même où s’implantait le bilinguisme officiel (Hagège nous indique que c’est en fait une décision états-unienne qui a été reproduite au Canada anglais) !

2. «L'avenir en français» a rendu Benoît Pelletier lyrique. Notre homme y voit un tournant historique: «Le Québec, qui a effectivement réintégré le giron de la francophonie canadienne, est là pour y rester» (Le Devoir, 8 novembre) a-t-il avec emphase déclaré, pour mieux affirmer son consentement à notre statut de minoritaire à perpétuité dans la grande famille canadian.

3. La coalition qui a donné naissance à ce parti et qui s'effiloche de plus en plus rapidement a pratiquement toujours été dominée par le courant technocratique du nationalisme rénovateur du gouvernement provincial et l'ordre canadian, courant cimenté par une approche stratégique, l'étapisme.

4. Tous ceux qui sont favorables à la conscription le sont non pas parce qu’ils la croient nécessaire mais parce que le Québec est censé s’y opposer, jugeait alors l’homme qui a inventé le Canada et le nationalisme canadian.

5. Maître de la pirouette, Trudeau avait l’art de l’invention et savait depuis toujours qu’il deviendrait premier ministre du Canada. Sa mère, Grace Elliot, fille d’une Canadienne française et d’un tavernier bilingue, issu de la race glorieuse des « Écossais » de la région de Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon, n’a même pas réussi à lui transmettre la parfaite intonation anglaise que les vrais Canadians reconnaissent comme l’apanage des leurs. L’Écosse de Trudeau s’était depuis longtemps perdue dans les eaux du lac Maskinongé.

and on and on. -- Mathieugp 17:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that any attempt to write a biased article on Canadian identity in the Canadian article in French would fail because Quebecers would see the POVness of it right away and nationalists like me who care more about fairness and truth than political principles would also oppose trying to tell to the French speaking world how Anglo-Canadians see themselves by using the POV of the hardcore secessionists. -- Mathieugp 17:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I wouldn't mind at all if someone created a proper article on the term 'Canadian'. It wouldn't be POV because you'd write, "here is how some Quebec nationalists write about Canadians," and then quote some prominent nationalists. It could even be a general list like Adjectives for U.S. citizens to include other terms such as Canuck.

Am I right in understanding from your reply that you would agree to an article on Quebecois (in English) where it would be made obvious that asserting or implying that Francophone Quebecers generally use the French word Québécois to mean (as in English) "French Canadians living in Quebec" is a POV which is vigorously denied and denounced by a great deal of people? That there is a controversy behind all this in which, for example, Quebec philosophy professor Michel Seymour wrote in 1999 "The debate on the identité québécoise is important because we must fight the idea that le nationalisme québécois is founded on ethnicity. This characterisation has been for a long time faulty and odious, but it is still conveyed for political motives by opinion leaders in English Canada and by certain spokes people of the federal government. One of the most important motivations of the nationalisme québécois has always been the defence of the French language and the promotion of la culture québécoise, but this language and this culture have now become a public language and a public culture common to all Québécois and Québécoises. Therefore, the nationalisme québécois does not privilege any particular ethnic group." See: [11]. Around the same time, the same person, who is the leader of the IPSO organization, wrote a Common declaration of sovereignist and federalist intellectuals from Canada and Québec which was later signed by numerous scholars from all across Canada and which states in point 5 that "We recognize the existence of a Quebec nation which includes Quebecers of all origins and mother tongues. The Quebec nation has the right to democratically determine its own future.". If that is the case, if that is the kind of an article you had in mind, can't you see this is quite a specific heated and controversial debate which belongs in the "front page" of Quebecois as much as, let's say, the equally heated and controversial debate about the existence of or the non-existence of a specific Anglophone Canadian culture would in the "front page" of Canadian? Wouldn't a disambiguation page, possibly leading to an article about Quebec nationalism, where this could maybe be covered, be much better? In fact, the Quebec nationalism article has something on this which could be expanded. The matter is, some people entertain the idea that there is a debate on the legitimacy of Quebec nationalism (ethnic vs civic) to imply that it may be ethnic, or that for some nationalists it is ethnic, whereas others claim that this is a fabrication which is politically motivated and naturally any reference as to the existence of it promotes the idea of those who push for this. Are you familiar with the logical fallacy named Fallacy of many questions? This is ultimately what we are dealing with here in my opinion. -- Mathieugp 21:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you're right when you say my first link (aptly titled "Nationalism, Feminism, Cultural Pluralism: American Interest in Quebec Literature and Culture: The Rise of Interest in French-Speaking Canada") is wrong. You're going to have to back it up with sources, and then document it in the article against whatever wild claims User:Soulscanner or whoever else has put. Regardless, I wasn't trying to argue against your points. I was merely asserting the notability of the term 'Quebecois' for keeping this article. –Pomte 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not deny the notability of "Quebecois" either. I say Quebecois should redirect to Quebec and that what you are talking about should be dealt with in a specific article. -- Mathieugp 21:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support redirect to Quebec per my own reasons at the AfD and Mathieu. The problem with this article, as the experience with User:Soul scanner (who is known to edit anonymously and using another account, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Soul scanner ) suggests that this article can not be WP:NPOV as it is being used to promote a particularly biased (and racist) POV that "Quebecois" only refers to French-Canadians (an ethnic group) living Quebec. Whatever bit of information can be written about the usage of "Quebecois" in English does not warrant its own article (again, this is POV), but can be placed in the main article on Quebec. Please remember that Wikipedia is not here to indulge WP:OR, nor are we here to write academic papers. Laval 17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you suspect User:Soulscanner is using IPs to avoid the three-revert rule, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser under code E. –Pomte 09:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no option there for someone who hasn't been blocked yet. There is suspicion that he is possibly a sockpuppet of a "hard-banned" user(s), but I am not familiar with those cases. Laval 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Against redirect Consensus was already to keep article as is [[12]]. As you have gone against this consensus and blanked this referenced material from this page, I will ask to have this page protected.

That is a blatant lie or a proof of your inability to follow basic reasoning. The link at [[13]] shows that NO CONSENSUS was reach on the proposed deletion. It says NOTHING about redirect, or else other than it was clearly favored by a good number of people. To state A or B, not A therefore B is an invalid argument. -- Mathieugp 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I welcome you to contribute to this page. I good start would be a paragraph on Michel Seymour's article that you posed on talk, as it is representative of a good number of Quebec sovereignists. I'm working on a summary of the views of Pierre Dubuc, Michaelle Jean, and William Johnson, as they represent diverse viewpoiints on the meaning of Quebecois that cannot be discussed on a disamguation page. --Soulscanner 06:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have demonstrated that your pushing for an article describing the "Quebecois" as an ethnic group is politically motivated. On top of being politically motivated, it is plain innacurate on the basic fact that this "Quebecois" word is to be contrasted from "Quebecer", and this only makes sense WITHIN the context of the English language.

Your suggestion to put, side-by-side, your misrepresentation of Pierre Dubuc's opinion, along with whatever the Governor General and a polemist considered a radical even by Quebec anglophones, makes my repeated suggestion to deal with this in a specific article even more legitimate. Debates over Quebec and Canadian nationalisms might do it. -- Mathieugp 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

New Article

Virtually everything on Soulscanner's Québécois page, except the section on Stephen Harper's idiosyncratic "Québécois nation", is dictionary material, or belongs in an article on Quebec identity, as suggested by others on the talk page. Before Harper's use of the word this way, people would have been more likely to say "Quebec people" or "Quebec nation", and probably still are. Soulscanner's "examples" of use of the term "Québécois" focus on divisive uses of the term which are not representative of its use, such as "Le Québec aux Québécois". Since francophone Quebecers form 81% of the population of Quebec, and probably the same percentage of French Canadians, there is no more of a need for a page about the "Québécois" culture and people and so forth than there is for one about "English-speaking Americans" (82% of Americans according to Languages of the United States), and so on, because there are already pages on Quebec and on French Canadians. Generally speaking, Soulscanner is playing up the idea of a Québécois ethnic group on the basis of the existence of an English word. For example, he/she uses the "ethnic group" infobox. Isn't the idea of a "Québécois" ethnic group odd if the supposed members of this group don't even have a word for themselves? Just because the word "Québécois" usually excludes non-Francophones in English doesn't mean that when francophone Quebecers say they are "Québécois" (in their language), they are identifying themselves ethnically. I would say that the opposite is true. Joeldl 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the point on it being dictionary material has been addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois. As for Harper's definition, it is not idiosyncratic but common usage in English. It is often not clear whether or not this usage is intended in French, and politicians being what they are, can pretty much toy with the definition as it suits them. The reason Harper used this definition is because the Bloc Quebecois was using the issue of Quebecois identity in inherent in the word to attempt to increase tensions between English Canadians and "Quebcois" (however you wish to use the word) by provoking a confrontation in Parliament in order to shore up sagging support for Quebec independence. They were hoping politicians from other provinces (particularly the anti-French MP's that lurk on the fringes of Harper's party) would angrily reject their motion and they could hold it up as another sign that English Canadians are out to "humiliate" them. The Bloc and Parti Quebecois has often used the ambiguous sense of (Quebecois, le peuple quebecois, la nation quebecoise, etc.) to play on the feelings of identity involved in this word that, in some segments of the French Canadian population, still resonates, while maintaing a plausible deniability that they are not doing it. Occasionally, they will slip up and you get embarrassing incidents like Jacques Parizeau's "money and the ethnic vote", Lucien Bouchard's referendum gaffe about the Quebcois being the "white" race with the lowest birthrate int he world, and Bloc MP Suzanne Tremblay's pointing out the Jean Charest has the name "John" on his birth certificate as if it is some dark secret. They've been doing this for years. In this case, Harper just weaseled his way out of a confrontation by using symantics so it ceases to be an issue and to diffuse the Bloc's often inflammatory use of the word, thus preventing his party from blowing apart on the issue like it did under Mulroney. Personally, the whole issue should be moot today, but politicians (on both sides) being who they are will grab at anything to advance their political agendas.

First, the only thing that was addressed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois with regards to definitions shows your POV to be a POV not based on anything but misconception and prejudice of a group of people. This malinformed point of view can only be shared by people who rely solely on the English language corporate press to try to understand Quebec and Quebecers or those who choose to ignore what the overwhelming majority of Quebecers think, feel and write in the everday language of the majority of them and the sole official public language of all of them. The misrepresentation of the opinions of Parizeau and Bouchard led to lawsuits for defamation. I have never even heard the name of Suzanne Tremblay, but I'd be curious to see how the usual suspects misrepresented whatever she said. -- Mathieugp 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Look her up: Suzanne Tremblay. Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard never sued anyone for quoting these lines, which speak for themselves. You are fabricating stories again to defend their demagoguery. --Soulscanner 07:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Quebec Court of Appeal yesterday ordered a dead man's estate to pay five times the amount in damages that a lower court had earlier awarded to two former Quebec premiers in a libel case.

Lucien Bouchard and Jacques Parizeau had sued Richard Lafferty, a Montreal financial analyst, for defamation and won their case in 2000.

Lafferty, who died Oct. 9, had compared Bouchard and Parizeau to Adolf Hitler in a confidential newsletter sent to 275 clients in January 1993.

In a 2-1 decision, the appeal court increased the $20,000 awarded to Bouchard and Parizeau three years ago to $100,000 - $75,000 for moral damages and $25,000 for punitive damages.

In his written opinion, Judge René Letarte said the increase was justified because the initial $20,000 awarded by Quebec Superior Court was too insignificant - "almost an invitation for others to repeat the accusations if they thought they could get away with it."

Parizeau and Bouchard, Lafferty wrote in part, "aim their appeal entirely at nationalism. It is a classic form of demagoguery, and is no different from what Hitler did, although Hitler at the time was operating in a greater political vacuum than that which prevails in Quebec or Canada. ... There are no organized patriots in Quebec with the concepts of liberty, equality and paternity (sic). ... The same situation prevailed with Hitler."

That's from Judges hike Lafferty libel award, by Alan Hustak in The Gazette, Saturday, October 25, 2003

As for Suzanne Tremblay I am not surprised to see see the familiar User:JillandJack and User:Angelique, sockpuppets of User:DW, as part of those people who edited this article. -- Mathieugp 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What you are trying to do is play the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois (Well, I guess now we have Quebec Solidaire and Quebec Republique as well) game of denying that the sense of this word even exists. In that sense, you are attempting to foist your political outlook to erase well-known and documented facts about how this word/identity/politic are used, particularly in French. I don't like that some people use Qubecois to mean "French Canadian living in Quebec" either (in English or in French), but the fact is, as has been repeated here ad nauseum, that it does exist and that politicians exploit that to their advantage. The fact that it is a controversy here is itself a testament of that need. That is why a broad article on this topic is needed. --Soulscanner 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The recognition of all residents of Quebec as part of the Quebec nation is not disputed by any of the major political parties of Quebec (PLQ, PQ, ADQ and certainly not QS either), is part of the official political discourse since the 1960s, is reflected in all national policies of Quebec and within all national institutions of Quebec etc. In Ottawa, that is different. Recognition of this de facto political nation is cause of division. You have yet to present a single FACT and a single VALID ARGUMENT backing up your claims. The fact that, inside Quebec, it is francophones and francized allophones who tend to identify more as "Quebecers" and that it is anglophones and anglicized allophones who tend to identify more as "Canadians" is obviously the result of the conflicting nation-building projects of Quebec nationalists and Canadian nationalists overlapping in Montreal. Identity is a political and cultural construct in which language plays a very critical role. -- Mathieugp 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the reference to Pierre Dubuc's article. I think there is very much a debate within the PQ of who exactly is Quebecois. I can provide many, many other links where the "belongisng" and "sens d'appartenance" of non-francophone Quebecers is questioned. The object of this article, though, is not polemic. It is descriptive, as is the case for any good encyclopedic article. --Soulscanner 07:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading Pierre Dubuc's newspaper for many years thank you. You are making a mockery of a very serious topic on shared identity which you do not seem to understand. These debates are not specific to Quebec, academics hold debates on those same topics elsewhere all the time. The spilling over of those debates in the politically biased mass media do not constitute encyclopedic material. Columnists who echo the partisan comments of some MPs on who is and isn't considered a Québécois for PQ members is precisely the kind distorted POV BS that cannot be seriously used as Wikipedia:Reliable sources without caution. There is absolutely nothing descriptive about what you wrote by the way. You state as fact things that are opinions and try to back them with sources stating something different. -- Mathieugp 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The BQ and PQ is a very ppular political party in Quebec (well, it used to be). They wrote Quebec's language legislation. The demagoguery of their MP's, and mostly, the tolerance of it in its intellectual class, is noteworthy. The fact is, any politician making comments like this about someone's francophone or French Canadian identity would be forced to resign in Canada. --Soulscanner 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

AS for the box, it is consistent with the English-speaking Quebecer box (which I added). I'm anglophone, but my ethnicity is German, and the largest ethnic group has 15% of the population, so it's clear that this is not my intention. I'm fully aware that there is overlap here, but the fact is that not all residents of Quebec identify as Quebecois people. I think most Wiki Users can figure out that these boxes use "ethnic" in the broadest sense of the term and that they are not limited or even necessarily related to bloodlines or ancestry. I think the name of the box just reflects a working wiki convention when dealing with cultural groups. If you wish to rename the box "cultural, linguistic, or ethnic group", but I think this isn't a big deal one way of another. If you have a more appropriate template, please let me know. --Soulscanner 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So you want an article on French-speaking Quebecers inside which the ethnic diversity of Quebec francophones will be reflected in absolute and proportional values? Is the English-speaking Quebecer article tained with partisanship? -- Mathieugp 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It describes the diverse origins and views of English-speaking Quebeckers. If you wish to write an article on French-speaking Quebecers, be my guest. I don't think it's necessary. try doing it on the french wikipedia site and see what happens. I'm sure it will lad to some interesting debates. --Soulscanner 07:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a dictionary or a platform to push a WP:POINT. Unfortunately this editor is using Wikipedia to promote his own political ideas. There is a history behind this, as his contributions and edit history reveal. The redirect to Quebec stands. Any specific material can be covered in an NPOV fashion at Culture of Quebec or as Mathieu as suggested, Quebec identity. Laval 08:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All this has been addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois, which is a mechanism for determining Wiki consensus. What the administrators have been trying to point out to you is that refusing to respect this accepted dispute mechanism you have violated Wikipedia protocols.

The administrators have not been tryin to point out anything. No consensus was reached on deletion, that is all there is to conclude. -- Mathieugp 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to begin a longer article on Quebecois Identity. I encourage you to write a summary here, with references. It is an important topic, and I will be happy to contribute. However, this page goes beyond the scope of Quebecois Identity, as it seeks to summarize the many senses of Quebecois in terms of its definition, popular and academic use, culture, language, identity and, yes, ethnicity along with its legal and political implications, in English (but also in French). --Soulscanner 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your constant misrepresentations and POV-pushing here for your fringe ideas warrant administrative action against you. I am sure you are very pleased that the article is protected with the ethnic group template, but I will do what I can to raise attention to your actions. Laval 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner, the English version of the original motion by the Bloc called for recognizing Quebeckers as a nation. It was the Conservative motion that changed that to Québécois, presumably to counter the idea that the nation was based on territorial boundaries. Your article starts out by saying that it covers the English meaning of "Québécois", which understandably has a different meaning from "Quebecker" in English. What possible relevance can there be to examining this supposed ethnic identity as it is viewed by English-speakers, who use the word Québécois in English? If you really want to make the argument that this is an ethnic identity, then you should focus on the way the word is used in French, by the people who belong to this group. You claim that the word Québécois is often used in that sense by francophone Quebecers. There is no doubt that this is less frequent than the territorial sense, so why does your infobox say that there are 6 million Québécois rather than 7 million? In any case if you are making the claim that this is an ethnic identity, then isn't the French language most relevant? Does the point of view of the English language have some special status? (It should in a dictionary, but not in an encyclopedia, which deals with concepts, not words.) Should we examine whether the German language has one, two, or three words for Quebecers and write articles on each of those topics? Joeldl 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying what the conservatives did wasn't blatant manipulation, but it was in response to demagoguery on the part of the Bloc. The point is, the Bloc doesn;t want an internal debate on who is Quebecois either, because it expose an anti-English, anti immigrant fringe that is small but very present. That is why they did not challenge Harper's definition, and voted for it. As for the status of English on English wikipedia, it is as special as that of French on French wikipedia. It stands to reason that international English conventions be used here, as international French conventions be used there, with appropriate references to how words are used in other languages. For example, you will see that English Wikipedia refers to Rome, not Roma, Cologne, not Koln, and Acadia, not Acadie. As for the infobox, that should say 6-7 million, not 6 million. I propose that we change it. The number depends on how you define it. --Soulscanner 07:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point about English. The problem would be if there were some region of Germany which only the English language had a name for, throwing together various parts of Germany that Germans didn't usually consider to be a unit. It is clear that "Cologne" is the appropriate translation for "Köln". "Québécois" cannot be said to be the appropriate translation in most cases for Québécois in French. In most cases the appropriate translation is "Quebecer". You have singled out French Canadian Quebecers and said that they form an ethnic group. This is at least implied by your using the "ethnic group" infobox. I am saying that there is a serious problem in giving a group of people the status of an ethnic group based on the use of a term for them by a single language which is not theirs. English has special status on Wikipedia in the sense that the content is in English, but it does not have any special status in determining whether a particular group of people constitute an ethnic group. Joeldl 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

--Soulscanner 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)--Soulscanner 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)--Soulscanner 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)==Tp admins: Remove Soulscanner's POV please== {{editprotected}} Please remove the ethnic group template which is completely out of place here (Quebecois is not an ethnic group), and add back the POV and merge tag per my request here: [14]

Please respect the Wiki consensus arrived at. --Soulscanner 07:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not about the "right" or "wrong" version - there is an absurd ethnic group template on an article about a provincial/national group and is in gross violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Also there has been a long discussion here about merging this article to Quebec - Soulscanner removed that tag. Something has to be done about this users behaviour as it is totally out of line. If there is recourse for administrative action against this user, please detail exactly how we can go about this. At the very least, please add back the totallydisputed and merge tags if you do not wish to remove the ridiculous template. Thank you, Laval 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained that this tag also explains the demographic make up of English-speaking Quebecers and Catalans, so it is appropriate here, violating no Wiki convention. I'll point out that other Wiki pages here describe French Canadians as the Quebec diaspora (descending from the Quebecois) and the language of the French Canadians as Quebecois French. The existance if a Quebec diaspora is an exact parallel to that seen by Catalans who live in Andorra, France, and elsewhere in Spain, and Catalonia. There are many Diaspora cultures that have the same relationship to their homelands who all distinguish between territorial and their cultural/lingusitc/ethnic communities, which are generally described as Ethnic groups according to most Wiki conventions. You may disagree with this on ideological grounds, but it doesn't take a way from the fact that majority of people writing on wikipedia use ethnicity in the broadest sense of the word to include lnigusistic, cultural --Soulscanner 06:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is pure non-sense. The expression "American diaspora" is in usage "Canadian diaspora" as well. Again, in French, Québécois means "of Quebec". Therefore diaspora québécoise means the dispersed population of Quebec. Most studies have focused on the majority of Quebecers, the Francophones of course. The phenomenon was mostly that of the farmers which were even more universally French-speaking. See the fourth meaning of this dictionary definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diaspora

We could have an article on French-speaking Quebecers using the template. This would be consistent with English-speaking Quebecer. The first sentence could read "French-speaking Quebecers or Quebeckers (also Franco-Quebecers, French Quebecers, or Francophone Quebecers or Quebecois; in French Québécois francophone, Franco-Québécois) are French-speaking (anglophone) residents of the Canadian province of Quebec". -- Mathieugp 13:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have clearly documented, Queebcois, in french can refer to anyone living or born in Quebec, can mean someone who speaks french in Quebec, or can refer to someone of French Canadian ancestry. All are common usage. In English, Quebecois genrally refers to French-speaking Quebecers, and Quebecer anyone who lives in Quebec. The English usage comes from the common French usage, which ahs been around since the late 1960's. you are just attempting to demonize anglophones. --Soulscanner 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. User:Soulscanner was asked to copy & paste the full content of the Québécois entry in his 1984 Petit Robert (reference #4) so we can read what it says ourselves. All these on line dictionaries state the in French Québécois (logically) means "Quebecer":

• Here are dictionaries that disagree with the definition SoulScanner is trying to impose for Québécois in French:
• Media Dico: québécois,e (adjectif et nom commun) Du Québec, de Québec.
• Grand dictionnaire terminologique de l'OQLF: Personne née au Québec ou qui habite cette province, et plus rarement, personne née à Québec ou qui habite cette ville. (That is by far the most authoritative definition of the word in the French language of Quebec.)
• Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé: (Personne) qui habite la province du Québec ou qui en est originaire.
• Answers.com: De la ville ou de la province de Québec.
• Sensagent.com: 1. habitant du Québec.
• Wikitionary: Du mot Québec, lequel vient de l’algonquien Kébec « là où le fleuve se rétrécit » (en parlant du fleuve Saint-Laurent).
• Orthonet: de Québec ville ou du Québec province
• Word Reference.com: Québécois nm person from Quebec
• Merriam-Webster: Etymology: French québecois, québécois, from Québec Quebec (Shows that Merriam-Webster agrees with the simple territorial French definition of "from Quebec".)

For the 10th time, all these definitions are included in the article. If you wish to add these sources as references to the places in the article where the definition is given (at the beginning of the intro) I invite you to do so. It's not necessary because because no sane person would dispute these definitions. However, the ethno-cultural sense of the word is documented in objective sources in addition to these definitions. It is a fact, and the documentation is there to prove it. --Soulscanner 06:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point. You are trying to argue that your POV on who is Québécois is backed by formal French dictionary definitions, which is not. It is arguable that your POV on the Quebecois (in English) is common place, we do not have statistics on usage of the word and popular understanding of the preception English speaking Canadians have of people who identify with Quebec first or alone, but whatever the result, your POV would be just one out of many POV. The NPOV policy does not say "you can write any POV in an article and then wait for others to insert theirs along side it". -- Mathieugp 12:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm trying to include all meanings of the word, even though the most common one in English is the one you are saying does not exist in French. Again, I've documented it here in many places. you are misrepresenting the French usage to mislead readers and support the usual demonization of anglophones that you find among hardline separatists. --Soulscanner 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

2. User:Soulscanner reference number 5 does not support what SoulScanner is subtlety trying push as a POV, ie, that it is only French Canadians on the territory of Quebec who make up the Quebecois nation. Reference #5 says:

"If the class that supports nationalism is different, so is the nature of the nation, of the "we". As, the "canadien" nationalism of the Patriotes became "French Canadian" nationalism in the 1840's, the "French Canadian" nationalism of the ultramontane period became the "Québécois" nationalism from the 1960's. Each of these seeming subtle changes of nomenclature reflects, in fact, a huge alteration in the nature of the nation. In shedding the strongly ethnic components that defined the earlier nationalism, including its racist elements, the new cement of the nationalism became primarily the territorial element, focused on Quebec. The territorial element had not been important in the earlier nationalism, as the nation having been defined as French Canadian, and French Canadians having been scattered all across the continent, then it could not have a precise territorial element."

Again, you are making false accusations. I'm not pushing any definition. I'm documenting all of them because this article (among other things) discusses the various meanings of the word. Again, this long discussion proves that it is necessary. If you wish to summarize this view and reference the quote above (Wikipedia discourages the use of quotations) it would make a perfect addition to the article. --Soulscanner 06:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The source states something different from what you pretend it states. I have demonstrated it for anyone to see. This understanding of Canadian français => Québécois national identity shift is THE OPPOSITE of what you claim it is. How could we possibly resolve this if you deny that you have been proven wrong? -- Mathieugp 12:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the Petit Robert definition, the Pierre Dubuc reference, and the le Devoir letter fully show that a large segment of the population does not consider anglophones and many allophones to be Quebecois. They say so quite plainly, and say that those who include these groups are being politically correct. --Soulscanner 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

3. The Conservative motion adopted under Prime Minister Harper is controversial, interpreted in the different ways and one wonders how it ended up being inserted as the second paragraph even before "Usage".

It was inserted at a time when it was making headlines (I've provided links to those headlines), so it was appropriate. It was clear from this motion that the sense of the word needed to be described and its origins explained. There is nothing wrong with documenting controversial opinions in encyclopedias, as long as they are referenced and come from significant figures. The opinions of a Prime Minister are very relevant. If you wish to provide alternate opinions (say from Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe) I would invite it as it would illustrate that he shares the same political POV that you are pushing here as an objective fact. I would never say that Harper's opinion is the only one out there (i don't even like the guy; I voted Bloc last time just to keep the Tories out of my riding) --Soulscanner 06:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point. The point is that the place for this is not inside Quebecois, as sterile debates on Canadian identity is not at Anglophone Canadian but at Canadian identity.

If this is ever going to be covered in full and in a NPOV fashion, it will be quite long, since the Bloc submitted many such motions before the ruling party responded. A proper article for documenting the controversial opinions around the motion would be Motion on Quebec nation or something along those lines. -- Mathieugp 12:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bloc voted for the Conservative motion. The other parties rejected the Bloc motions. The one that stands is the Conservative motion. There is nothing POV about anything there. --Soulscanner 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

4. The expressions given under "French expressions used in English" are totally biased. Two are affiliated political parties which User:Soulscanner opposes and two were chosen to reinforce User:Soulscanner's POV that it is common for Quebecers of French Canadian origin to exclude others. Specifically, the Québécois pure laine is followed by a comment that would need to be sourced. -- Mathieugp 13:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It documents where in the English language these words appear the most often. Do a google search in English and you'll find that most English references show the word appearing in that of these political parties. It also appears as an example in most English dictionaries. --Soulscanner 06:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not responding to the arguments. The POV after the Québécois pure laine will not be in dictionaries. As for the example themselves, "most" English dictionaries? Prove it. The point remains in the end, that they are non-neutral and tendencious. By the way, long explicit dictionary definition belong to Wikitionary as stated by many other people. -- Mathieugp 12:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone interested can do a google search to find the references. I'm not going to search for all the English dictionaries in the world; that would be overkill. --Soulscanner 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for any admin to make large changes to an article while it is protected due to a dispute. Please resolve the issue on the talk page. Once there is a consensus, the article will be unprotected and you will be able to edit it yourself. CMummert · talk 13:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As a professor of mathematics, you will probably be interested in commenting the logical dead ends I have pointed out to the admin who protected the page here: [15]. Right now, we are set on going for mediation and if this fails then we will go for arbitration, unless of course it is proved that User:Soulscanner is a sockpuppet of old friend User:DW as suspected by myself and User:Bearcat (who opposes the redirect unlike me) because we have a long experience with the said user. -- Mathieugp 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the arguments I have put forward here under "Vote for redirect", which User:Soulscanner presented to the admin as following the vote for deletion when in fact it was a resumption (or second attempt) of an earlier attempt, dating back March 17. Let me know what you think. -- Mathieugp 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely because talk pages like this are so hard to follow that I don't want to make any changes to the page based on requested edits. It's too difficult to tell whether or not there is consensus for the changes. If you find that it isn't possible to find consensus through discussion, then mediation or a request for comment is the next logical step. Nick has some other suggestions on his talk page, including a second AFD. CMummert · talk 14:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Attacks getting personal

I think all of us will agree that personal attacks are unnecessary. I ask that criticisms be directed at the article, and not at people, and that everybody respect the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith (see Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks). --Soulscanner 07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people have questioned Soulscanner's legitimacy as a contributor. At this point, I have no position on the matter. But I would suggest that that debate be taken elsewhere. Perhaps a special page of some kind could be devoted to the issue for those interested. In the meantime debate here should focus on the substance of the disagreement, in my opinion. Joeldl 08:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A page devoted to ranting against an editor. I thank you for your support. --Soulscanner 09:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In some circumstances, discussing user conduct is legitimate. It is not tantamount to a "rant". However, that should not be the main focus of discussion on this talk page. Joeldl 11:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed references for article.

Perhaps we could start by compiling of articles to cite here. Please place proposals for articles to include as references here: --Soulscanner 08:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Coudé-Lord, Michelle (30-04-1994). "Une tache noire dans la neige blanche". vol. 18, no 4 (in French). Journal de Montréal. pp. 24–25. Retrieved 14-04-2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)--Soulscanner 08:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from that story:

• C'est l'identité québécoise même qui se trouve questionnée dans ce documentaire.

What is your objection to having this content in an article called Quebec identity? Joeldl 09:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

None whatsoever. I'll happily contribute to one. But this goes beyond identity. This article also discusses the concept of Quebec nationhood from a legal and political perspective. It is broader than that. Identity is only part of this article. Michaelle Jean: pioneer of 100% Quebecois francophone immigrants. She belongs in the box. --Soulscanner 09:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you want an article about Quebec identity, write about that. If you want one about Quebec nationhood, write about that. These are encyclopedic subjects that have nothing to do with the use that anglophones may or may not make of the word "Québécois". Just as it would be inappropriate to discuss these subjects in an article called "Chinese", despite the numerous uses (ethnic, geographic, political, etc.) that can be made of this term in English, and which only partially correspond to the various words that might be used in Chinese. If you feel that the use of "Québécois" in English deserves treatment, then write about that in an article called "Use of the word Québécois in English". Right now, though, you seem to want to turn this page into a hodgepodge of things that you would like to say about: francophone Quebecers' identity and nationhood and how the word Québécois is used in English and French. You should probably also respond to my comments above on your treatment of "Québécois" as an ethnic group. Joeldl 11:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not English-speakers who invented this sense of the term. It is French-speaking Quebecois who originally used it as is documented in the the Petit Robert reference I give and in the Jacques Noel article below. Anglophones adopted it because it was used this way in the French. As for the "hodge-podge", it is that only the sense that any article on a people is a "hodge-podge". The term is used in many contexts, some that are more similar to Canadian, some that are more simlar to Catalans. It is deserving of an article in and of itself. Perhaps it would be more accurate to write an article on the Quebecois people (with the "ethnic box"), the Quebecois nation, Quebecois culture (distinct from culture of Quebec, which would include anglos, allos, and natives), Quebecois identity, and a QUebecois article that summarized all of these (without the "ethnic" box. --Soulscanner 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My Petit Robert does give that ethnic/linguistic definition after spécialement. However, this may have been an awkward attempt to reflect the fact that québécois may be identified with the majority in Quebec in the same way as for any country or territory. Its only examples are cinéma québécois, littérature québécoise. I believe that this is analogous to the fact that it would be unusual to classify Joseph Brodsky's works in Russian as "American literature", even though he also wrote in English and identified with the United States. When one thinks of American literature, one thinks first and foremost of English-language works. The Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui, which was published by Le Robert and covers the French language as it is used in Quebec (while the Petit Robert focuses on the language used in France), has a much more extensive section on the word Québécois than Le Petit Robert does, but does not have any definition restricting the meaning to francophones. It includes the examples Québécois francophones ⇒ Franco-Québécois, anglophones ⇒ Anglo-Québécois, allophones ⇒ Néo-Québécois.

As for your suggestion, I don't think it is necessary to have an article on the culture of Francophone Quebecers as distinct from that of Quebec, since Francophones constitute 80% of Quebecers. The article Culture of Quebec can be expected to give appropriate weight to the various ethnic groups. The article Culture of the United States, for example, is the primary location for talking about the culture of English-speaking Americans, including a photograph of cultural icons such as Apple pie, undoubtedly thought of as originally associated with the culture of Americans of British descent, but nonetheless belonging now to all Americans. There is also an article English Americans, of marginal interest. If you want to write an article, I would suggest the less problematic title French-speaking Quebecer. You seem to suggest that there is a lot to say about the use of the word Québécois in English. Perhaps, but this is totally unrelated to an article about the culture, identity, etc., of francophone Quebecers, and the infobox seems to suggest that this is the main article for that group. Joeldl 15:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The other explanation, as opposed to rambling and twisted logic presented here, is that the Petit Robert was being straightforward in documenting the way the word is commonly used and that your rambling logic is the type that Pierre Dubuc and Jacques Noel characterize as "politically correct". Really, I've lived in Quebec all my life and I know damn well from the context what people mean when they distinguish between "Quebecois" and "anglophone" or say "chansonnier Quebecois" ... They mean Felix Leclerc, Gilles Vignault and Michel Rivard, not Leonard Cohen and Rufus Wainwright. --Soulscanner 07:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not another explanation: that is the prejudice you started with. American literature, American theatre do not have a single line on authors who are Americans but whose works were not written in the national language. Canadians distinguish between Canadians and French Canadians, here we distinguish between Québécois and Québécois anglophone which is equivalent.

Anglo-Americans, being a majority, tend to identify as simply Americans and generalize their perception of reality to all citizens of the USA. Anglo-Canadians, being a majority, tend to identify as simply Canadians and generalize their perception of reality to all citizens of Canada. Franco-Quebecers, being a majority, tend to identify as simply Québécois, and generalize their perception of reality to all citizens of Quebec. That is perfectly natural as they, being the majority, are setting the social norms and usually come into contact with the Other through their own language and culture. When Joe Canadian says, "we Canadians say Hey, not Huh", he is generalizing to all Canadians something which only ethnic Anglophone Canadians and people assimilated to the culture of this group, could possibly relate to. Is anyone accusing the Anglo-Canadians of rejecting the other citizens of Canada? Of course not, that would be dishonest and vain. Yet, this dishonest and vain process is applied to people who, identifying as Québécois generalize this to all citizens of Quebec. And when they don't do this, then they are guilty of "ethnic nationalism" and suspected of being racist. Following your own reasoning, since a great deal of people naturally do, in modern nations, including civic nations welcoming a great deal of immigrants like the USA, use the same word to designate the common culture of all citizens and the culture of the ethno-linguistic majority, then we should create articles based on the Québécois template for American, German, French. Oh no, wait, the Quebecois/Quebecer opposition exists only for us in the English language. I guess we will not be able to push this POV after all.

By the way, what Jacques Noel considers excessive political correctness is preventing the majority of Quebecers to call themselves simply Québécois because in Quebec there are minority groups not identifying as Québécois. The majority of Canadians do not paint themselves in the corner because in Canada there are also Québécois and immigrants not yet acculturated to Canada's mainstream culture. -- Mathieugp 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I think he is a little more emphatic than that.

"EST Québécois comme est Français, Chinois, Chilien, chimiste, chirurgien ou tiens Tabernaco, 1) qui se DIT Québécois 2) mais surtout qui est RECONNU par le gros bons sens (un trésor national qui ne se perd pas!) comme membre de la famille. Par delà l'épaisseur de la souche. En gros est Québécois qui parle québécois avec un accent québécois, qu'il soit rrrrrrroulé comme les Montréalais ou aspiré comme les Bleuets."

According to him, you have to identify with the local dialect language, and be considered Quebecois by the community at large. You have to assimilate into the French Canadian community. --Soulscanner 06:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So we agree. Quebecois theatre and literature is that written in the French language. There is no need for a "franco-Quebecois" article here because it is undersood that Gilles Vignault is "Quebecois" in both French and English, and Leonard Cohen is "Quebecois anglophone" in French or an English-speaking Quebecer. That is the primary sense intended here by Quebecois: those who identify with the "national" language. That sense exists both in French and English. So this distinction between "Queebcois" and "anglophone", as you explain here quite eloquently, is not racist. But it DOES mean that anglophones are excluded from this category unless they write in French. So we can leave Leonard Cohen (and me) out of this, just like Americans leave out Americans that do not write in ENglish (as you claim; I'm not sure if it's true). I don't particularly identify with any language, but I identify more with ENglish than with French. My national language is English, as with Leonard Cohen. --Soulscanner 06:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we do not agree. Again, your conclusion is based on a prejudice, it does not follow logically from any of the premisses. In the last line, he wrote that people who tend to identify as Québécois and tend to be recognized as such (en gros meaning "roughly", "more or less") when they speak Quebec French. That's certainly true if we talk about the community of identity. But it is not exact, it is more or less. What this person needs to discover (maybe by visiting Montreal more often) is that there are people who, before assimilation, identify as Québécois in addition to their original identity or that of their parents. I did not make a distinction between "Quebecois" and "anglophone", I made one between Québécois and Québécois anglophone, between the whole and the part.

Leonard Cohen would have no difficulty saying he is "Quebecois" or Québécois by the way. And Mordecai Richler is un auteur québécois whose major works are edited by Bibliothèque Québécoise, the national collection of our Bibliothèque et Archives nationales. When francophones of Quebec say we are all québécois, then some anglophones accuse them of wanting a society that does not include them as distinct. When francophones are being respectful of how Quebec anglophones identity, when they say that they are Canadien or Canadien anglais to translate "Canadian", then they are accused by the same people excluding them from their definition of québécois. -- Mathieugp 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Parenteau, François (30-11-2006). "LA NATION schtroumpf". {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Interesting civic definition that many here will like, comes close to being civic, but excludes people like my parents who integrated into English-speaking as somehow partial Quebecois. the fact is, without immigrants the English-speaking populations in Montreal would nosedive just like it did everywhere else in Quebec. Also, he's misrepresenting Harper's definition, which was one of "sens d'appartenance". --Soulscanner 09:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What can I say, although Joeldl and I do not belong to the same political family, he speaks the language of reason and I fully agree with what he wrote, down to the smallest details. -- Mathieugp 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mathieugp. Joeldl 12:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner, would you expect to find works written in Spanish in a university course called "American literature"? Do you think that people should refer to "English-American literature" instead? That doesn't mean that Hispanics in the U.S. are not American. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Corey Hart were called "un chanteur québécois", but Leonard Cohen would probably not be called un chansonnier québécois, but more likely anglo-québécois because of the special emphasis on language in the word chansonnier. Perhaps Mathieugp, as a native speaker, can say what he thinks. In any case, I have very, very many times heard anglophone Quebec athletes referred to as "Québécois" when they compete at the Olympics, for example. Joeldl 12:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For example here is a quote from a webpage for children [16]. Connais-tu Jasey-Jay Anderson? C’est notre champion québécois de surf des neiges! Unless I'm mistaken, he's an anglophone. If not, I'll find another example. Joeldl 12:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems the kids on the site are wondering why you don't hear more about him. Any theory? And here's another article wondering why Leonard Cohen is not considered a Quebecois artist [17]. He is a francophone that asks weather a Quebecois artist is an artist that lives in Quebec or someone that works in French. I guess he's a bigot out to discredit the Quebecois people fr asking a simple question. --Soulscanner 06:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Soulscanner yet again misrepresent what the source says. Parenteau writes:

"The concept of "French Canadian" is however a sociocultural reality. Ethnically, I am a French Canadian. One tends to forget it but our first local "we", rooted in America, was a Canadian "we". The Québécois word covers up for a great part the French Canadian identity but it is not a synonym to it. There are French Canadians who are not Québécois. And there are Québécois who are not French Canadian. It is a political and not ethnic identity." -- Mathieugp 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, most Quebecois do forget this, and use Quebecois in place of French Canadian. Hence you yourself refer to French canadians as a Quebec diaspora and the language that Franco-Ontarians speak as Quebec French. Canadian is dropped for political purposes to deemphasize any attachment to Canada by sovereignists; it deosn't change the reality though. It is one of the many ways that Quebec nationalists attempt to change language to suit political goals. --Soulscanner 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What statistics do you have to present in order to prove that "most Quebecois do forget"? That is not an accurate representation of my POV by the way. I personally do not identify with Canada, yet people who do, like about half of those you call Quebec nationalists, plus many who are not Quebec nationalists at all, have no issue with expressions such as Quebec diaspora or Quebec French because they have no issue with recognizing basic historical, legal, constitutional, political, sociological and linguistic facts. It is funny that you suggest the idea of "Quebec nationalists attempt[ing] to change language to suit political goals". Didn't the meaning of the word "Canada" change considerably when it stopped designating only the "province of Quebec", formerly known as "Canada" and "Canadian" stopped designating its inhabitants? This change was an important change in language, which just happen to have resulting from the a policy whose objectives were hostile to the very existence of the nation formerly known as and self-identifying as les Canadiens, who inhabited country named Canada. The people who identified with this nation refused to give up their nationality.

"Very blind are those who speak of the creation of a new nationality, strong and harmonious, on the northern bank of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, and who are unaware of or denounce the major and providential fact that this nationality is already very well formed, that it is great, and growing unceasingly; that it cannot be confined to its current limits; that it has an irresistible force of expansion; that in the future it will be more and more made up of immigrants coming from all the countries in the world, no longer only from Europe, but soon from Asia, whose overpopulation is five times more numerous [than that of Europe] and no longer has any other outfall than America; composed, says I, of all races of men, who, with their thousand religious beliefs, large mix of errors and truths, are all pushed by the Providence towards this common rendez-vous that will melt in unity and fraternity all of the human family." -- Louis-Joseph Papineau, 1867

Wasn't this collectivity's renaming as "Quebecers" only a matter of time? Quebecers held on to their first "Canadian" name for a long time after it made any sense. Even secessionists like me are not hostile to the new Canadian nationality of 1867, we are defending the human rights of the first to continue existing and continue walking toward its political emancipation. We think we have a just and universal cause to defend. -- Mathieugp 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Try to stay focussed here. We are discussing what should be included in the article, not promoting 19th century republican ideology. This section is already too long. --Soulscanner 06:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Noel, Jacques (31-03-2007). ""Québécois francophones de vieille souche"". Le Devoir. Retrieved 15-04-2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) Recent letter to editor that argues for ethnic definition of word and mocks UQAM academics. Reflects Pierre Dubuc's attitude, but more crude. According to many here, this so-called "common sense" populist definition does not exist in Quebec. It's rather touching in its honesty, actually, sort of like Don Cherry's odes to Lord Nelson ;-). --Soulscanner 09:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, it doesn't argue for a definition based on heredity. fr:Normand Braithwaite, who is black, is considered Québécois (in French) by the author. The definition seems to be based on speaking French natively (or perhaps as well as a native speaker) with a Quebec accent and sharing the same culture as French Canadian Quebecers. In any case, you will find Francophones who have that view of what it means to be Québécois (in French), but you cannot focus an article entitled "Québécois" on this, just because a few people have an ethnic and/or cultural view of what it means to be Québécois. There is a controversial article at French people which is controversial for the same reasons. However, that article is not under French. Please choose more appropriate titles and divide the content of this article among them. Joeldl 11:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of the article says that Quebecois used to refer to "The Tremblays of Saguenay, the Lavoies of Ste-Foy, the Dumonts of Rosemont, the Landrys of Gaspésie" and not "les Sikhs de DDO, les Antillais de Côte-des-Neiges, les Italiens de St-Léonard, les Loyalistes de l'Estrie, les Jersiais de la Baie des Chaleurs et les Cris de la Baie James" ... he also refers to various black immigrants who are not. It is the way the word is commonly accepted in Quebec, and anyone who has lived in Quebec knows it. --Soulscanner 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, there are some people who use it that way. But there are also people in Britain who say that you're not British if you root for the Pakistani cricket team. Just because some people say that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should accept that point of view, and write an article British focusing on that definition. I dispute that the majority of francophone Quebecers use the term Québécois in a way that excludes people like Alfonso Gagliano. Most would not say that he is not Québécois (in French), and Noël objects to their "political correctness". The extremely common use of "Québécois francophones" attests to this. You have said that that is the way the word Québécois is usually used, but the only dictionary that mentions this meaning, of all those we've looked at, has it as a secondary meaning. What evidence do you have that this is how it is usually used? The author of the opinion letter is specifically objecting to having to say Québécois francophones, so presumably he is acknowledging that that is what is used at the very least by people who are "politically correct". Joeldl 15:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of Quebecois francophones in French is recent, and this is precisely what Noel mocks as "politically correct" in his article. He says that in the past, it was clear that "Sikh's in DDO", for example, were not considered Quebecois. Or did you not see the title of his article? As I said, I find his article refreshingly honest in its candor --Soulscanner 07:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that BNP members in Britain would be likely to say that it was "common sense" that people of Pakistani descent were not British, and that "everybody knows" that Britons eat bacon butties, not halal meat. If you were hell-bent on painting Britons as racist, you would call this "candour". Joeldl 12:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The majority of Quebecers, certainly someone as neutral as Celine Dion, do not distinguish between anglophones and Quebcois in a racist way. Distinguishing culturally between French (or Quebecois) and English Canadian is not racist: it's a sociological fact. Now, there are politicians who politicize the diffences between ENglish and French-speaking Canadians the way the BNP does. That could be considered racist. --Soulscanner 05:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That one is so good it deserves a translation just to show English speakers what the artistic voice inside the idenpendentist movement is saying. Like a lot of us, he doesn't believe that the Québécois national identity is viable inside Canada. I'll come back with a translation. -- Mathieugp 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the full translation of this opinion by a reader of Le Devoir -- Mathieugp 08:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That is obvious from the article, but the main point of the article is that he does not include all Quebeckers as Quebecois, especially anglophones and allophones: "les Sikhs de DDO, les Antillais de Côte-des-Neiges, les Italiens de St-Léonard, les Loyalistes de l'Estrie, les Jersiais de la Baie des Chaleurs et les Cris de la Baie James" ... --Soulscanner 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the author's position is unacceptable, and not reflective of the view of the majority of francophone Quebecers. Joeldl 15:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the author's position is unacceptable and even less that it infers something along the lines of SoulScanner's anti-Quebec nationalist prejudice. As I wrote to Joeldl, my reading the part of Noel's opinion which you both seem to find unacceptable was this: People with the same parental origins self-identify and are identified by others differently, one unavoidable component of identity being language, which can be spoken by any human and does not have a 1/1 relationship with heredity nor place of birth. He gives examples of people with "French" and "Albion" origin who self identify and (according to him) are recognized by others as Québécois or not. He does the same with "Italian", "White", "Indian", "born near the St-Laurent". I can see how this kind of reasoning made sense before bill 101, but today there are many more people who have no issue self-identifying as Québécois and are recognized as such by people like yours truly even though they may not speak French with one of Québec's typical regional accents, Montréal's, Saguenay's, Gaspésie, Québec's. Jacques Noel, because of his age, made the conscious choice of "becoming" a Quebecer when he was in fact self-identifying as French Canadian before, possibly since adolescence. I never made any choice. I was born a Quebecer. I have seen more than enough people with foreign accents talk of Quebec's culture as their own, sometimes express their sympathy with our independence movement to find Noel's point of view disconnected with my reality, because it is dated. Today, the language and the culture of those formerly known as French Canadian of Quebec belongs to all citizens of Quebec who are free to identify with the majority or not. -- Mathieugp 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not find it unacceptable. I pretty much accept it. Who am I to deny someone's identity? As long as I have equal rights as a citizen, I really don't care if someone wants to include me in his little cultural club. I have no desire to be Quebecois, as he describes it, so why would I object? His words are plain: "les Sikhs de DDO, les Antillais de Côte-des-Neiges, les Italiens de St-Léonard, les Loyalistes de l'Estrie, les Jersiais de la Baie des Chaleurs et les Cris de la Baie James" are not Quebecois. He's pretty blunt about it. You can bury your head and the sand and pretend that these words are something different if you want, but they speak for themselves. --Soulscanner 07:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Who am I to deny someone's identity?" I don't know, who are Latinos in the United States to question the identity of some redneck who says Latinos aren't American? Who are you to question me if I tell you that because of your German parentage, you're not Canadian? Joeldl 12:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this brings to mind Mordecai Richler's view on WASP anglophone who banned Jews from their private clubs: the insult wasn't that they banned him; the insult was that they thought he would want to belong to it. --Soulscanner 04:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Since in English, "Quebecois" means "Francophone Quebecers" or "French Canadians of Quebec" as you keep insisting, doesn't it logically follow that these people are not "Quebecois"? You probably meant to say "Quebecers". It was self-evident that in his letter, Noel spoke of Quebecers as of community of identity which does not have a one-to-one relationship with the current community of the "Citizens of Canada who reside in the province of Quebec". It is easy to take the comments of any person passionately discussing a taboo subject and find something objectionable or, if you are not shy to judge others, condemnable. There is no pride in shutting your ears to what others are, sometimes awkwardly or wrongfully, trying to communicate. What you try to infer from his opinion, you will not be able to do using logical arguments. Mutual understanding between all humans of the Earth requires more than just the toleration and indifference of our ultra-individualist societies. It requires accepting 1) that others are different, not better or worst, but different, 2) that beyond our personal differences, there are also non-physical differences resulting from belonging to other cultural groups 3) when it comes down to language and culture, recognizing an equal right to all to identify the way they do and live their life as individuals expressing their humanity in a difference world of sense. For 3) to exist in fact and not just in law, it is required that communities be able to freely develop and interact with other communities on the basis of equality somewhere on Earth. That is why nationalities seek to have their own States, because in our world having a State is a requirement to sit at the United Nations, an international institution which would be more aptly named "United Nations that already achieved sovereignty". States that refuse to be multinational are bound to collapse. -- Mathieugp 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The logic is the other way around. Anglophones are not considered Quebecois in the cultural sense of the word in Quebec. They are are considered differnt. Same holds for native peoples. So they do not identify as Quebecois. As for your other points: 1) No problem. Anglophones and Quebecois are different. For whatever reason. 2) True. I'm anglophone, and you are francophone. You identify with Quebec and Quebecois culture, I identify with Canada and North American culture. That is what Stephen Harper argued for: some in Quebec identify as Quebecois, others do not. We still have the same rights as citizens of Quebec and Canada. 3) I don;t have any objection to Quebec or Canada being multinational, multicultural, or what ever you want to call it. It really comes down to an individual choice. --Soulscanner 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Logic would be: 1) the group usually referred to as French Canadians by English-speakers suddenly starts to say "nous sommes Québécois". Before that, Anglophones did not identify as French Canadians because they lived in Quebec. What does Québécois mean? Quebeckers? Are we all already Quebeckers? I do not understand. It must mean something to them we do not understand. And from this followed the borrowing of "Quebecois" and its meaning of "French Canadian of Quebec". -- Mathieugp 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's not me who finds it objectionable. It's Joel. I used to. Now I accept it, as do most anglophones. Those who cannot live with it have left the province. My point is that the English sense of the word derives from francophones like Noel and Celine Dion who use it that way. No harm is meant by it. They have always used it this way, and they don't want to change it for the sake of political correctness. This is not an anglophone conspiracy to discredit the Quebecois. In English, we get around the civic and cultural sense of the word by distinquishing between Quebecers and Quebecois. There's nothing wrong with this. --Soulscanner 04:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You are completely fabricating here. How do you intend to prove that the English word "Quebecois" was derived "from francophones like Noel and Celine Dion who use it that way"? Is this even documented? As made obvious in the above discussion, why didn't Canadian English speakers coin equivalent words for other nations who use the same word to designate the common culture of all citizens and the culture of the ethno-linguistic majority? Francais/French, American/American (only one language), Mexicano/Mexican, Italiano/Italian, Deutsch/German? Why ethnize only Quebecers? There is no conspiracy, but there is widespread denigration of Quebec's majority in mass media in the name of the war against "separatism". -- Mathieugp 04:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

English Canadians did not coin the word. They adapted the French word which came into use around 1965. All you have to do is read the articles to see that it is common use, and you know it is used that way. According to the Petit Robert and Noel above, it has been around since the 1960's in French. That was way before the word was used that way in English. --Soulscanner 04:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As we have explained to you multiple times, it is in English alone that two words exist to contrast Quebecers and the French-speaking majority of Quebecers. Usually, you have a pair of words such as "American" and "Anglo-American". In French, Québécois can only mean, logically, as first meaning, what pertains to what is called Québec, that is either the city or the province. As an adjective, much like américain or français and many others, québécois can specifically designate the culture of the majority group, that is, what is specific to and distinguishes Québec from other parts of Canada and the world.

You can learn the origin of the word Québécois to designate the inhabitants of the province of Quebec in French here http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/lesgentilesliste.asp The first instance appears to be 1889. -- Mathieugp 14:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But earlier, you said, for example, that in a cultural context, someone like Felix Leclerc (a francoophone songwriter-poet) would be called Quebecois (without the francophone qualifier) , where as Leonard Cohen (an anglophone Songwrite poet) would be commonly called "Quebecois-anglophone". Noel argues that you should not need the francophone qualifier, and you agree with him. You defended this characterization as non-racist, and I agreed. So in a cultural context, "Quebecois" IS used in french to refer to francophone Quebecers both in English and French. it is not racist, and there is no implication on my part that it is. The francophone Quebecois designation is redundant. Now you are back to denying that this distinction exists. You are contradicting yourself. --Soulscanner 17:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, in a cultural context, it refers to what is specific to Quebec and Quebecers. You are the one trying to give it the sole specific meaning of "Francophone Quebecer" to build an entire article on a misconception. All Americans are Americans. The Anglo-Americans call themselves just Americans, because they are the majority, because although it is not necessarily their first language, speaking English is a common denominator for American citizens. In their language, Americans differentiate Americans who are not Anglo-Americans with various qualifiers (African Americans, Italian Americans, etc.). Just like Anglo-Americans have the habit to call themselves just Americans, Anglo-Canadians have the habit to call themselves Canadians and likewise Franco-Quebecers have (recently acquired) the habit to call themselves Quebecers. That is how free peoples behave in the only place in the world they call home, a home in which they are the hosts welcoming strangers to be a part of their specific national community. I agree with Noel that there is a limit to Francophones painting themselves in the corner as a result of hostile attempts to make them forget that they are a majority in Quebec and instead brainwash them back to thinking of themselves as just a minority inside Canada: to think of themselves as French Canadian, as if Canada was a unitary Nation-State. -- Mathieugp 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Helly, Denise; Van Schendel, Nicolas (2001), Appartenir au Québec : Citoyenneté, nation et société civile : Enquête à Montréal, 1995, Les Presses de l'Université Laval, ISBN 2-89224-326-2, retrieved 15-04-2007 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) Looks pretty objective. You could probably write a whole article on identity from this alone. --Soulscanner 09:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the author's position is unacceptable, and not reflective of the view of the majority of francophone Quebecers. Joeldl 15:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That certainly looks interesting. I doubt that anything in this could possibly support your POV. -- Mathieugp 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I listed 4 sources with quotes above, [7] to [10], with the first disputed. –Pomte 12:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The first source seems to state the opposite of the second although the sentence not being complete makes it hard to judge properly. The second one is compatible with the scientific understanding of the modern identité québécoise both in terms of what it is de facto and legally as well as the perception of it. It says something that is the opposite of what SoulScanner is trying to argue is just a formal definition in French. The two other references didn't say much about the meaning of Quebecois in any language, but they seem to refer to Francophone Quebecers, which no one argues is the meaning of it in the context of the English language. -- Mathieugp 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm getting dizzy and so is everyone else who reads this. The thing I like about guys like Jacques Noel is that their ideas are simple and their words eloquent and few. --Soulscanner 07:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Topic of article

Soulscanner, you accused me of using rambling, twisted logic. Let's hear yours. What should the topic of an article called Québécois be? Since you insist on an infobox, what definition of Québécois should the infobox pertain to? Joeldl 12:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It should include people who unequivocally self-identify as Quebecois. I think we should add Michaelle Jean for one. It should be no different than Scottish people, Catalans, and Finnish people who readily acknowledge the ambiguity of these terms, and don;t present this ambiguity as an English/Castillian/Swedish conspiracy (I'll point out the Finnish people people is different from Swedish-speaking Finns). The Quebecois history only really begins distinct from French Canadian around the Quiet Revolution, so that is where the history should begin. I think we should include sections on Quebec nationalism, Quebecois identity, Quebecois nation, Quebecois culture, etc, with seperate articles on each, just like at the other sites. --Soulscanner 04:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having examined Mathieu's posting above that distinguishes between "Quebecois" and "Quebecois anglophone", I would say that is an appropriate definition and topic for this article as it reflects the Petit Robert definiton cited in this article. --Soulscanner 07:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1. In all reasonableness, the topic of people who "unequivocally self-identify as Quebecois" should be dealt in Quebec identity, much like there is Canadian identity. As for "unequivocally", that could lead to problems and setting rules and definitions like that amount to original research.

2. "I'll point out the Finnish people people is different from Swedish-speaking Finns". Yes sure, we just need Quebecers to complement English-Speaking Quebecers and we are all set for a comparison. You'll note that there is no article named after whatever the Swedish-speaking Finns use as a word to designate the majority of their co-citizens, although for certain the word exists and has a history.

3. The ambiguity of terms are, by policy, to be dealt with disambiguation pages in Wikipedia. :: 4. Writing an article on French-speaking Quebecers, specifically, is not impossible. However, it would more in line with what is being done for other peoples to have an article on all Quebecers and special one for minorities. -- Mathieugp 14:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree in an additional extra article. But issues of identity for all the other groups I mentioned (for Finns, Catalan, Scottish peoples) are all dealt with on pages dealing with these peoples. By that convention, I think we can have a short summary section here on identity among others.

2. Again, this distinction is normal. In English, the Swedish-speaking Finns and Finnish people are distinct, and the various ethnic/linguistic/civic caveats discussed:

In general, Swedish speaking Finns have their own identity distinct from that of the majority, and they wish to be recognized as such.[2] In speaking Swedish, Swedish Finns predominantly use the Swedish word finländare ("Finlander") when referring to all Finnish nationals. The purpose is to use a term that includes both themselves and Finnish-speaking Finns because the Swedish word finnar, in Finland-Swedish usage, implies a Finnish-speaking Finn. In Sweden, this distinction between finländare and finnar is not widely understood and often not made. --Soulscanner 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason they do not have their own articles is because they are Swedish words. The parallel is Quebecer/Quebecois and finländare/finnar (civic/ethno-cultural). Quebecois is an English word borrowed from the French (like "dénoument" and many other words) mostly because of the prominence of the Bloc and Parti Quebecois, so it is naturally associated more with a strong francophone identity.

3. You are not understanding Wiki policy. The consensus was to keep this page because the consensus is that Quebecois has many senses that are distinct from the territory of Quebec; the word has enough aspects to it that it be treated as a subject on its own; that is not only my opinion, but the opinion of the consensus. You are showing that you are still refusing this consensus. Your refusal to accept this consensus is why this page is still frozen. I suggest you simply accept this consensus (even if you do not agree with it) and focus on ways of improving this article and making sure its contens are fair an NPOV. I think you are more intent on advancing political ideology here than working with others to arrive at a consensus and produce a fair article that represents all opinions on this in a balanced way. I think the fact that you turned discussions that was supposed to be on references for improving the article into long ideological polemics shows that you do not understand how wiki works, and what discussion pages are for. --Soulscanner 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

4. We agreed above that in French Felix Leclerc is a "Quebecois" artist; Leaonard Cohen is a "Quebecois anglophone" . The francophone designation is implied by default in Quebecois, both in French and in english in this commonly used cultural context. Noel, who you claim to agree with, says this is a distinction made based on 1) self-identification and 2) most importantly, how the word is used by Quebec francophones at large. He gives examples of Quebecers who he does not consider Quebecois i this cultural context. You agree that it is normal that Francophones make this distiniction. Now, you change the definition because of what you see as the political consequences.--Soulscanner 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui, which to date is the best dictionary of the French language in Quebec, does not even mention the ethnic/cultural meaning, and gives Franco-Québécois, Anglo-Québécois, and Néo-Québécois as names for subgroups.

"Self-identify as Québécois" can only mean "in French", if any distinction is to be made between this and "Quebecer", since many Quebecers do not speak English or are unaware of the subtleties of the distinction in English. Now, according to this definition, I am "Québécois". Yet I would never use the word "Québécois" to describe myself in English. I am a Quebecer and a Canadian. I am hardly a marginal case. So self-identification is a virtually impossible criterion to apply, unless Québécois is held to be synonymous with the English word Quebecer.

You say people should unequivocally identify as Quebecers. (I will now dispense with Québécois, since it is impossible to carry the English distinction over into French because of the primary territorial meaning of Québécois, given in all the dictionaries we have consulted, including Le Petit Robert.) What does "unequivocally" mean? To me it sounds like it means only. If that is the case, you are excluding all federalists, including Jean Chrétien.

Culturally, Soulscanner and I are no doubt closer to each other than we are to Jean Chrétien, despite the fact that I identify as a Canadian and as a Quebecer and Soulscanner only as a Canadian. Jean Chrétien and Mathieugp are no doubt closer to each other culturally than either is to me, despite the fact that I, like Jean Chrétien, identify as both a Quebecer and a Canadian, and Mathieugp only as a Quebecer. This definition has more to do with politics than culture. How can you base an ethnic group infobox on that? Culture has everything to do with language and very little to do with whether one calls oneself a Quebecer.

If Soulscanner replaces "unequivocally" with "primarily", he will still likely be excluding many, though not all, francophone federalists, and including a number of non-francophones. I think I remember seeing that 15% or so of allophones are sovereigntist, and the "primarily" criterion would include many federalists. I am unsure whether Jean Chrétien would be Québécois under this definition. Also, a good number of francophone-leaning Aboriginals such as the Montagnais show voting patterns similar to those of francophones, and yet their mother tongue is Montagnais. I would not want to say that they belong to the same cultural group as French Canadians, just as it would be a bit presumptuous to say the Cree are English Canadian.

Soulscanner refers to the "ambiguity" of the term "Québécois" in French. I believe that the ambiguity Soulscanner refers to is between the meanings "Quebecer" (the only meaning in all the dictionaries we've looked at) and "francophone Quebecer", both unambiguous terms. This ambiguity pertains not to an intermediate group, but rather to which of these two unambiguous groups the speaker has in mind at a particular time (except perhaps a small question about francophone, non-French Canadian Quebecers.) Soulscanner proposes a category of people based on self-identification as a Quebecer, and I will disregard the "unequivocally" qualification since it is unworkable. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that any group of people defined this way follows known cultural or ethnic lines, except to say that virtually all francophone Quebecers belong to this group (if "unequivocally" is omitted from its definition.) Among the remaining people in Quebec, self-identification as a Quebecer will mainly follow political rather than cultural or ethnic lines. Such a political grouping is suggested by Harper, but does not, in my opinion, designate an ethnic or cultural group.

Here is a question for Soulscanner. Do you claim that "Québécois", based on self-identification in French, is an ethnic or cultural group, and if so, what is the relation between this and "Quebecer", "francophone Quebecer" or "French Canadian Quebecer"? Is there a notable cultural or ethnic difference between anglophones such as you, who only identify as Canadian, and those such as myself, who identify as Canadians and Quebecers (and therefore as Québécois in French, since this is the only term available in French)? Joeldl 18:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any francophone federalists that would not call themselves Quebecois. Jean Chretien identifies strongly as Quebecois. He obviously identifies with Quebec's francophone culture. He also identifies strongly as Canadian. Seperatists question his loyalty to Quebec and because of this, and he might be not as accepted as "Quebcois" in the sense of a Lucien Bouchard, so there would be more controversy there for some, but that would be purely a case of political ideology as opposed to sociological reality. Michaelle Jean also identifies strongly with both Quebec's francophone culture and with Canada too, because she has always worked and lived among francophones at Radio-Canada and in French-language institutions, so she is invested in the language. I hence do not identify as Quebecois in that cultural sense, but I identify as a Quebecer in the same sense as I identify as a Montrealer because I was born and lived most of my life here. Quebec is my home and province, just like Ontario is for anyone who was born or lives there. I identify more as Canadian because I believe strongly in bilingualism and multiculturalism, which is better represented in the federal government than in the provincial government. That is the case for the majority of anglophones and allophones in Quebec. --Soulscanner 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As for one dictionary being better than the other, that is a subjective question. The Petit Robert is authoratiative, has been around for a very long time, and one of the most popular and widely used. It is also more complete. In any case, the definition used here can be found in the Noel and Dubuc articles I have shown, both of which not only acknowledge its common use, but encourage it. They say that the denial of it is mostly due to excessive "political correctness" among academics. Whether or not you or I like this definition (and you have a strong dislike for it'), the definition is still there in both English and French. Newer dictionaries may not include it because it is politically incorrect or because the sense of the identity is indeed changing. All this can be included in the article here, and would serve to better explain the many meanings of the word. --Soulscanner 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First question: that's obvious. Quebecer refers to all Quebecers, just like Ontarian or Albertan. With Quebecois, there are identity issues involving political opinion on sovereignty and language issues, attachment to the French language, French Canadian descent. The Noel article describes it quite nicely, although in a polemic "politically incorrect" (and eloquent and entertaining) manner that some will inevitably find offensive. --Soulscanner 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that identity and the question of who is Quebecois or anglophone is a highly politicized issue in Quebec. That is why an article is necessary to document the various political views that are at play here, and that the various definitions be layed out in this article first.

My personal opinion is irrelevant in the article. The proposals I make are based on the references I posted which discuss the issue straightforwardly. I'm not interested in expressing my personal opinion here. I go to political forums for that. I'm interested in writing a NPOV article based on references I posted above. I'm hoping that we can agree that these are all opinions that are representative of large segments of the Quebec population and deserve to be summarized in the article. We're spending too much time on bad-faith accusations and personal opinions. That is not what the discussion page is for.

But before we go on, we have to be honest about what is expressed in these articles. If you pick out points about including Normand Braithwaite in the definition as you did when we started discussing, you are taking a Pollyanna attitude that attempts to misrepresent what is actually being said. I think if we start by summarizing what is really being said in the article (by a Quebec nationalist) we may have the start of a working definition.

I think we can also get closer to a meaning by discussing the difference between Felix Leclerc (a Quebecois artist) and Leonard Cohen (an anglo-Quebecois artist), according to Mathieu. --Soulscanner 19:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. I identify as a Quebecer and as a Canadian. Jean Chrétien identifies as a Quebecer and as a Canadian. We clearly do not belong to the same ethnic, cultural or linguistic group. Note that you are skirting the issue by surreptitiously reintroducing the word "francophone" talking about Michaëlle Jean, when the whole point is that you are trying to demonstrate that Québécois is a better title for an article about whatever this group is than "francophone Quebecer". Obviously, I would not call myself a francophone Quebecer, in English or in French. It is true that most anglophones and many allophones do not identify culturally with francophone Quebecers (because francophone Quebecers belong to a different cultural group), but this has only a limited connection with self-identification as a Quebecer ("Québécois" in French). You have argued extensively at Talk:English-speaking Quebecer that that article should include allophones who use English as their public language. In the same way, there seems to be little point to have two articles, one for mother-tongue speakers of French and one for a broader group.

First question: that's obvious. Quebecer refers to all Quebecers, just like Ontarian or Albertan. With Quebecois, there are identity issues involving political opinion on sovereignty and language issues, attachment to the French language, French Canadian descent. The Noel article describes it quite nicely, although in a polemic "politically incorrect" (and eloquent and entertaining) manner that some will inevitably find offensive. --Soulscanner 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are adopting Noël's definition from his letter to the editor (a wonderful authority), then you are contradicting your earlier assertion that the criterion was self-identification, since Alfonso Gagliano identifies as a Quebecer, and, it would seem, you too admit to being a Quebecer, and I seriously doubt that you would translate that as "Je suis Quebecer," in French. Support for sovereignty is not a cultural or ethnic fact, except that support is much higher among francophones. Are you abandoning your assertion that the subject of the infobox is defined as those who self-identify as Quebecers? Or is the topic of the article the group of people who, if they had good enough knowledge of English, would call themselves Québécois in English?

You seem to constantly adopt as your excuse for your ambiguity about the topic of the article the fact that there are, according to you, two meanings of Québécois in French, one being more or less synonymous with Franco-Québécois. However, nobody that I know of except for Stephen Harper (hardly a neutral source) seriously thinks that the word can refer to an intermediate group, and if in any case it did, it would be a political grouping and not an ethnic or cultural one. The ethnic/cultural group is clear, and that is French-speaking Quebecers, a term which can be made to have the same level of ambiguity as English-speaking Quebecer, which I think we agree is the place to discuss everything relevant to Anglo-Quebecers whether there are 600,000 of them or 900,000.

My personal opinion is irrelevant in the article. The proposals I make are based on the references I posted which discuss the issue straightforwardly. I'm not interested in expressing my personal opinion here. I go to political forums for that. I'm interested in writing a NPOV article based on references I posted above. I'm hoping that we can agree that these are all opinions that are representative of large segments of the Quebec population and deserve to be summarized in the article. We're spending too much time on bad-faith accusations and personal opinions. That is not what the discussion page is for.

The last source seems like it might be reliable, but one questions whether "Québécois" is the appropriate place for it. Using the other sources would amount to original research, because, other than the Michaëlle Jean story, they are primary sources, unless you think their authors are as reliable as academics. The Michaëlle Jean one tells her personal story and would require us to draw generalizations ourselves from the fact that she has encountered racism in Quebec, and that too would amount to original research. If anything, that would fit under "Racism in Quebec", because that is clearly the topic of that article, to the extent that it can be generalized. Above all, you cannot base an NPOV article on the political opinions of a couple of people who wrote in to newspapers or have an overt political agenda, and no academic qualifications as far as I know.

Quebecois Identity article

I recommend working together on a Quebecois identity article, and coming back here to summarize it in a short paragraph when we are done. We can then work on other articles(Quebecois nation, Quebecois culture, etc.) and also summarize them here. We are no closer to consensus here on improving the article, and unfreezing it now will lead to inevitable edit wars that will waste everyone's time. We are just wasting time here responding to each others personal opinions. That's not what a discussion page is for. --Soulscanner 19:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for an article about "Québécois culture". That could only mean either Culture of Quebec or Culture of French-speaking Quebecers. I believe that, given that mother tongue francophones account for 81% of the population, it would be better to contribute to the article Culture of Quebec than to fork into a new article. Quebec identity would be a better title than Québécois identity, since in French there is no word corresponding to Québécois in English, and to the extent that the word Québécois may sometimes be used to refer to the majority culture of Quebec, that is viewed by people using the word as an identification of the majority group with the territory of Quebec. I have never heard of "Québécois nationalism" before as opposed to "Quebec nationalism", but using that phrase to describe it without the existence of any appreciable distinction between the two can only be understood as an attempt to delegitimize it by emphasizing its connection with French Canadians as an ethnic group, implicitly taking a position on it by choosing a name for it that has ethnic overtones in English. Only Harper's "Québécois nation" deserves to be the subject of an article, of all of the subjects you have suggested. Joeldl 06:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on scope of article

I have requested comment at WP:RFC/HIST and WP:CWNB. Joeldl 11:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This page was recently up for deletion and the result was to keep it. However, it is clearly a POV minefield. After much discussion, editors Soulscanner, Mathieugp and I have yet to come to agreement on the appropriate content for this page. I am asking for input on the five questions below. Joeldl 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am contacting have contacted all editors who participated in the deletion debate. If anybody has comments that they feel do not fit as answers to these questions, they can use the "Other" section below.

Question 1

Should the article Québécois contain an ethnic group or any similar infobox?

• No In French, Québécois usually just means "inhabitant of Quebec", and its use in a way that specifically excludes non-francophone Quebecers (which I view as not being the normal use of this word) can be considered offensive by them. In English, the term usually means "francophone Quebecer", which is a more precise phrase. I do not believe Québécois is often used in neutral prose in English (demographics, academic works, etc.) because of its political overtones. It also tends to emphasize the idea that francophones often identify with Quebec more strongly than anglophones, which, while true, is usually irrelevant if all one is doing is talking about francophone Quebecers. Any infobox should be at French-speaking Quebecer. Joeldl 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • French-speaking Quebecer would be considered redundant by most French-speaking Quebecers. Some might find it offensive and excessively politically correct. Issues of identity in Quebec do have political overtones, and you cannot get away from that. The best we can do is describe the conflicts. --Soulscanner 12:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That is incorrect. Québécois francophone is given in Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui, an ethnic definition of Québécois is not. Québécois francophone is the term used to refer to this subgroup of the Quebec population virtually every time you read about a public opinion survey in a newspaper. Québécois is never used in neutral writing in French to distinguish francophones and contrast them with anglophones. In my view, this is uncommon in English as well. Here is a quote from an article by Richard Fidler. [18]

The wording itself suggests a clue to the government's intention. The original Bloc motion, which had identified the "Québécois" as a nation, referred to them in English as "Quebeckers." That is, a territorial concept, encompassing everyone who inhabits Quebec irrespective of first language or ethnic origin. This is now the common definition of "Québécois" in Quebec. Harper's motion, in contrast, used the term "Québécois" in both French and English versions, an ethnic connotation implying that only those whose first language is French qualified as a "nation."

By falsely ascribing ethnic concerns to a majority of Francophone Quebecers, your position would have the effect of discrediting them. Joeldl 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• No Even if some reliable sources consider it an ethnic group, the infobox misrepresents all the other meanings. –Pomte 11:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Infoboxes are used by more than ethnic groups (see English-speaking Quebecer. Many countries define minority populations linguisticly. The "ethnic" box is unfortunate.
    • In English-speaking Quebecer it is used for a cultural group. If Québécois (English meaning) are to be understood as a cultural group, then that meaning must be French-speaking Quebecer, which is a better term. Joeldl 22:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• No We already have an article on the main ethnic group of Quebec here: French Canadian. I believe that some people use "Quebecois" in English with purely good intentions. Much like we stopped to call the "Eskimo" the "Eskimo" to call these humans by the name they use for themselves "Inuit", English speakers borrowed the word Québécois (Quebecer). There was nothing disrespectful about this, on the contrary. It became politically correct to speak of the Quebecois for some English-speakers. In French, the Québécois are the inhabitants of Quebec. But Quebec is, in the heart of Quebecers, either A) a country-to-be, B) a distinct society inside a Canada that needs to change C) a province like the others or D) a province that keeps complaining for no good reason, with all kinds of degrees in between. This longstanding political reality has given various connotations to an otherwise ordinary word. Some of those connotations are cultural and hard to explain in languages other than French, much like it is difficult to explain an inside joke to someone who was not there and missed the whole chain of events. But when the French word is brought over to the English language, it contrasts a pre-existing word: "Quebecer". This can only exist in English. In French, Québécois does not, obviously, contrast Québécois. Because of the passing of time (and partisan politics), Québécois, as an English word, acquired connotations of its own. There is hardly anything neutral about any of the connotations resulting from partisan politics, in any language. Should there be an article on French-speaking Quebecers? Why not. This could possibly clarify a lot of misconceptions about the majority linguistic group of Quebec, which is a minority in Canada at the same time. -- Mathieugp 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that. It's just that most Quebecois would consider it awkward. Quebecois also implies issues of nationhood, identity, and culture. It is necessary to have a page where these views can be summarized. This would make for an excellent reference if we realize that the goal is to document this views as opposed to advancing your own ideological agenda. --Soulscanner 07:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• No for above reasons and my own previously stated reasons. Laval 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment that depends on what else in the article. If the article is primarily about French Canadians in Quebec, then yes. If it is about all residents of Quebec, no. If it about the use of the term, no. Kevlar67 09:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It hasn't been determined what the article is primarily about. I contend that the word Québécois is, for various reasons, not usually used in academic works to refer in a neutral way to francophone Quebecers. I have suggested that the subject of francophone Quebecers should be covered at French-speaking Quebecer, not Québécois.
    • Quebecois nation now appears in the law of the land. Whether you like it or not, that makes it topical and relevant. --Soulscanner 07:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • We have given ample reference to news articles in which people have protested this use of Québécois. Harper's use of Québécois in a formal legal document appears to be unprecedented. In English, the word usually means "francophone Quebecer". Therefore Harper's undefined notion of Québécois is not suitable to be adopted by Wikipedia as its own word for a group of people. Joeldl 22:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• No - I take "Québécois" as any inhabitant of Quebec, in the same way that "Californian" refers to both English and Spanish speaking residents of California - iridescent (talk to me!) 10:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In English, Québécois usually means "francophone Quebecer". However, in my view, it less neutral in tone. Perhaps the fact that it can also have the meaning you're referring to is part of it. Joeldl 10:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• NoWhat is the mainstream view of the term Québécois ? If we make up what it is then it is original research. As a Canadian, I have read it to mean many things. French Canadians Quebec of original French settler group, all French Canadians of Quebec including newer arrivals from France (white only), French speaking Canadians of Quebec including Haitians and Algerians (i.e. non whites) or sometimes all Quebeckers including English speakers. I am not settled in my mind as to what it says exactly. Prime minister Stephen Harpers recent announcement that there is a separate nation in Quebec has only confused everyone including himself in the process. I am new to this discussion so if I am asking an already settled question, please pardon me Taprobanus 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it is not settled. I feel that it basically means "francophone Quebecer" in English, but differs somehow in tone, perhaps in familiarity. The Harper motion has confused the issue quite a bit. The exact meaning and connotations of the word in English are somewhat elusive, and might be the subject of an article such as Use of the word Québécois. But one editor would like to take advantage of the confusion in English to write an article here about the identity of Francophone Quebecers, or some group of "Québécois" which Harper defined by saying "they knew who they were" (see Lawrence Cannon's stab at it below). But since this Québécois/Quebecer distinction has no correlate in French, this is impossible to make sense of. I think it's important to distinguish between Wikipedia reporting controversy about the English word (most appropriately under Québécois nation or even some name for the motion, since I don't know of any serious discussion of it before), and Wikipedia itself adopting the word in its own language. Before Harper tried to play games with it, I think it meant roughly what I described above, so I would prefer to see an infobox at French-speaking Quebecer, which I think is neutral and unambiguous and would likely have similar content to New Zealand European. Then, one would expect the aforementioned editor to push for content from Culture of Quebec, etc., to be moved to French-speaking Quebecer, but at least the problem of the tone of Québécois in English would have been eliminated. Joeldl 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The documentation below clearly documents the correlated term in French. You may not agree with this, but it is in widespread use in Quebec and Pierre Dubuc is pretty unequivocal about it. Ignoring this in an article in the Quebecois promotes the agenda of "civic Quebec nationalists", which weather we agree with it or not (I'm all for a state neutral on culture) is not going to happen in QUebec. You can hope that neutral words will come into use, but the wording of the law will never be changed to Quebecker nation and Acadians will never be refered to as New Brunswick francophones. So is it unlikely that the francoquebecois will catch on outside a few close-knit academic circles that are into inventing new words. --Soulscanner 07:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Dubuc is a politician writing as a politician. The word "Québécois" in French usually means "Quebecer". When it specifically excludes non-francophones, it is not being used in a way that is acceptable in neutral writing. In English, the word is usually restricted to francophones, but carries a non-neutral tone. Joeldl 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unequivocal? You have yet to explain how you get from Pierre Dubuc explaining why civic/ethnic dichotomy is a false debate and why Quebecers should continue to promote a French-speaking Quebec for as long as the issue of the vitality of French is not settled to concluding that he is excluding non-francophones from the definition of Quebecers. As if it were not normal to conclude the opposite: that the goal of policies favouring the adoption of French among allophones is that the majority of Quebecers want as many citizens identifying with the Quebec nation, something that requires a minimal knowledge of Quebec's official language as first, second or third spoken language. Quebec nationalists are not asking for anything more than what Canadians nationalists are asking. Who is so biased as to infer from Canadian immigration law that Canadians exclude people who do not know some English or French from the definition of Canadians? -- Mathieugp 23:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

From Will Kymlicka's reference article: "Consider Quebec. Quebec accepts immigrants from all over the world: it has roughly the same per capita rate of immigration as the United States. Control over immigration is one of the powers Quebec nationalist have sought and gained, and the province administers its own immigration program, actively recruiting immigrants, most of whom are nonwhite. These immigrants are not only granted citizenship under relatively easy terms, but are encouraged by Quebec's own "interculturalism" policy to interact with the members of other ethnic groups, to share their cultural heritage, and to participate in common public institutions."

"The result is just the sort of fluid hybridic multiculturalism within Quebec that Hollinger endorses. (Indeed, the level of acceptance of interracial marriage is considerably higher in Quebec than in the United States.) Far from trying to preserve some sort of racial purity, Quebec nationalists are actively seeking people of other races, cultures, and faiths to join them, integrate with them, intermarry with them, and jointly help build a modern, pluralist, distinct (French-speaking) society in Quebec."

"Quebec is not unique in this. Catalan and Scottish nationalisms are also postethnic in Hollinger's sense. [...] And the clear trend throughout most Western democracies is toward a more open and non racial definition of minority nationalism. In the case of Quebec, for example, the overwhelming majority of Quebecers forty years ago believed that to be a true Quebecois one had to be descended from the original French settlers; today, fewer than 20 percent accept this view." -- Mathieugp 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know where he took his 20 percent stats and how much francophones account for this 20 percent. -- Mathieugp 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes No - Acadians and Catalans have them. The sense of Quebecois in a cultural/linguistic sense is similar. See references below. Changed mind. It's too loaded. --Soulscanner 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC) [Opinion apparently belonging to User:Soulscanner Joeldl 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)] Condition: The box not be deleted, but be moved as per suggestion of Joeldl to article named French-speaking Quebecker (as in English-speaking Quebecer) or Franco-Quebecer (as in Franco-Ontarian). In my opinion, this is an awkward way of putting it, as it would be considered somewhat redundant, and will eventually attract more controversy, but I'm tired of holding up progress on this. Too much energy is being put into filling up this talk page with illegible text. --Soulscanner 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to be consensus for this question. If there are no objections, I think {{editprotected}} can be tagged here for an admin to remove the infobox. –Pomte 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's been done in the section "Edit requests". Looks like we had the same idea at the same time. Joeldl 00:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 2

Should Wikipedia itself, if there are no special circumstances justifying it (such as might arise in the discussion of the English term Québécois itself, or of the recent House resolution stating that "the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada"), refer to people as "Québécois" rather than as Quebecers, Francophone Quebecers or French Canadian Quebecers as appropriate?

• No For the same reasons as in my response to Question 1. Harper used the term in the House motion presumably to counter the argument that it was "Quebec" that formed a nation, since Québécois is ordinarily understood in English to refer to only a subset of the people of Quebec. This went largely unnoticed in the francophone public, because the French word Québécois usually or always (there is some disagreement here) refers to all Quebecers. This use of Québécois in English did receive some criticism. This was a political ploy and does not mean that using the word "Québécois" to refer to francophone Quebecers has suddenly become acceptable or common in neutral writing. Joeldl 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• No There can be no disagreement on the French meaning of Québécois in the legislative field. In French, the legal definition of a Québécois is a resident of the province of Québec. This December 2006 article by jurist Henri Brun made it clear to people who were not already familiar with the subject before. Et si le mot «Québécois» devait pouvoir receler un second sens dans le contexte de la version anglaise, il faudrait, selon les règles d'interprétation, retenir le sens non ambigu qu'il a dans la version française. (And if the word Québécois was found to conceal a second meaning within the context of the English version, according to interpretative rules, we would have to retain the nonambiguous meaning the word has in the French version.) As expected, the media interpreted Harper's gesture in many contradictory ways, following the level of ignorance and partiality of journalists and mercenaries disguised as journalists. Luckily, law is the most rational of the non-exact sciences and did not get fooled. -- Mathieugp 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• No Makes sense since this is the English-language Wikipedia, but this would mean changing all relevant articles to ensure everything remains level. Laval 04:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes - IF there are sources that support it. The Harper resolution is a powerful source in favour since it carries the force of government behind it. It really depends on English language usage in reliable sources. The fact that the English and French usages of the word aren't synonymous, while unfortunate, should not be "fixed" by overzealous WP editors. I'd also prefer Kyiv over Kiev, but I bow to the more common English usage.Kevlar67
  • Part of the problem is determining what this usage is. Harper was questioned incessantly on what Québécois meant precisely because people are not accustomed to that word being used in a formal situation like a House resolution. Harper used the word for partisan political purposes, probably connected with being able to plausibly deny that it was Quebec that was a nation, by restricting the English resolution to what is usually considered only a subset of Quebecers. This CBC story, What is a Québécois? Quebecers ask. mentions that some anglophone Quebecers took offense. Since it is not always easy to determine precisely how many sources use words one way or another, answering this question involves appealing to editors' sense of how these words are used in academic writing.
  • Here are some further quotes from a story in Maclean's [19]:At the same time as the House of Commons was voting on that "historic" motion calling the "Québécois" a nation within a united Canada Monday night... Note the use of quotes around "Québécois". In today's parlance, the terms "Québécois" in French and "Quebecer" in English are meant to include everyone living in Quebec. But not in the Harper motion -- which seems to refer exclusively to the descendants of the early settlers. It's an anachronism that would risk being labelled racist if uttered by a pure laine Québécois.
  • Why choose "Québécois" when we have straightforward alternatives such as "francophone Quebecer" if that is what is meant? Joeldl 10:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe the amount of controversy over the choice of "Québécois" instead of "Quebecers" before and after the adoption of the motion, attests its non-neutrality. Tory MP Michael Chong who resigned as intergovernmental affairs minister over the adoption of the motion stating: "I cannot support. It cannot be interpreted as the recognition of a territorial nationalism, or it does not refer to the geographic entity, but to a group of people." Harper's motion was a response to the repeated attempts from the Bloc to have a motion recognizing "Quebec", or "Quebecers" as forming a nation, adopted in Ottawa. Before that, the Bloc had similarly pressured the governing Liberals with a similar motion. There also was much debate during the Liberals leadership campaign over this. Michael Ignatieff advocated recognizing Quebec as a civic nation within the Canadian constitution. Behind this circus, there are hard facts: 1) recognizing "Quebec" as a nation has political and legal implications that recognizing "Quebecers" or "Quebecois" does not have. In the first case, we are in fact recognizing a state, the province of Quebec as a nation within. In the case of Quebecers, it refers to the whole body of citizens of Quebec, but not exactly the state. In the last case, it has no weight and on top of this gets some people offended by the subject of ethnicity to go nuts. :-) -- Mathieugp 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You are absolutely right. Which is why sovereignists have a political stake in changing the way the word is understood, as they wish to lend more legal legitimacy to a possible secession bid. Federalists, and particularly Westerners like Harper, who believe strongly in the equality of provinces, wish to keep the current cultural sense of the word. Neither really made a large deal out of it, because Harper had to worry about the anti-French element lurking in his caucus, whereas Duceppe had to worry about people like Pierre Dubuc rebelling if he made too big a fuss about it. That is the real political agenda behind the semantics and word play: it's pure politics, no matter which word you choose.--Soulscanner 12:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        • No, Bloc MPs wanted the consensus of the National Assembly, which reflects the consensus within Quebec society itself, to be acknowledged by Ottawa. If we believe the political analysts, Bloc MPs were playing the card that: if Ottawa refuse, they prove our point. Canada rejects Quebec for what it. If they accept, then Quebec scores a small point. Whatever the result, Quebec is moving forward. The Bloc voting in favor of Harper's motion proved the honesty of the party leaders. You have to expect that from a party that does not aim for power. Quebec liberals did not like those tactics of the Bloc because they knew they were the ones who had the most to lose if the motion had been rejected. They also knew that if it were adopted, they would be the ones left to prove that Canada can be successfully reformed. Gulp. I would not like to be in their shoes. -- Mathieugp 21:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Irrelevant question It is not up to Wikipedia editors whose version of Quebecois should be used. It is used in various ways in both English and French. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to change the language to suit their tastes. --Soulscanner 06:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The dictionary may say that "queer" is a synonym for "gay", but Wikipedia might still have a choice to make. There are some words which are perfect synonyms, yet denote different attitudes on the part of the writer. "Wop" and "Italian" are probably synonymous in this way. "Québécois" is not offensive, but shows POV in a more subtle way. Wikipedia needs to make decisions about this. Joeldl 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• No The term "Québécois" should only be used in discussions about its meaning and cited uses of it. Using "Québécois" to actually refer to either people from Quebec or French-speaking people from Quebec is POV. There are sources that support various meanings, so without appropriate context, the word becomes ambiguous. –Pomte 09:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is really important. Sources listed below by Pierre Dubuc and others indicate that they consider terms like francophone Quebecois to be POV. Moreover, dictionaries document it as common use. This is one of those instances where the judgement on POV is itself POV. What is the objective criteria used to determine which expression is neutral? --Soulscanner 12:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Francophone Quebecer" is the term most widely used in writing about demographics, etc. I have never seen "Québécois" used that way. In French, the Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui gives "Québécois francophones" as an example, and does not mention an ethnic meaning of "Québécois". In all discussions of public opinion surveys in the press, I have seen francophones referred to as francophones, not "Québécois, be it in English or in French. Joeldl 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been made clear that Québécois is not a neutral term. Other terms being POV are irrelevant. If francophone Québécois shouldn't be used, then reduce it to "French-speaking residents of Quebec." I can't see anyone justifiably calling this last phrase POV. –Pomte 03:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe "French-speaking Quebecer" and "francophone Quebecer" are fine. We don't need, in our usage, to heed the marginal view that people are not "Quebecers" on the basis of ethnic/linguistic criteria. When the reference to Quebec is implicit, "francophone" seems best. Joeldl 20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 3

Should Wikipedia use the word Québécois in such phrases as "Québécois nationalism", "Québécois identity" and "Québécois culture" to translate the French "nationalisme québécois", "identité québécoise" and "culture québécoise", instead of "Quebec nationalism", "Quebec identity" and "Quebec culture"?

• No This is an extremely serious POV issue. The primary meaning of the adjective québécois in all of these French phrases is "relative to Quebec". However, by translating the French word as Québécois, you are translating a word whose primary (or perhaps sole) meaning in French is non-ethnic by one in English which is. Translating nationalisme québécois or identité québécoise with the English word Québécois, which has an ethnic meaning connotation, tends to discredit Quebec nationalists and people who identify in French as Québécois by insinuating that they are using this term ethnically. As for "culture québécoise", any identification of Quebec with its ethnic or linguistic majority when the word is used this way does not go beyond what you ordinarily do when you say "Swedish cuisine" and think of meatballs rather than the cuisine of the Muslim minority there. The phrases "American literature" and "American culture" call to mind literature in English and the culture of the English-language majority, and yet that does not mean that Hispanics in the United States are not American. "Quebec culture" can be used in the same way, but if the culture of francophone Quebecers is meant a more neutral term than Québécois can be used. Joeldl 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• No There is more than enough empirical evidence that Quebec is being constructed as a nation inclusive of all its citizens. The Quiet Revolution started the march. The National Assembly of Quebec is the representative body of all Quebec citizens. The Charter of Human Rights and Freedom is a well-established human rights instrument. In addition, the Charter of the French language defined the language rights common to all Quebecers and specific rights to minorities. (Merging and elevating these charters to the constitutional level, either in a provincial constitution or the constitution of an independent republic, have been discussed for a long time). The Prix du Québec and National Order of Quebec medals are awarded to all Quebecers. The Collection nationale in the Grande Bibliothèque recently built in Montreal, has the mission of hosting a copy of all books from Quebec or on Quebec in any language. An endless series of examples could be provided with enough people giving the time to the task. Yet the attacks on Quebec nationalism are routine in the corporate media close to political parties that have sworn to fend it off. But beyond those using sophistry to persuade because they have no real arguments to convince, there are intelligent people legitimately asking: "If Canada is already an inclusive society respectful of its minorities, then what are Quebec nationalists after?". I will let two philosophers from Canada, one English-speaking the other French-speaking, try to provide an answer to that:
• Quebec: a modern, pluralist, distinct society, an article by philosopher Will Kymlicka first published in the American magazine Dissent.
• Quebec nationalism and Canadian federalism, a conference by philosopher Michel Seymour held at Cambridge University and Edinburgh University. -- Mathieugp 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• No A serious POV issue, as Joeldl has clearly explained. Quebec, like any other place, has a diverse and varied culture. Laval 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes - IF there are sources to back it up. Once again, our personal stances on the issue count for nothing. English language usage prevails. Even though you all made very convincing cases, they are sadly irrelevant. Our job is to report English usage, not correct it. Also, we are not translating. These topics are widely discussed in English, by English speakers, not as translations of French terms, but as English words in their own right. Kevlar67 10:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources are not all neutral in their approach, so the fact that some English-language sources use a word one way is not enough for Wikipedia to use that language itself if it raises POV issues. While academics would seldom use the N-word, its use in informal situations can ultimately be considered a manifestation of POV. Academics might manifest POV through their language in less extreme ways, but Wikipedia must exercise caution not to reproduce it. To take an example, there are complex considerations relating to the word "queer" in English, and some gay people may now view the word in a positive light. For that reason, it may find its way into some scholarship. But that does not mean a Wikipedia editor can write that "relations between the queer and straight communities have improved." Even if a word is attested to some degree, Wikipedia must still exercise a certain level of discernment that stops short of incorporating into its own language anything that can be found in academic writing anywhere, and must exercise a degree of judgment on its own. Our personal stances do count because there may be no objective way of determining to what extent the use of Québécois by some authors is a manifestation of POV, or even lack of familiarity with the connotations of the word Québécois on the part of non-Canadians, that should be discounted. Wikipedia's model is the most neutral form of academic writing, but some judgment must be exercised as to what this is. Furthermore, there is the fact that Québécois identity and "Quebec identity" likely refer to the same objective reality (since there is no linguistic distinction possible in French, the language in which most Quebecers express their identity) but differ only by the writer's attitude towards it. Joeldl 11:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comparison to 'N' word inapproriate. Quebecois is not considered a slur. Queer is also inappropriate comparison. Quebecois refers to a nation. Comparisons with other cultural groups are more appropriate. Most Quebecois want to be known as Quebecois, both in English and in French. --Soulscanner 06:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Québécois is not a slur, but denotes POV in a more subtle way. The controversy over the use of the word in the Harper resolution is testament to this. I do not believe that most francophone Quebecers care what they are known as in English. Their desire to be known as "Québécois" in French is best interpreted as relating to Quebec rather than their French-Canadianness. Joeldl 18:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes They are commonly used. It is not up to Wikipedia to impose editor preferences. --Soulscanner 06:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Quebec nationalism" is far more common than "Québécois nationalism". Since the original authors of articles do not own their articles, Wikipedia is entitled to make judgments about when changes are appropriate to remove POV as much as possible. Joeldl 18:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 4

Should the fact that many francophone Quebecers, in the past 40 years, have come to view their primary identity as being related to Quebec rather than to Canada generally be dealt with in articles with titles containing the word Québécois, or instead containing Quebec and Quebecer?

• Quebec, Quebecer As I explained in my response to Question 3, such use of Québécois is a gross NPOV violation because a term which is usually used without ethnic connotations in French is translated by one in English which, despite its vagueness, is usually understood to be restricted to a particular ethnic group, and thereby ascribes ethnic motives to those Quebecers who identify in French as Québécois. Joeldl 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Quebec, Quebecer It would simply be impossible to clearly treat of many of the Quebec-related subjects without the neutrality which the words Quebec and Quebecer provide over Québécois as a borrow from French. The fact that Quebec's common public institutions are French only or primarily French makes Quebec a unique place in North America, where English usually plays that role. But Quebec is not more unique than any other place where the same thing is done with other human languages! What could possibly justify a special treatment for Quebec inside an encyclopedia based on the principle of neutral point of view? I think we have to set ourselves high above political partisanship the minute we are not writing inside talk pages. -- Mathieugp 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Quebec, Quebecer This is the English-language Wikipedia. Laval 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Both - the issue is complex and any use of the term Quebecois or Québécois should be explained. Kevlar67 10:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If we were to have two articles Quebec identity and Québécois identity, it would be difficult to see what the distinction between the two subjects would be, since in both cases we would be talking about people calling themselves Québécois in French. With identical subjects, whose names differ only by the POV of the writer, there is no point having two articles. Joeldl 11:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Quebecois Issues of identity and nationhood, in English and in French, commonly revolve around the word Quebecois. Quebecer is less evocative of this. --Soulscanner 06:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is instructive to note that, unless I'm mistaken, the Hansard, even in the very debate about a "Québécois nation", generally translated the French word Québécois used in debates as "Quebecker" in English. Joeldl 19:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC) For example, here is a translation of Maxime Bernier's comments [20], made in French. Joeldl 20:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am from the Beauce region of Quebec, and I was touched by the Prime Minister's comments. By acknowledging that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada, he has shown, once again, that he is a great Prime Minister, one of the greatest prime ministers Canada has ever known. Our party has always been at the centre of the great moments and great challenges that have marked the history of this country. Last week was no exception.

• Quebec Articles don't need to be phrased with adjectival forms (by the way, the Quebec listings at List of adjectival forms of place names should be maintained correspondingly), especially if the adjectival forms are in dispute. Someone could argue for Quebecker instead. Avoid this issue altogether by sticking to titles with only Quebec in them. Analogously, Category:Wikipedians in Alberta is not called Category:Albertan Wikipedians. I saw a mass rename for all such categories from adjectival forms to nouns at WP:CfD. –Pomte 04:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 5

Should this article be restricted to a discussion of the use of the term Québécois in English?

• Yes In French, the term usually (or perhaps only) means "inhabitant of Quebec". Discussion in the article Québécois of the extent of francophone Quebecers' shifting allegiance from Canada to Quebec, and of their use of Québécois (in French) as the primary method of describing their identity, will leave readers with the impression that this Quebec identity is defined by ethnicity, when the use of the word Québécois in French does not carry an ethnic connotation, or at the very least, to nowhere near the same extent as the English word. Joeldl 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Not sure All words have a history. Writing articles on the use of a word seems to be better suited for Wikitionary. A full article on the word Quebecois in English? How could we write such an article and restrict its subject to just the term? Isn't it bound to evolve into an article on French-speaking Quebecers? Are people searching for "Quebecois" really interested in knowing the first recorded use of the word and its evolution or are they interested in knowing about Quebecers or possibly specifically its majority linguistic group? I still believe Quebecois should redirect to Quebec. The top of the Quebec page already has a link to Québécois (disambiguation). Failing to come to a consensus on this, I would support redirection to an article named French-speaking Quebecers in which the first line could say: "French-speaking Quebecer (sometimes Quebecois or Québécois) are ...". -- Mathieugp 22:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be preferable. A dablink saying "Québécois redirects here, for other uses, see Québécois (disambiguation)" would be good. But currently, we are stuck with this article because of the AfD decision. The people who favoured keeping the article spoke of "documenting the history of the word". I personally feel there is little to say about the word itself. Of course, francophone Quebecers have tended to view themselves increasingly as Quebecers first, but that has very little to do with the word Québécois and a lot to do with Quebec. To the extent that it does relate to the French word Québécois, that word is best translated as "Quebecer" for the reasons I gave above. That leaves the English word Québécois. Joeldl 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Should be a redirect IMHO, it is extremely POV to not redirect this article to Quebec. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every single other province and state identifier is a redirect. Any relevant information can fit in nicely in the main article Quebec - when all is said and done, the information in question will be a brief paragraph. If this is not possible, and I daresay there is no reason it should not be possible, then it should be disambiguation. But again, if you ask me, this is still very unreasonable since no other provincial or state identifier does that. And if someone were to respond that Quebec's situation is unique, I would respond that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not here to provide a forum for discussing the usage of a particular term in English. In the end, we are beating a dead horse here. All this can fit very concisely within the main article. Laval 04:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes (or one should be created under a different title such as Quebecois (terminology). I see strong parallels with British Isles (terminology), British Isles naming dispute; also Rus, Rus' (people), Etymology of Rus and derivatives; Use of the word American; and also Deutsche, Ethnic German, Federal Germans, Imperial Germans. Do other editors not see the similarities? Kevlar67 10:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm in favour of creating an article called Use of the word Québécois if somebody wants to write it. But it is difficult to see what is left for this article. If Québécois means "francophone Quebecer", as it usually does, wouldn't that subject be better called French-speaking Quebecer? Joeldl 11:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• No See references below. Public debates about usage in French go to heart of the issue or Quebec identity and nationhood. Discussion of this should not be suppressed. --Soulscanner 06:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Debates about such words are covered in articles such as Use of the word American, not at American. This is an issue of WP:Undue weight, because Soulscanner would like to elevate debate about the word to the primary topic under the title Québécois. Joeldl 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• No Ethnicity is not implied if accurate, concise language is used. Specify that this article talks about the term, people's use of the term, others' reaction to the term, but not the non-ethnic group of people themselves. It should not talk about people anyway because that would be misleading. The extent of the controversy is outside the scope of Wiktionary. Any apparent undue weight may be because the term has seen more controversy in French than in English. Readers of this article are likely interested in all uses of the term. Moving one use to another article sounds like POV forking. The article is not long enough to have a series of articles solely on its different uses. If there is a need to write about the actual people, use another article that makes it clear the subject is people from Quebec. –Pomte 23:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not deal with the actual people. However, since the word Québécois is used in English, (albeit with various restrictions on its use), usually meaning "francophone Quebecer", I am not sure that most people referring to the article want a discussion of the word. I think Use of the word Québécois should be listed under "See also" at Québécois, which should be a disambiguation page like Québécois (disambiguation). Also, concerning the French meaning of the word, I don't know if one can distinguish between the subject of use of the word Québécois and Quebec identity. When some people claim that non-French Canadians are not Québécois (in French), this can be likened to people in England who say that if you cheer for the Pakistani cricket team when it plays against England, you're not English/British. It has little to do with the words "English"/"British" themselves. What is really being questioned is your connection to England/Britain. Whether one should deal with this under English, British, Briton, Britishness, English identity, or British identity is a good question. (Most of these articles deal with the English/British contrast) Joeldl 00:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was rejecting what your question implied, that this article will be about the use in English and not the French. I thought you wanted this to become a disambiguation page anyway, so it should become a non-issue. The British articles are good to consider because identity is discussed in multiple articles. –Pomte 04:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it would make sense to discuss the French word as well. Joeldl 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

General discussion

• A POV conflict itself can be notable. This situation is not unique. I note that a similar article addresses use of the word American (though it apparently suffers from POV/neutrality conflicts). I see many compelling arguments above about the appropriate scope of this article. I am left with the feeling that this is like other major topics fraught with POV pitfalls. The use of the term Québécois in English seems of interest in more than a purely dictionary sense. Much of the substantial material that has been considered for this article probably does belong in other articles, e.g. Quebec or French-speaking Quebecer. What seems to remain for treatment by this article are: a) the range of meanings ascribed to Québécois in English, and their usage; and b) the social and political milieu in which these meanings are embedded. Trevor Hanson 04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with your thoughts. But I would make two comments. First, the use of the word American is not covered in the article American. Second, a number of the disagreements here concern use by Wikipedia of the word Québécois. Joeldl 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Use of the word American is cited in Americas and Unites States , both of which are referenced on the disambiguation page American. (I suspect it should be referenced there as well.) and on the page American (under 'See Also'). It is of course not covered on the disamb page itself. 2. Use of the term by Wikipedia is a very different issue, risking adoption of a POV position. The related arguments are very compelling. My conclusion was only about the appropriateness of discussing use of the term Québécois in the same vein as use of the word American. Trevor Hanson 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favour of an article called Use of the word Québécois instead of discussing the matter here. But there was an AfD decision on Québécois in which many argued in favour of an article devoted to the use of the word, and presumably in order to respect that decision the discussion would have to be here. There is already a page Québécois (disambiguation), and I don't think controversy over use of the word is notable enough to preempt all the other meanings, especially considering that people may just want information about Quebecers or French-speaking Quebecers, not about the word itself. Of course, Use of the word Québécois would deserve mention on the disambiguation page. Joeldl 05:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to an article on the Use of the word Québécois. It could very well be listed on the disambiguation page. -- Mathieugp 07:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Why doesn't somebody write this? Perhaps its presence, with appropriate links from the other articles, would defuse some of the debate here. Trevor Hanson 18:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, see above. Kevlar67 10:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Harper played word games with his motion doesn't mean Wikipedia should indulge in them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should use precise, neutral language when possible. Here is another quote from a CBC story [21]:

But reporters pressed LeBreton and Cannon to clear up confusion on the motion itself, asking why it refers to the Québécois even in its English version and why not Quebecers.

A reporter from the Montreal Gazette, the largest English newspaper in Quebec, wanted to know whether her readers were Québécois too.

"Does it include every resident of Quebec regardless of which boat their ancestors came over on?" she asked.

Cannon replied: "No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Let's be clear on this."

Cannon was then asked to explain to anglo Montrealers why they are not Québécois, but Cannon insisted he didn't say that.

It;s true. Cannon and Harper were using a criteria of voluntary identification with a cultural group. It's a perfectly valid way (among many) of defining Quebecois. Politicians didn't invent the confusion; they merely exploit it. --Soulscanner 10:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that it makes no sense, because: 1. a definition based on self-identification is contrary to the common English meaning of the word, which is "francophone Quebecer"; 2. Whether a person self-identifies as "Québécois" depends on whether they are speaking English or French at the time. I would self-identify as Québécois in French, but not in English, because of point 1. There is no doubt that this controversy should be reflected somewhere, probably in an article devoted to the resolution itself. However, I do not believe this proposed "meaning" of Québécois corresponds to usage in any objective way, despite Cannon's claim. Joeldl 19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Documenting how the term Quebecois is used

Wikipedia is not here to determine how language should be used, but to document how it IS used. We can vote on whether we like or don't like how Quebecois is used, but it is documentation that will determine what can be used in an article.

Firstly, in both French and English, Quebecois can refer to someone living in Quebec or to someone who participates in Quebec's francophone culture. In other words, Quebecois can be used like Ontarian or Californian, or it can be used like Acadian or Catalan. It depends on the context being used. Ontarian and Californian do not need an article. Acadian and Catalan do. The reason is because because Ontarians and Californians do no seek recognition as a "nation" or distinct cultural group, while the Acadians and Catalans do. Weatehr one consider these ethnic groups, linguistic groups, cultural groups, or nations is largely irrelevant. They all identify with one another.

This cultural sense of the word is documented in the article. Dictionaries are compiled based on objective surveys of how language is used. Some are more complete and authoritative than others. The ethno-cultural usage of Quebecois is documented in both French and English. In particular, in French it's usage has been traced back to 1965:

• Robert, Paul (1984), Petit Robert. Dictionaire de la langue française., Montreal: Les Dictionnaires Roberts-Canada S.C.C., p. isbn = 2-85036-066-X {{citation}}: Missing pipe in: |page= (help) "Specialt. (répandu v. 1965). Du groupe ethnique et linguistique canadien français composant la majorité de la population du Québec. Littérature québécoise; cinéma québécoise." (Of the French Canadian ethnic and linguistic group making up the majority of the Quebec population (My translation))}}
• ""Quebecois." Main entry. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition". 2003. Retrieved 2007-03-16.
• ""Québecois." A.a. The Oxford English Dictionary Online". 2000-03. Retrieved 2007-03-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

O coincidence, I have got my hands on a 1984 edition of the Petit Robert. Here is the full entry for Québécois:

QUÉBÉCOIS, OISE [kebekwa, waz]. adj. et n. (Québécois, XVIIe; de Québec 1608, nom de la ville, mot algonquin « détroit, resserrement, escarpement »).

1. Adj. De Québec, du Québec et notamment de la province de Québec. La politique québécoise au sein de la Confédération candienne. - Le Parti québécois [1968, R. LÉVESQUE], parti de tendance socialiste et indépendantiste (abrév. P. Q.). Membre du Parti québécois. V. Péquiste. - Spécialt. (répandu v. 1965) Du groupe ethnique et linguistique canadien français composant la majorité de la population du Québec. Littérature québécoise; cinéma québécois.
2. Subst. Les Québécois. Québécois francophones, anglophones. - Les Néo-Québécois, immigrés établis au Québec. - Spécialt. (au sens défini en 1.). « À la même époque, au Québec, de Canadiens français on devenait Québécois » (J. FERRON). - N. m. (v. 1970) Le QUÉBÉCOIS. Le français propre au Québec. Cf. Franco-canadien*, franco-québécois.

As an adjective, after the first meaning of "of Quebec", under Spécialt. (Spécialement: dans le sens plus étroit, moins étendu = "Especially: in the sense of narrower, less extensive") , stating it was widely in use towards 1965 (!), it means "of the main ethnolinguistic group in Quebec"). The examples given is entirely compatible with American literature and American cinema which generally refers to the mainstream Anglo-American culture.

As a noun (Subst. meaning Substantif), it is clear that, even in 1984, the French word Québécois did not mean only Francophone Quebecers, but all Quebecers. Anglophone and Francophone Quebecers and Neo-Quebecers. Under Spécialt, it has the same meaning as defined under the adjective.

Le québécois, meaning the French specific to Quebec. Again entirely consistent with "I speak American" to mean "I speak American English", the English specific to the United States. -- Mathieugp 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Petit Robert states that both definitions hold in different contexts. Both appear as definitions. In some instances, Qubecois is used the exact same way as it is in English. --Soulscanner 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. This usage, which was observed towards 1965, does not have the connotations "Quebecois" has in English. It does not contrast "Quebecer" in French. I will try to find a recent Petit Robert to see if that narrow definition is still there. -- Mathieugp 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This well documented usage came into play when some on a Quebec awards show questioned Celine's Dion's identity by nominating her for an anglophone award prompting her to say that she wasn't an anglophone artist, but a Quebecois artist. This is when this usage came under fire in the anglophone press.

• Young, David (1999). "Céline Dion, the ADISQ Controversy, and the Anglophone Press in Canada" (html). Canadian Journal of Communication. 24 (4). Public Knowledge Project. ISSN: 1499-6642. Retrieved 2007-03-16. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The corporate press of Canada is engaged in political warfare against Quebec nationalism. Celine Dion never said what some journalists claimed she meant to say. The source really was Don Macpherson (how original) and GESCA journalists. According to the Montreal Gazette translation (which we should double-check because they are not reliable and neutral at all here): "I am not an anglophone artist and the public understands that. Everywhere I go in the world, I say that I'm proud to be Québécoise". Of course there is no need to mention that singling out two sentences as part of a speech, taking it out of the context of the whole speech, translating it to another language is the best known way to make someone say something they do not think.

Don Macpherson is very well aware that Quebecers are a francophone people and that signing in English to make it big in the USA is not what proud Francophone (or even Anglophone) Quebecers tend to do to promote Quebec's specificity worldwide and show who they are. The Cirque du Soleil, that is promoting Quebec's original culture. Celine Dion is a francophone famous for singing in English worldwide. She was and still is often referred to as an example of the international success of Quebec artists and the export of Quebec culture worldwide.

During the Lucien Bouchard years, she was routinely used as an example in government-sponsored speeches to the point of getting many people sick and tired of hearing about it. Some of the people who got tired and sick of it were Quebec artists and ordinary citizens wondering if really a francophone Quebecer singing pop songs in English was such a good export of "Quebec" culture. Many will agree that Japanese rock bands singing in English and making it big in the USA are not exactly contributing much to authentic Japanese culture. This, no francophone Quebecer (even people like me who do not own a TV) missed it because it really became common place to criticize the exploitation of her success abroad. You can see how sovereignist/federalist divisions might come into play here. I specifically remember one Bloc MP saying bluntly that Celine was not contributing to Quebec culture and was some sort of a turncoat. This might have been after though, I am not certain. In any case, the criticism of Celine's success in imitating Anglo-American singers entered the mass media and journalists eventually spoke to Celine who said (I cannot recall exactly of course) that she was shocked and that she considered herself to be contributing to Quebec culture and was not selling out. In her refusal of the award, she showed courage and patriotism and she deserves to be praised for taking the stand she took. She replied to her detractors that night and showed she was a proud Québécoise and not just someone going for easy commercial success by singing in English in the USA. But of course Don Macpherson did not miss it. He did not miss any occasion to misrepresent the majority of Quebecers to his readers in the typical fashion of the adversaries of the all things Quebecois.

Do I also need to point out why the fact of the ADISQ actually having an award for Anglophone artists is equivalent to the Grammy awards being given to Hispanophone artists? A nation is defined by its institutions, not by hand-picked anecdotes. Quebec's institutions, public ones especially but not exclusively, constitute the substance that observers evaluate and compare with those of other nations to give it a definition. -- Mathieugp 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

All this is irrelevant. The fact is in some contexts, Quebec francophones distinguish between "Artises anglophones", and "Artistes Quebecoises" just like Celine Dion did. It is this disctinction that MacPherson was objecting to. You do not address that distinction but rather throw in many non-sequitors. The question they addressed is why some people make the distinction in French between anglophones and Quebecoises. --Soulscanner 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are those Non sequitur (logic)? Your conclusion is in fact not following from the premises. The only way you can get to oppose "artistes anglophones" and "artistes quebecoises" from Celine Dion's two sentences is if 1) you fail to notice the syntax of two separate sentences 2) imagine a BECAUSE between the two sentences. There is one possible explanation for your conclusion: you already believed it to be that way since The Montreal Gazette infers that Quebec nationalism is fundamentally based on xenophobia all the time. Every little anecdote then becomes another "proof" reinforcing a prejudice already bolted in the minds of many of its readers. Your premise is an unfounded prejudice that makes you conclude wrong.

It is not irrelevant to point out that Macpherson made abstraction of the fact that there actually was an award being given for best anglophone artist of the year by a Quebec institution. We are no longer talking about misrepresenting the opinion of a person, we are talking about a neutral description of an institution run by francophones like most of Quebec's public institutions.

It is not irrelevant to reinsert Celine's gesture in its rightful context. Otherwise, some malinformed people could try to guess why she did what she did and reach the wrong conclusions... with the help of The Montreal Gazette. -- Mathieugp 13:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

While some university professors argue for a purely civic definition of th Quebec "nation", prominent sovereignists argue for retaining non-civic definiton of the Quebecois Nation. Pierre Dubuc, leader of the labour wing of the Parti Quebecois, argues for retaining the old definition:

"Bien sûr, tous ceux qui résident sur le territoire du Québec sont des citoyens égaux en droits, bénéficiant de tous les droits et privilèges que leur accordent la citoyenneté et la Charte des droits. Mais la Charte des droits ne définit pas la nationalité. Une nation n’est pas un simple conglomérat d’individus habitant un même territoire à un moment donné. La nation québécoise est une communauté historiquement constituée puisant ses origines en Nouvelle-France et ayant assimilé au cours des siècles des gens de différentes origines. " (Certainly, everyone living in Quebec territory are citizens with equal rights, and benefit from all rights and priveledges afforded by citizenship and the Charter of Rights. But the charter of rights does not define nationality. A nation is not simply a group of individuals residing on the same territory at a given moment. The Quebecois nation is a historical community heavily influenced by it's origins in New France and that has assimilated people of many different origins.

• Dubuc, Pierre (2006-06-23). "Lord Dubuc of Gesca". SPQ Libre! (Syndicalistes et progressistes pour un Québec libre). Retrieved 2007-04-24. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |http://www.spqlibre.org/default.aspx?page= ignored (help)
• Dubuc, Pierre (2002). "Sans nous qui est Québécois ?". SPQ Libre! (Syndicalistes et progressistes pour un Québec libre). Retrieved 2007-04-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |http://spqlibre.org/default.aspx?page= ignored (help)

If you do not assimilate into the original French Canadian culture, you are not considered Quebecois in the cultural sense of the word according to Robert Dubuc.

It is Pierre Dubuc, and your misrepresentation of what he says does not help your cause. Here is a proper translation of the excerpt you have chosen:

"Of course, all those who reside on the territory of Quebec are citizens equal in rights, enjoying all the rights and privileges granted by citizenship and the Charter of rights. But the Charter of rights does not define nationality. A nation is not a simple grouping of individuals living on the same territory at a given time. The Quebec nation is a historically constituted community drawing its origins in New France and having assimilated people of different origins in the course of centuries."

There is nothing in this excerpt that logically infers what you attribute to him. We all know that Quebecers are a nation in the majority francophone and that without this language and the culture that it gives access to, there is no Quebec nation, only a Canadian province of Quebec.-- Mathieugp 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We all know? Is that appealing to critical reason? Pierre Dubuc argues against what you're saying.

Here's the logic. Tell me where I'm going wrong.

* Is Dubuc arguing for an inclusive civic definition of Quebecois? No. He's arguing against it.

* Does Dubuc say that not all people living in Quebec are Quebecois? No. He is saying that this is not the case.

* Does he say that only people who assimilated into the society that dates back from New France are part of the Quebecois nation? Yes.

* Did anglophones assimilate into this society? No.

* Did First Nations assimilate into this society? No.

* Hence, according to Dubuc, anglophones and natives are not part of Quebec society unless they assimilate.

1. Dubuc is neither arguing for or against a definition of Quebecois. Where do you see him argue for or against a definition? Did you even read it all? In these two articles, he is pointing out to the danger of falling in the trap of the sophists who claim to advocate "civic" nationalism in opposition to people they claim advocate "ethnic" nationalism. This civic/ethnic dichotomy is a false dichotomy. There are multiple typologies of nationalism and we cannot reduce it to those two. On top of that, one is not the opposite of the other. There is nothing good that could come out of a reasoning stating A and B, Not A therefore B.

2. Dubuc is not arguing against saying all people living in Quebec are Quebecers. He argues against a redefinition of Quebec nationalism (which he himself calls "nationalisme civic pure") that would lead to giving up the fight for the French language in Quebec. This article is in line with his past critic of the Larose Commission report.

La « nation » de Bouchard se résume à un territoire et à une langue d’usage public, coupée de sa culture, de ses traditions et de son histoire. La langue véritable est refoulée dans le domaine privé. « Le coefficient d’ethnicité de cette nation, si on nous permet cette expression se trouve ainsi réduit à la langue comme vecteur indispensable de la vie collective? Peut-on faire moins ? » lance Bouchard dans La nation québécoise au futur et au passé.

Sûrement pas. Mais la solution ne se trouve peut-être pas dans cette direction. Et si on faisait plus plutôt que moins. Si on réintégrait toutes les dimensions linguistique, culturelle, sociale, économique de la question nationale. Si on associait à nouveau au projet d’indépendance nationale le contenu d’une lutte de libération nationale, peut-être trouverions-nous la voie du dépassement des résultats du référendum de 1995 et pourrions-nous élargir à l’ensemble de la population du Québec le soutien à ce projet libérateur.

Which translates to:

"The "nation" of Bouchard is reduced to a territory and a public language, cut off from its culture, its traditions and its history. The real language is pushed back in the private domaine. "Is the ethnicity coefficient of this nation, if we are allowed this expression, then reduced to a language as a common and indispensable vector of collective life? Could we do less?" says Bouchard in La nation québécoise au futur et au passé.

Surely not. But the solution is maybe not in this direction. And if instead we did more than less. If we integrated ass the linguistic, cultural, social and economic dimensions of the national question. If we again associated to the national independence project the content of a struggle for national liberation, maybe we would find a way to go beyond the results of the 1995 referendum and we could widen the support to this liberating project to the whole of the Quebec population."

3. No, he does not say "only people who assimilated into the society that dates back from New France" are part of the Quebec nation. He says: "The Quebec nation is a historically constituted community drawing its origins in New France and having assimilated people of different origins in the course of centuries. A process which still continues today." There is no "only" implied. He is describing a fundamental property of the nation, understood as a human community which outlives individuals.

4. Many anglophones assimilated and continue to assimilate. English, Irish, Scottish, Canadian and American anglophones. This suffices to prove the inclusiveness of the host group for most people.

5. There was assimilation of course.

6. No. You started with questions proposing a False dilemma and reached an invalid conclusion. You seem to confuse citizenship, nationality and now society all into one dogmatic construct. You are yourself proudly saying "I am a Quebecer and not a Quebecois" which exemplifies the phenomenon of anglophones residing in Quebec yet not identifying with the majority of Quebecers for what seem to be linguistic reasons. -- Mathieugp 15:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This view is reflected by Jacques Noel, who mocks replacing Quebecois with words like Quebecois francophone as a politically correct imposition by academics. He argues essentially that common sense dictate that Quebecois in a cultural context means someone who is francophone.

Talk about a populist POV, opposing "academics" and some Joe Blow writing a letter to a newspaper and selecting the later as the sole definition to be used in the article named Quebecois. Jacques Noel ridicules people who believe themselves to be more open to others because they put the majority of Quebecers in a corner, inside Quebec, reduce them to a folkloric tribe of Old Stock Francophone Quebecers, as if their language and culture was not common to all Quebecers. This was discussed extensively above. -- Mathieugp 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Noel, Jacques (31-03-2007). ""Québécois francophones de vieille souche"". Le Devoir. Retrieved 15-04-2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Again, it's clear that a large segment of the Quebec population considers "Quebecois", as an item of identity, to simply mean a francophone or French Canadian who identifies with the culture. If this sense of the word did not exist, Quebec would be just like Ontario and have no compelling need to be recognized as a nation. Again, it makes the special sense of Quebecois more like Acadian (who are not refered to as French-speaking New Brunswickers) and Catalans This makes different perspectives on such topics as Quebecois nation, Quebecois identity, Quebecois culture, and Quebec nationalism well worth summarizing here. They give a complete context and reference for when these words are used. --Soulscanner 06:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing people who generally identify with Quebec, francophones, and as part of Quebec francophones, native Quebec francophones, and the definition of the matrix of society, the public institutions, which in Quebec are secular and generally French. Actually, the expression francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick can be heard almost everyday on Radio-Canada (TV and Radio). -- Mathieugp 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do they identify as Acadian, or franco-New Brunswiker, Franco Nova Scotian, or Franco-Islander? Which has more meaning to them? --Soulscanner 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Those who identify as Acadians, francophones or not, coexist with other people, francophones or not, who may or may not identify as Acadians. The expression "francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick" include a great deal of people who think of themselves as Acadians, but also expatriates from Quebec. I hear a lot of francophone Quebecers identify as Acadians by choice, but they never really give up their original identity. -- Mathieugp 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions that the term Québécois should be replaced here with French speaking Quebecers or Quebec francophones remind me of another generation's preference for terms like Eskimo and Indian when describing certain native populations – regardless of what they may call themselves. As an outsider viewing this debate, I am left with the question: "Are there notable English-language sources in which the term 'Québécois' is used in the special sense embraced by the 'Yes' side of this debate, i.e. with complex linguistic and cultural overtones? Or is the term consistently used in the sense embraced by the 'No' side, i.e. with no special meaning beyond a geographic identity?" Trevor Hanson 18:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The English language dictionaries suggest that "Quebecois" can mean both "Quebecer" (which translates the first meaning of Québécois) or "Francophone Quebecers". I do not know which is more prevalent. Some people feel a great deal of importance exists between "Quebecois" and "Quebecers", others use them interchangeably.

Interestingly google.com gives 50,400 hits to "Quebec nation", but only 9,430 for "Quebecois nation".

"Quebecois people" gives 1,430 and "Quebec people" 24,000

the funny "Quebecian"" gives 4,190 ;-) -- Mathieugp 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cetainly. Quebec people refers to all residents of Quebec. Quebecois people, as with Pierre Dubuc's definition, does not. --Soulscanner 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments on scope of article II

Before commenting, please examine the comment above which provides documentation for focusing the scope of the article. Also, you may also wish to review the conversation here:

much of what you see here is a rehash of that discussion.  

The decision was to keep the article, but the page was blanked and redirected anyways to Quebec. I essentially complained about ignoring the consensus, which is why this page has been frozen since.

The questions above all involve what shouldn't be in the article. Here's questions about what should be. --Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 1

1. The civic definition of Quebecois (i.e similar to Albertan) is a fact. It is documented here. Should people looking for this definition be offered a link to the Quebec article on top of the page? --Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes --Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• No I misread. On top of the current Quebecois page is surely what was meant. -- Mathieugp 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• No if by link a the top of the page, you mean an italicized disambiguation link. Those looking for this definition will find it here, if this article stays. A disambiguation link is unnecessary; Quebec is linked in the very first sentence. Someone clicking to or searching for Québécois wants to about that topic and the people, not about Quebec. Analogously there isn't a dablink to Kurdistan at the very top of Kurdish people. –Pomte 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• No Québécois (disambiguation) is enough. However, I believe that the current content of Québécois (disambiguation) should be moved here, and what is here should be renamed Use of the word Québécois.Joeldl 19:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Also, I would comment that the civic definition appears marginal to me in English. It is uncertain what its meaning is in the Harper motion. Joeldl 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 2

2. This page is here to act as reference for the other cultural as opposed to civic sense of the word. This is the subject of interest because it's the sense that Californian and Albertan doesn't have. Should the focus of the article be this cultural sense of the word?--Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes the civic definition is handled at the Quebec article. This subject is also not appropriate in the introductory article.--Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• No The distinction between "Quebecer" and "Quebecois" is politicized. Your asserting above that using "Ignoring this in an article in the Quebecois promotes the agenda of "civic Quebec nationalists", which weather we agree with it or not (I'm all for a state neutral on culture) is not going to happen in QUebec." makes is clear that you are working against recognizing a fact, a fact which all provincial political parties of Quebec and as well as all members of the Bloc, the Liberals around Michael Ignatieffs, the NDP, and many but not all conservatives are willing to admit right away based on observation: Quebecers are a political nation including all its citizens. Again, the minute you talk to people who respect the existence of the facts that are presented to them, even if they do not like the consequences that logically follow from them, you get tons of Canadian academics, of all political families, asserting: 5. We recognize the existence of a Quebec nation which includes Quebecers of all origins and mother tongues. The Quebec nation has the right to democratically determine its own future. Harper's motion might have recognized what some consider an ethnic nation inside Quebec in English, but in French it recognized, unambiguously, Quebecers. As did the National Assembly of Quebec long before. The cultural sense of American is discussed in Culture of the United States, the cultural sense of Canadian is discussed at Culture of Canada, the cultural sense of Quebecer is discussed at Culture of Quebec, the cultural sense of Brazilian is discussed at Culture of Brazil and it goes on like that for probably all nations in the Americas. An article on the linguistic group that French-speaking Quebecers (or Quebecois) form, can be developped at French-speaking Quebecers. This would be consistent with English-speaking Quebecer. -- Mathieugp 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia site claims that "70 % des Canadiens rejettent la notion que les Québécois forment une nation" [22]; so what you claim as being something that "everyone knows" simply is not true. Also, how is the dichotomy between Catalonia and Catalans different than that between Quebec and Quebecois? This is not clear to me. --Soulscanner 09:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Quebecers recognize themselves as forming a nation according to this survey. Catalonia/Catalans is equivalent to Quebec/Quebecers. -- Mathieugp 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes if it is eventually decided that this should be more than a disambiguation page. All people who participated in the deletion debate have been invited to contribute again above. Let's see what consensus develops. I feel the article should be moved to Use of the word Québécois. In the meantime, this should be the explicit subject of the page. Joeldl 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Clarification: I am saying the page should, possibly until it is moved, talk about the word, not about the people themselves. Joeldl 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• No The focus of the article should be the use of the word (all meanings), unless it is eventually decided that this should be a disambiguation page like Québécois (disambiguation). In that case, this discussion should be moved to Use of the word Québécois. Joeldl 02:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The premise of the question seems to prejudge the answer. Joeldl 02:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the premise? What is this page here for, in your view? Does the word Quebecois have a different sense than Ontarian? The key question here is if Quebecois carries a cultural meaning with it (in french and English) that Ontarian does not. If not, why is there no Ontario nation? --Soulscanner 09:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • All labels for groups of people have cultural senses. I think there are some strong notions of what it means to be Californian and Ontarian, from people both inside and outside those areas, what traits they are likely to have, and I bet there are academic studies on these terms. There may be no articles because they are not as hard-headed as those in Quebec :) Quebecois may arguably have a stronger sense, but deciding here based on personal opinion is original research. Please cite reliable sources to support that claim. And even if that claim is supported, it says nothing about the merit of this actual article. All it would do is refute the argument that Quebecois shouldn't have an article because Ontarian doesn't, which isn't really that strong. The question is, should the article discuss the cultural sense. It really depends on how specific the information is. At an article about a word, of course there should be some mention of its various senses. But for the detailed information that leaves the territory of just Quebecois, other articles like Culture of Quebec can better handle that information. So my view is
• it depends. –Pomte 09:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• My view on this is that, if we are dealing only with the French meaning of Québécois, this subject is indistinguishable from Quebec identity. Joeldl 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• There can be multiple articles on the various details of one subject, as your example British shows. A very concise summary of identity here, with a link to Quebec identity using {{main}}, followed by more details about the term itself, with example usage. These details and examples can be duplicated at Quebec identity depending on context. Quebec identity can have a section on "Quebecois" with a link to this article using {{main}}. And by "here" I mean either Québécois or Use of the word Québécois. –Pomte 21:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go with that. Joeldl 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 3

3. Does this sense of the word have enough parallels with other cultural/ethnic/linguistic groups to justify a similar treatment? (i.e. Acadian or [[Catalans])]?--Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes They are cultural groups concentrated within a territory that is a non-sovereign state. They have a distinct cultural identity from others within that state, and maintain diaspora cultures outside their homeland. They all also seek collective recognition of that identity. --Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• No One of the English sense of Quebecois is all Quebecers, the other is Francophone Quebecers. French Canadian does however fit the profile for an article on the stateless ethnolinguistic community you are talking abou. The Americans also speak of the American diaspora abroad. The Canadians as well. The French have a special assembly of representation for French citizens who have settled abroad (See fr:Assemblée des Français de l'étranger) Quebecers are concerned with the faith of francophones in America. There is nothing specific to Quebec here. -- Mathieugp 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What about Catalans? Does not Pierre Dubuc use Quebecois in the same sense of Acadian? How do they differ?
• No I believe this qustion was more or less answered in Question 1 of the first request for comment. If "Québécois" is to be given an ethnic meaning, that can only be French-speaking Quebecer. This would be a more neutral title. The treatment could be similar to New Zealand European. Joeldl 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That is POV. Many Quebecers, such as Pierre Dubuc, would object to this, and would see it as imposing a civic definition that many nationalists in Quebec disagree with. I'm not saying I agree with it (I prefer the civic meaning myself), but I can see and appreciate Pierre Dubuc's point. In any case, a truly NPOV on Quebecois would seek to balance the two meanings and explain who holds them. There is not consensus on this issue in Quebec. --Soulscanner 08:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• No Acadian and Catalan people both have a Geography section which discusses where they are now. Quebecois cannot have a Geography section that makes any sense. Both articles talk about the land's history. I don't think they were thought out very well considering their titles imply they talk mainly about the people. Those articles should not serve as a standard to compare this one to, and even so, Quebecois is not comparable; even if Quebecois is comparable to those, it is comparable through reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. –Pomte 09:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 4

4. Is it useful for an article on a cultural group to included a section on Quebecois Identity? --Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes Without an identity or consciousness of difference, there is no distinct cultural group. --Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes On Quebec identity which neutrally translates the meaning of identité québécoise, in an article on the Culture of Quebec. This identity is generalized among francophones, less common but shared among many anglophones, especially younger generations who grew up after 1977, and recognized and accepted by most non-francophones who, for various reasons, do not identify with Quebec in any specific way. -- Mathieugp 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, referred to as Quebec identity. The ethnic/cultural group itself should be covered at French-speaking Quebecer.Joeldl 19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: it is more common for francophones to strongly identify with Quebec than for anglophones and allophones. However, many non-francophones also have some degree of identification with Quebec. It would be inappropriate, due to the most prevalent meaning of Québécois in English, for Wikipedia to call them Québécois, despite anything Harper says. This goes as far as identifying solely with Quebec and not at all with Canada, as in the example of the Salvadoran immigrant given in Appartenir au Québec, cited above by Soulscanner. The use of the English word Québécois, as in Québécois identity, would exclude such people. It would also exclude me, though I identify with both Canada and Quebec. Joeldl 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but not here because that is too general for this article. Do it at French-speaking Quebecer and Quebec identity. –Pomte 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 5

5. Is it useful to have a section on the Quebecois nation, including commentary by academics and key political figures?--Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes It goes to the heart of Canadian and Quebec politics. It should include a section on the different political views, with each view presented sympathetically, even if they conflict. That includes Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe. --Soulscanner 08:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• No This belongs in Quebec nationalism. An article on the Harper motion could be useful. -- Mathieugp 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• No Discussion of that should be in Quebec nationalism and Québécois nation resolution. The phrase "Québécois nation" should not be accepted uncritically. Use of the phrase "Québécois nation" should be restricted to discussion of the Harper motion and other contexts (if there are any) where it appears explicitly in that form in English. "Quebec nation" should be used otherwise. Joeldl 19:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that these could have their own articles. However, it seems somewhat silly that an article called Quebecois be void of one of its most significant usage. It is clear that the real aim here is simply to have the article deleted. You have rejected any content beyond dictionary defintions. This indicates a refusal of the consensus to keep the article. --Soulscanner 08:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• No, not an entire section. The term "Québécois nation" covers much broader territory (nationalism, politics) than this single article on the word. Saying "Québécois" has a much different sense than saying "Québécois nation." Providing commentary is bloating the article and going off-topic. Have one line here saying "the Quebecois nation is a notion used by nationalists..." and then direct the reader to Quebec nationalism. Talk about the term there. –Pomte 21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit requests

{{editprotected}}

I am going to unprotect the page; discussion here seems to have died down. Everyone should take care to discuss changes and make sure they have consensus. CMummert · talk 13:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Please remove the infobox from the article, pursuant to the consensus developed under Question 1 of the first request for comment above. Joeldl 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is based on the understanding that it not be deleted but instead moved to a page called French-speaking Quebecer or franco-Quebecer, as recommended several times by Joeldl --Soulscanner 08:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but delete it now because there is consensus it shouldn't be in this article. Once the new article is created, the infobox can be pasted there from this edit history. –Pomte 09:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm creating a French-speaking Quebecer stub, as the others have suggested. I will put nothing on it but the box and a brief, neutral definition. I'm just skeptical that it will actually be created if I do not. --Soulscanner 09:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC) it is done. Please remove the box from the article. --Soulscanner 09:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Image of prominent Quebecois only shows PQ premiers, biased.

The image of prominent Quebecois at the top only shows Parti Quebecois premiers, what about other important Quebecois like Jean Lesage, Robert Bourassa, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Mario Dumont, Henri Bourassa, Maurice Duplessis, and Sir Wilfred Laurier. Quebecois should not just be represented on this site by two PQ separatist premiers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree it should not show the faces of two Premiers from the same political party. I also wonder if really we should put only politicians. I understand they are supposed to "represent" their constituants, but when we know through what kind of a flawed and antidemocratic voting system they get to hold seats in the National Assembly or the House of Commons, do we have the right to ask: who are they really representing? :-) The faces should be somewhat notorious to English-speakers world wide, not only to Canadians and Quebecers. Politicians from Quebec and Canada tend to suck and have little visibility worldwide. We should also try to truly represent all French-speaking Quebecers, men and women, of various ethnic backgrounds. -- Mathieugp 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As the section above this says, the box is getting removed and hence the images will no longer appear here. Please discuss this issue at French-speaking Quebecer and that talk page instead. –Pomte 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote by Pauline Marois that may be of use

Today, I happened to read a front page article on the Toronto Star:

Marois [...] signalled a change in the way the PQ will address questions of identity; for more than a decade the emphasis has been on civic rather than ethic nationalism.

"The values we share, whatever our origins, are well known: we are francophones first and foremost ... democratic, tolerant, but desiring the respect of our identity," she said.

The remark was clearly aimed at winning back voters wooed by the grassroots, traditionalist appeal of the Action démocratique du Québec, which bumped the PQ as official Opposition.

In case someone wants to cite this somewhere (not here), it's on page A4 of "PQ won't fall into referendum 'trap'" by Sean Gordon and Allan Woods. –Pomte 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what this means is a complicated question. Saying that "we" are francophones, perhaps paradoxically, doesn't mean that you're excluding non-francophones specifically. If you say that the United States is "an English-speaking society", you are not necessarily excluding non-anglophones. This expresses the fact that English is the common language of Americans, and this fact is related to ethnicity only in the sense that the identity of the country as a whole is a historical result of the influence of its majority group. People of all ethnicities in the Unites States, especially those born there, feel a connection to its English-speaking majority culture, including baseball, apple pie, etc. In my opinion, that quote alone doesn't support the journalist's interpretation, but others might. Joeldl 11:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing new here. Quebecers are French-speaking. French is the only official language of Quebec since 1977. The interpretation of the journalist is that of many political commentators (French-speaking or English-speaking) who rely on surveys to analyse what people think and feel. The uniformity of thought among political commentators who are relied on as "experts" is the most scaring thing in all this. -- Mathieugp 14:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting spin, but the parallel Joeldl is drawing is false. Marois did not say that Quebec is a "French-speaking society"; she did not refer to a "common language"; she was referring specifically to identity. She was saying that "we" are francophone BEFORE we are democratic and tolerant, emphasizing linguistic identity over that of civic values. She was saying that "we" are francophone. Anglophones, most immigrants, and natives do not have a primarily francophone identity, so they are obviously excluded here. They are the ones being "tolerated". If George Bush or Stephen Harper played the game of identity politics and that "we" were "English-speaking" or "Christian" first and foremost, they would be in deep trouble from minorities. Quebec nationalists generally hold double standards here. --Soulscanner 22:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As for experts, all you need to do is look at the quote. It's clear what she meant. It is perfectly consistent with what Jacques Parizeau said in his referendum night speech and with the way the PQ has acted all along. You don't have to be an expert to see it. If you're not a "pur et dur" seperatist and subscribe to a radical Quebec nationalist ideology, you're not going to see it any other way. --Soulscanner 22:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear what is meant by "first and foremost". Does that mean we are francophones before we are humans, before we are mammals? In an open-ended statement like that, it's not clear what the comparison is being made to. I doubt she meant to say, "We are francophones before we are democratic and tolerant". That is Soulscanner reading in what she intended to be second and third. And Hispanics in the United States are not anglophones, yet the United States has an English-speaking identity. If there were some need to defend that identity because it was felt to be threatened (say, if speaking Japanese had become a requirement for a large proportion of ordinary Americans to find work), then it would be considered appropriate for the United States to take measures to defend English. In fact, the United States already pursues numerous policies promoting English abroad, for example in education and in international organizations. Is it disrespecting its minorities by not doing the same for Spanish and Navajo? To some extent it is normal and appropriate to identify a society with its majority culture. Joeldl 07:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No. She said that "we" are francophones before we are democratic and tolerant; she made no reference to being human beings. She put linguistic identity above that of civic identity. That is clear. Minorities are also not "francophones first an foremost", so she was not including them in this elusive "we". She is not speaking about Quebec society as a whole, but of those who identified with French; this is precisely how many nationalists cited here view a "Quebecois". She was talking about identity, which is individual. Societies do not identifty with groups, individuals do. AS I said, it is no different from Parizeau's referendum night speech where he explicitly referred to "us" as francophone's and the others as the "ethnic vote". Nor is it a whole lot different from the intensified cultural and linguistic nationalism advocated by Pierre Dubuc. Frankly, it is not healthy for multicultural societies to put the identities of some citizens above others, even if they are a majority. It is demagoguery. It is not healthy to put the identities of anglo's in the U.S. above that of Hispanics, of whites over blacks, or of Christians over Jews. Even though anglos, whites, and Christians are a majority in the U.S., one should not make political appeals based on these identities; they justify supremacism and discrimination. Any thoughtful American would tell you that the cultures of the U.S. are too diverse to be considered one. You should make appeals based on civic issues of good governance and equality that legitimaize all cultural and linguistic identities: that is what bilingualism and multiculturalism are all about. It is obvious that such political strategies will be divisive and entrench discrimination, be it in the U.S. or in Canada. --Soulscanner 08:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is your interpretation of what she said. It is not obvious that that is what it meant. Your view of multiculturalism is a paradox. If one cannot refer to "Swedish" culture in a meaningful way because Sweden is multicultural, if one cannot say that they enjoy "Russian" food because there are people of Vietnamese descent in Russia, then one cannot speak of Swedish Canadians or Russian Canadians either, since their original countries do not have a single culture. In fact, if one takes such precautions every time one speaks, then one can no longer say that there is anything Canadian, unless everything is Canadian. All linguistic identities are of course legitimate for individuals and communities within Quebec, but it is also legitimate to give the language of the majority a preponderant role, commensurate with the size of the majority, in shaping the collective identity of Quebecers. This is not the same as saying that distinct identities on a smaller scale are illegitimate. There is no country in the world that I know of where all cultures are put on an equal footing regardless of their numerical weight within the country. Joeldl 11:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious is a relative term. Russia and Sweden are not immigrant societies, although there are many minority cultures in Russia (e.g. Chechnya) where Russian hegemony causes friction. Nevertheless, there is no need to go to Sweden of Russia to make a point. Closer to home, if Bernard Lord or Dalton McGuinty said that their provinces were first and foremost English speaking (which they are demographically), Acadians and franco-Ontarians would object and with good reason; they'd be making identification with the English language as a prerequisite for meaningful inclusion in the civic life; Pauline Marois is doing no different. If George Bush said we are primarily European, African and Asian Americans would object for similar reasons. Using race, language, and religion as focuses of civic identity are inappropriate in a multicultural society. If Stephen Harper said that we Canadians are first and foremost English-speaking, francophones all over Canada would object. Why the double standards? --Soulscanner 02:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You should know that Russia is only 80% Russian-speaking (mother tongue), so it's similar to Quebec in that way. I think Canada should be as bilingual as is justified by 25% of the population speaking French, and Quebec should be as bilingual as is justified by 8% of the population speaking English, taking into account two facts however. On the one hand, Canada is a bilingual country, and it makes sense that English should have additional status in Quebec for that reason. On the other hand, the fact that the majority of Canadians speak English, and the historical dominance of English in Quebec itself, create a situation in which the status of French is less than would be expected in a province where it is spoken natively by 82% of the population. You may or may not agree with that assessment, but in any case it is a view held by many Quebecers and if it is correct then it is appropriate for the government to take appropriate measures to safeguard the status of French.

Second, language cannot be equated with race. The government — in fact, any government — makes decisions regularly that may favour one language over another. Do you propose that public services be provided in Esperanto? Or the top 100 languages in Quebec? What about consumer protections? If you are going to have laws saying that information must be provided to consumers about such or such product, then is it racist to say that the directions cannot be only in Japanese? And education is also an important public service about which decisions must be made. After all, it involves public expenditures.

Third, there is no double standard, since in any case 8% is less than 24% and the United Nations has recognized that because francophones are a minority in Canada, in places where they are a majority they do not have all the same obligations towards linguistic minorities that they would in an independent country, since those obligations might be at odds with Quebec's (or Canada's) right to protect francophones as a minority within Canada. (See the UN Human Rights Committee decision against Bill 178, Paragraph 11.2 [23] Of course, I do not dispute that freedom of expression should not be infringed.) This is an express disavowal of your position that minorities within Quebec — itself the primary home of a perhaps vulnerable minority within Canada — are analogous to the francophone minority within Canada. Joeldl 04:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl is of course right. We Quebecers are a French-speaking people. We have the right to generalize this to all citizens since it is the official language of the country. This does not exclude smaller groups from having their own group identities in parallel, but it excludes giving up the struggle to have French play an equivalent role within Quebec than English plays within Ontario, all the while not reducing said parallel minority cultures to the level of unsignificance they have in Anglo North America. Recognizing and respecting others does not mean renouncing to do the same for oneself, it requires it.

An interesting read for English Canadians who, just like French Quebecers, think of their identity has something unique everyone is free to adopt and share with all humaninty if they care: I am English Canadian by Charles Blattberg -- Mathieugp 12:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Quebecers are also a white, Euroepean, and Catholic people in the sense that Mathieugp describes it. Not all identify with this, though. I think it's sad that you wish to marginalize anglophones and their language the way French and francophones have been in Ontario. I think zero sum games like this are undesirable and destructive. I think New Brunswick is a better model for Quebec to follow if it wants linguistic peace. Quebec isn't French as a whole anymore than Canada is not English as a whole. English Quebecers cannot be expected to identify with a unlingual Quebec anymore than French Canadians couldbe expected to identify with a unilingual English Canada. It makes sense to recognize this fact. This does not mean giving up your identity. Making Quebec officially French has the same effect as would making all Canada English: It alienates minorities. --Soulscanner 03:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mathieugp has mentioned the objective of 80% of immigrants adopting French rather than English. That seems fair. In any case, there are many states around the world with minorities of 8% which have far fewer linguistic rights than the English in Quebec, and nobody accuses them of bigotry. At tyhis point, the number of native Spanish-speakers is higher in the U.S., much higher in some states, and yet there is no state where they have status equivalent to that of anglophones in Quebec (probably not even New Mexico, despite being an official language). The only thing I have a problem with in principle is the "markedly predominant" language in the sign law, and also the fact that I hope some day English-language education eligibility can be extended to all native English-speakers, not just those allowed under the clause Canada. Apart from that I see little that attempts to "marginalize" anglophones.

And if those laws were amended, would Italian-speakers not be marginalized by the absence of schools in their language? Of course, this is a rhetorical question, and I am not arguing against English schools or for Italian ones, I am simply pointing out that your view of anglophones being marginalized is relative to a certain view of what is normal, which is necessarily influenced by the status of English in Canada and the past staus of English in Quebec. Those are valid arguments, but they only go so far. Not as far as justification for full equality of English and French, particularly given the continued feeling that French is vulnerable. Joeldl 04:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Quebecois a mixed Ojibway and I don't think you can state that being French makes you Quebecois... I live in Ontario now… so now what? Quebecois are the very old people and that mixed with the natives that go back to the 1600 to 1800... The French woman did not come here in droves it was only the men... The French married the native women and the men were captured and sent to the salt mines in Europe... To state that Quebecois is a pure Frenchman is wrong they are a new type of people... like a spin off of the way the Native Nations where back then and are today... Like Cree, Ojbway ect... Quebecois word has been around séance 1600 and evolved... and has nothing to do with France at all... You’re either a Frenchman or a Quebecois... My last name is Brunelle but the Frenchman from the 1600 name was Beaufort they gave us a new names to track us down over time because we were not pure French... That’s why I'm a Quebecois and not a Frenchman...

Where I work (99% french) they always refer to me as an immigrant. They use "nous" or "quebecois", when we're discussing certain social/political topics, and then turn and ask me my opinion as an immigrant/outsider. I'm the 4th generation born in quebec. Yet one person that's usually part of the discussions is a "Frenchman" who had been living here <2 years, doesn't have citizenship.. They always refer to him in the "nous" and "quebecois". A while back I pointed this out to them, that he just came off the boat, and if they don't stamp his passport he goes back on the boat, but they consider him a "quebecois" and I'm still an immigrant. I asked them why, they all looked puzzled for a while, and finally said it's because I'm not "French". So I repeated it to them again and pointed out that the "frenchman" is not even an immigrant he's a alien w/work permit, and I'm 4th generation with my ancestors buried in the soil of quebec, so why is it that they include him in "nous" and me they still refer to as "immigrant"? The best answer they could come up with was "because I was english".. I responded with "Je ne suis pas anglais, et je parle français en ce moment", truth is I only speak english with clients, and only french with the people at work. I pointed this out.. they thought about it a bit more and the consensus was that it was my family name. So I pointed to one of them and said "McSomethig" that scottish right, then point to the another and said "SomethingSon" that's english right? So explain that to me.. then it was maybe it was my accent, so I pointed back to the "frenchman" and I said "qeq choze m'dit qu'il parle avec un accent", the end result.. they admited that they never really thought about it, and you did have to be ethnically french in some part to be "nous".. so even the "Frenchman" who's here on a workvisa is more quebecois than those who don't have "french" blood in them and have been here >100yrs..

Your little anonymous story, however doubtful, will certainly interest The Montreal Gazette, The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star. Meanwhile, most French immigrants living in Quebec will continue to think of themselves as French and not as Quebecers, while most Quebecers will continue to see French immigrants as foreigners for the same reasons that you see British as foreigners: they speak your native language differently because they come from another continent. And Émile Nelligan, Daniel Johnson father and his two sons Daniel and Pierre-Marc, and the O'Leary brothers (Dostaler and Walter-Patrice), and Robert Burns, Jenny Skene, Robin Philpot, David Payne, Peter MacLeod, Calvin Veltman or David Levine and countless others will continue to be there, in history or in the present, to prove to anyone who is not blinded by prejudice that having an Irish, Scottish, English, Jewish or German sounding name or an English accent has never ever prevented anyone from thinking of himself/herself as a Quebecer first and foremost if not alone and consequently be recognized as such by the majority of their compatriots. It never came to your mind that maybe your colleagues respect that you (probably) identify as a Canadian which in the minds of most Quebecers, especially francophones, is distinct from a Quebecer? -- Mathieugp 15:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, this is only true among a small, elitist group of academics and ideologues. Among the majority ordinary Quebecois, though, the situation is much more as described above. --Soulscanner 23:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

>Your little anonymous story, however doubtful, will certainly interest The Montreal Gazette, The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star.... you see British as foreigners: they speak your native language differently...you (probably) identify as a Canadian which in the minds of most Quebecers, especially francophones, is distinct from a Quebecer? Why would my "however doubtful" story only interest english newspapers.. let alone any newspaper? secondly English isn't my native language, and I never identify as anything.. my last 2 votes were PQ and ADQ.. contrary.. 1 of the people at that discussion hangs a canada flag at his desk, as he puts it to "annoy" some people. Yet they don't refer to him as an imigrant. So you theory "however doubtful" doesn't hold any weight aside from you trying to rationalize it to yourself somehow. I've worked at companies were the majority were english speaking, and I've never been questioned if I'm an imigrant, the topic never arose. This job where it's pretty much 99.99% French Quebecers, It pops up every now and then, usually in the form of "When did you come to quebec", or "how long do you live here". You're entire post was about how one percieves themselves. I was posting on the perception of others. You sound more like an automated word twisting political propoganda machine than a real person.

Because your doubtful little story and now your doubtful little political neutrality would only interest those corporate newspapers that will publish anything to reinforce the same old artificially created prejudices against the evil Franco majority of Quebec. As if implying that some nations are morally inferior to others was not pure bigotry itself. It never came to your mind that maybe your French-speaking co-workers just care to know about the culture of others, especially when they work together? It never came to your mind that maybe a people that continually has to battle to preserve their language and their culture value such things? Would you be surprised to be asked where you are from because of your accent in a foreign country? Do you have any idea how often "French" Quebecers are asked where they are from when do move to Ontario or any other English-speaking province/state in North America? Can you imagine if they thought it was bigotry when it is just curiosity or ignorance. Luckily for them, their daily newspapers do not tell them, everyday, things that have nothing to do with the reality of their most immediate neighbours.-- Mathieugp 04:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not my story ... but it is consistent with my experience. I've come across many in Quebec who distinguish between Quebecois and anglophone. That does not make them bigoted, it just makes their nationalism more similar to those of Germany, Poland, Croatia, Catalans, Walloons, Sikhs or other ethnic or cultural peoples as opposed to those of the U.S., Canada, India, Australia or Switzerland which are more civic, based on legal institutions. It does not make one more morally inferior than another, just different. The only implication of moral inferiority is from those here who believe that the Quebecois nation is entitled to sovereignty and self-determination while the Cree and Inuit (equally nations in Canada) of Northern Quebec are not. I see the Quebecois as equal to the Acadians, Metis, Cree, and other Canadian minority nations in every way, morally and legally. --Soulscanner 07:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are yourself distinguishing between Quebecois and anglophone. Does that make you a believer of ethnic nationalism since you do not identify to the majority of your Quebec co-citizens on the basis of their language and culture? You attempted to hijack the Quebecois article so that people would believe precisely that Quebec nationalism is unlike Canadian or American nationalism, that it is not territorial, but instead founded on an ideology alien to both French civil law and English common law traditions and incompatible with the very fact that Quebec French speakers as Quebecer English speakers are presently, and have been so for a long time, multiethnic communities. You are completely failing to see the illogical nature of your assertions, and when they are logically sound, refuse to admit the erroneous nature of their premises. It is a wrong premise to think of the majority of Quebecers as an ethnic group and it is irrational to see their desire for secessionist self-determination as motivated by hatred of people not of their creed. As early as 1962, Hubert Aquin wrote:

The nation is not, as Trudeau let us hear, an ethnic reality. There no longer are ethnies, or so little. Population displacements, immigration, assimilation (which Jacques Henripin rightly refers to as "language shifts") produced an interpenetration of ethnies for which one incontestable result, in French Canada for example, is the grouping no longer according to the principle of the ethnic origin (the race, as we were still saying only twenty-five years ago) but according to a homogeneous cultural group whose only verifiable specificity is to be found at the linguistic level.

It only suffice to look around oneself, among the people that we know, to quickly count the number of pure wool French Canadians: they are no longer the "true" French Canadians! The Mackays, the Johnsons, the Elliotts, the Aquins, the Molinaris, the O'Harleys, the Spénarts, les Espositos, les Globenskis, etc., say a lot about the French-Canadian ethnie-nation. The "language shifts", of which speak Henripin, have occurred to our benefit as well as to our expense, so much that the kernel of immigrated colonists which accomplished the survivance is today mixed, at the ethnic level, to all the contributions which immigration or the randomness of love have added to our national ethnic purity.

In fact, there no longer is a French-Canadian nation but a cultural-linguistic group homogeneous by its language. So will it be for the Wolof, the Serer and the Peul of Senegal who will, if nothing intervenes to stop the schooling process whose upcoming result will be to give birth to a cultural-linguistic group of multiple ethnic origins, become one day the Senegalese.

French Canada is polyethnic. And it would be pure folly, I convene, for the French Canadians to dream of a Nation-State when precisely the French-Canadian nation has made way to a global, coherent culture, whose basis is a linguistic difference. That we call this new agglomerate a nation, I do not mind, but then it can no longer be question of the nation as a ferment of racism and all its abominable derivatives.

What distinguishes Canada from French Canada, is not that the bigger one is polyethnic while the second is monoethnic, but that the first is bicultural while the second is culturally homogeneous (which does not exclude, thank God, pluralism in all its forms).

The Nation-State couple which Pierre Elliott Trudeau denounces does not correspond to reality and could constitute a sincere ambition but for a minority who, because of this fact, will never realize its dream. It would be more accurate to speak of a Monocultural State. If a few backwards people still dream of a pure French-Canadian blood, let us simply consider them to be intellectual delinquents!

The majority of nationalist Canadians identify with Canada, hence their calling themselves Canadians, despite a minority of their co-citizens not agreeing, while the majority of nationalist Quebecers identify with Quebec, hence their calling themselves Quebecers, despite a minority of their co-citizens not agreeing. It is those who fight Quebec nationalism and identification to Quebec by minorities who wish to reduce the ethnic majority of Quebecers to just a bunch of pure-breed French Canadians who are morally inferior from generation to generation. The obvious truth is that it is a minority of English-speaking Canadians who have socially inherited contempt and prejudice for the people who used to be the Canadian people before their homeland was conquered and colonized by British settlers who were prevented from ever knowing who those Canadians were. Some people remember this story, the story of a resistance to oppression, and do not want ownership of all that is today called Canada, formerly British North America, but ownership over themselves alone, following the soundest and most universal doctrines derived from the love and respect of Human Rights. In arguing for our just cause, we do not point our finger at today's generations of Canadians and try to make them ashamed of their past and who they are, as is being done to us, we simply say: Justice for you, justice for us, justice for all. And we are calumniated over and over again by people who are at best simply ignorant and at worst hateful of a human community whose language they do not even care to learn about. -- Mathieugp 15:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I identify with Quebec the same way someone from Alberta identifies with their province. So do most minorities in Quebec. I do not identify with Quebec's majority culture or language (or any culture or language all that much), hence I am not considered Quebecois by many. That is a simple fact. I identify more with the principals of bilingualism, multiculturalism and the protection of minorities and individual rights.

Same old song. Anglophones are just a bunch of Westmount Rhodesians ... Sad that old stereotypes persists in certain circles. Well, the 60's are over.

No, not anglophones generally. Only those who fought against justice for all and popular rights. They have equivalents in most former British colonies, usually much despised conservative nobles or rich people holding titles. -- Mathieugp 03:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Quebec nationalism is unlike and even better than that of Walloons, Catalans, Germans, Serbs, Croats, or Cree? They all have a number of ancestries (many Walloons have Dutch names, many Germans have Polish names, even have Russian names, etc.) and their nationalisms are all territorial in the sense that they seek that a cultural, linguistic, or religious majority have hegemony over a given territory. That is generally what is meant by ethnic nationalism: the territory acts as a homeland for a cultural nation that seeks hegemony above other cultures, in the case of Quebec, based on language (as is the case for the Catalans and Walloons; for Serbs and Croats, who are actually the same ethnically and linguistically, it is based on identification with Eastern and Western Europe). Quebecois nationalists are concerned with advancing this hegemony in Quebec while playing lip service to minority cultures for the sake of political correctness. Hence it is false to distinguish between territorial and ethnic nationalism; it is when ethnic nationalism becomes obsessed with imposing the dominance of one a cultural group (be it linguistic, religious, or otherwise) that it becomes dangerous; pride in ones ethnicity is not a problem. This is not what Canada or U.S. nationalists are concerned with: U.S. nationalists are more concerned with debating the founding principles of their nation (between liberals and conservatives; isolationists vs. engagement in the world), and Canadian nationalists like Mel Hurtig and Maude Barlowe (the few that there are) are more concerned with the effects of U.S. influence and are more or less indifferent to Quebec and other regional cultures. English Canadian nationalism is a fabrication Quebec nationalists, who do not understand a belief in political and civic institutions that are linguistically and culturally neutral or inclusive i.e. where cultural and linguistic recognition is not a zero-sum game. Canadian federalism is based on recognition of two languages and many cultures, not the hegemony of one language and culture. How you interpret this as a degradation of French Canadian Quebecois, I do not know. This is not a conspiracy to reduce anyone's culture, unless of course one sees it as a zero sum game where giving something to one cultural group takes away from another. Quebec nationalists are the only ones who depict efforts to establish cultural and linguistic equality as a conspiracy to destroy them. --Soulscanner 08:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You are lost. In all nations, you have proponents of different visions of nationalism, depending on whether they are inspired by such or such political philosophy or religion. To say that the nationalism of such nation is ethnic and unjust while that of another is civic and just is not serious. A nation that already has a State in which the language of the majority is uncontested as the common denominator of all citizens, like the USA and Canada (minus Quebec), is not perpetually concerned with language issues, it goes without saying. Even in the most utopian views of the most dreamy Quebec nationalists, the French language culture of Quebec is never imagined to be all levelling and uniformising of minority cultures as English in the USA and Canada! We will never attain the level of military and economic supremacy which gave rise to the imperialism of the French, the British or the Americans! We have fought against this for generations! Wake up! We are the veterans in this war! -- Mathieugp 03:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[Ed: Same planet, different universes. It's likely that both are describing the world accurately as they see it. It's also possible that they are both correct; if the situation weren't ambiguous, with rights and wrongs on both sides, then it would be easy to identify good guys and bad guys. Bigotry emerges in the best of us at times; and even the worst of us often evade admitting to it. When we're on the receiving end of discrimination, we remember it; yet if we should treat someone unfairly, we tend to forget it, especially if we did so unconsciously.]

Quebecois diaspora

I am a little disappointed that there is no mention of the Quebecois diaspora noting the significant Quebecois populations in border U.S. states such as New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. When I was a kid growing up in NH, I remember reading that some 35-40 percent of the population has Quebec roots, myself included. ludahai 魯大海 14:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Article by Christian Dufour

An article by Quebec nationalist, Christian Dufour[24]. It's pretty much the usual demonization of Pierre Trudeau's vision of the country. Some highlights relating to the discussion:

"Beginning in 1763, the Canadiens would be joined by British subjects, who would take more than a century to feel they were Canadians—until the late 19th century, when Laurier was Prime Minister. For more than two hundred years, during the formative years of Canadian identity, the French speaking ancestors of today’s Québécois were the only ones to feel and call themselves Canadian."

"So, in relation to Canadian identity, Quebec identity is not a phenomenon coming after, or on the margins of some other construction, as is the case with Scotland vis-à-vis Great Britain, or Slovakia vis-à-vis the former Czechoslovakia. In its French-Canadian embodiment since 1840 and its Québécois embodiment since 1960, the identity of Quebec francophones has, in many ways, remained the fundamental Canadian identity throughout history2"

"But the worst part of the Trudeau legacy is a stunning paradox, considering the ex-Prime Minister’s well-known supposed aversion for nationalism of any kind. This odd legacy is a new Canadian nationalism—for which Trudeau is a hero—, an ideology doomed in the longer run because it is based on the denial of the Québécois heart of the country6".

So very simply, according to the definition employed in the first excerpt, the ancestors of the Quebecois were French-speaking. Anglophones are not Quebecois according to this particular usage. --Soulscanner 09:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You are again confusing who identifies as Québécois as their national identity (mostly francophones) and who is a Québécois by law, a citizen. The majority sets the norm. What prevents the adoption of this identity by all Quebecers is the competition, through the English language, of another national identity on the same territory.

It is made very clear as early as 1810, when governor James Henry Craig exposed his plan for the assimilation of "French" Canadians by the reunion of Upper Canada and Lower Canada and the disenfranchisement of the majority of the people so as to place the real numerical majority in the position of a minority in the elected House, which happened in 1840. On May 1st 1810, he writes to London his feelings on the inhabitants of Lower Canada:

"In considering the probability of these people having in view their return to their own Government, it may be urged that they have been hitherto quiet & faithful subjects, during the long lapse of 50 years, in which it would rather to be supposed that their old attachment should have gradually decreased, so that there should be the less likelihood of their assuming now a disposition, of which they have hitherto shown no indication; to all this however it may be replied, that no circumstance whatever has occurred to awaken their attachment to their Mother Country, nor have any pains ever been taken to produce such a change, their habits, language and religion, have remained as distinct from ours as they were before the Conquest. Indeed it seems to be a favourite object with them to be considered as [a] separate Nation; La Nation Canadienne is their constant expression, and with regard to their having been hitherto quiet & faithful subjects, it need only be observed that no opportunity has presented them an encouragement to shew themselves otherwise. "

Read the rest here: Craig to Liverpool, Quebec, 1st May 1810

In the view of this British employee of the Colonial Office, is made very clear the fact that for some high ranking officials, being a British subject and having "habits, language and religion" different from those of the English was incompatible and something to be corrected at the price of the cultural genocide of the existing Nation Canadienne, a distinct American people shaped by French civil law. Luckily the editors of the newspaper Le Canadien were more enlightened and saw no incompatibility with being Canadien and having origins other than Canadien. In the edition of May 21st, 1831 one can read:

Il n'y a pas, que nous sachions, de peuple français en cette province, mais un peuple canadien, un peuple religieux et moral, un peuple loyal et amoureux de la liberté en même temps, et capable d'en jouir; ce peuple n'est ni Français, ni Anglais, ni Écossais, ni Irlandais, ni Yanké, il est Canadien.

(There is not, as far as we know, any French people in this province, but a Canadian people, a people religious and moral, a people loyal and loving liberty at the same time, and capable of enjoying it; this people is neither French, nor English, nor Scottish, nor Irish, nor Yankee, it is Canadian.)

La Minerve, the other big liberal newspaper also thought the same in 1827:

"What is a Canadien? Genealogically, it is those whose ancestors inhabited the country before 1759 and of which laws, customs and language are conserved for them by treaties and constitutional acts. Politically, the 'Canadiens' are those who make common cause with the inhabitants of the country, those in which the name of this country awakens the sentiment of national homeland (patrie)... As soon as an inhabitant of the country shows that he is truly a citizen, no difference is to be made." (as cited in Denis Monière's Pour comprendre le nationalisme au Québec et ailleurs, Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal, p.92)

This "Canadian" people, the British colonial government worked very hard to divide along ethic lines and thanks to the division of language especially, they succeeded. Whereas many Irish, Scottish and English intermingled with the Canadians as they settled in Canada from 1763 to early 1780s, and subsequently came to think of themselves as Canadians too, the segregated ethnic enclaves created by Loyalists who had no intention of being anything but British anywhere in the British Empire, eventually grew bigger. Having little contact with the Canadians, those communities organized themselves independently from them and even got en entire province all to themselves in Upper Canada, isolating themselves completely from the duality that existed along the St. Lawrence river. Much later, when British North America became the Canadian federation, the second Canadian nationality and consequent nationalism was born, although as Dufour points out, it took a while to supplant British nationalism. But the original Canadian nation remained very determined to be loyal to Britain all the while conserving their distinct nationality. As for the loyalty of this people to the Crown, they proved it in 1812, two years after Craig's telling to London that they worshipped Napoleon and should consequently be erased from the map. In 1832, the same patriotic elected MPPs in Lower Canada, lawyers and notaries judged "ignorant" by Craig, would emancipate the Jews for the first time in the British Empire.

The polysemy of the word "Canada", it designating the conquered French Canada and later the federation of British American Provinces in which old French Canada became today's province Quebec leads to a great deal of confusion. The renaming to Quebecers took almost a century to occur. A nation does not give up its name just for fun. The first Canadian nation did not renamed itself as "Lower Canadians" either. Political realism forced the giving up of the self-identification as Canadien français, itself forced by the conditions set after Union of 1840. Yet, Louis-Joseph Papineau, already showed the way in 1867, arguing for a complete disregard of the new nation, ie, John A. Macdonald's new Dominion:

"Very blind are those who speak of the creation of a new nationality (allusion to Thomas D'Arcy McGee's writing), strong and harmonious, on the northern bank of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, and who are unaware of or denounce the major and providential fact that this nationality is already very well formed, that it is great, and growing unceasingly; that it cannot be confined to its current limits; that it has an irresistible force of expansion; that in the future it will be more and more made up of immigrants coming from all the countries in the world, no longer only from Europe, but soon from Asia, whose overpopulation is five times more numerous [than that of Europe] and no longer has any other outfall than America; composed, says I, of all races of men, who, with their thousand religious beliefs, large mix of errors and truths, are all pushed by the Providence towards this common rendez-vous that will melt in unity and fraternity all of the human family."

There is more than substantial evidence that as early as the 1800s, one could be, as Papineau and even Lafontaine were putting it "Canadien by birth or adoption". But there is no denying that the colonial context, the constant fighting against this nationality in every way possible, the preventing of its political institutions from evolving normally by confiscating the political power they should have had over themselves, the conservatism and defensiveness of the only elites tolerated by the British and later Canadian rulers (the unenlightened religious ones preaching obedience to the masters and fighting liberal nationalism), the constant hostility and intolerance of the colonial and occupying rulers towards them, the general poverty of the community, made adoption difficult, being limited, for a long period of time, to mostly Irish Catholics and small groups of English, Scottish, German here and there, until the time after WW II when both the old British Dominion and old French Quebec renovated their self-image around the same time. This is where we are at now, and the issue is not to accuse the nationalism of the other of being inherently bad, an opinion which can only be derived from prejudice, but of whether Canada will become multinational on top of being multiethnic or if Quebec will secede from it. -- Mathieugp 01:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll stay on topic, and avoid writing manifestos, as this is not the purpose of Wikitalk pages. Dufour clearly identifies the "Quebecois" not as those who identify with the Quebec nation, not as citizens of Quebec, but as the descendents of French-speaking settlers of Canada:

the French speaking ancestors of today’s Québécois were the only ones to feel and call themselves Canadian."

. He is clearly using the ethnic sense of the word Québécois. I was not being critical of this, or saying that it is the only definition used, I was just providing another reference in which a reputable source uses "Quebecois" to identify a French Canadian , something that has been repeatedly denied despite other refrerences like this.

Are you really unable to see that writing "the French speaking ancestors of today’s Québécois" implies that some Québécois do have ancestors who were different?? This is just pure reasoning. I am a Quebecer whose French-speaking ancestors were those historically known as French Canadians and before that Canadians. Many other Québécois do not, for example Québécois who were born abroad. This is very clear throughout the entire text of Dufour.

I'll elaborate with another quote from the article, which I have posted before:

"In its French-Canadian embodiment since 1840 and its Québécois embodiment since 1960, the identity of Quebec francophones has, in many ways, remained the fundamental Canadian identity throughout history2."

. So French Canadian and Quebecois nations are depicted as embodiments of Quebec francophone identity. That identity, in the 1960's, was defined by internal debates among French Canadians (including those who had immigrant ancestors that assimilated into French Canadian society), and did not include the Haitians and Algerian communities who came along later. this definition certainly does not include Quebec anglophones. Is that something based on ethnicity? It depends on which definition you adopt; personally, I think language plays the same polarizing role here as it does in places where there is religious, ethnic or racial strife, so that the question is largely one of semantics. --Soulscanner 19:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not because it is Quebec francophones who sustain the nationalism that non-francophones are prevented from joining in. Canadians are an English-speaking people, yet quantity of non-anglophones have joined in. This is a question of immigration policy and capacity to anglicize or francize newcomers. It helps when there is no competing nationalism and no institutions leading immigrants to assimilate to another cultural group. -- Mathieugp 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The transitions from French-Canadian to Quebecer/Québécois meant that future generations would have a territory they would consider their own, on which the majority would pass laws for the common good of all. This was the end of the survivalist ethnic ideology inside the Dominion which in the first place existed because the Canadiens lost political/territorial control over French Canada and therefore over the faith of their own community. This new territorial dimension of nationalism did not eliminate the linguistic and cultural one: it complemented it. -- Mathieugp 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The survivalist instinct was perfectly intact, as language laws were brought in to preserve the same culture that French Canadians had always sought to preserve. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, but the fact is that non-francophones, while able to sympathize with the French Canadian desire to keep their culture, will never have the same stake in doing so, just like Chritstians will never have the same stake in preserving the identity of Jews. It will just not happen. Anglophones and allophones have their own cultures and languages to enjoy, and should be considered equal to those of francophones by the government; anything else makes them second-class citizens. --Soulscanner 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody spoke of survivalist instinct. I wrote "survivalist ethnic ideology" which is what you wish for the majority of Quebecers to go back to since you are perfectly comfortable with the "French Canadian" ethnic nationalism, reactionary and defencive, the one of a minority inside the State of another nation. Quebecers are in their own country in Quebec, French is the language of every citizen as native or adoptive language. As a result, anglophones are more and more bilingual English-French, allophones are more and more bilingual X-French, as are all minorities in Ontario with English. Anglophones have no right to take away the linguistic rights of the majority just to avoid speaking the common language of Quebec. All humans can speak multiple languages as individuals. Your comparison with incompatible monotheist religions is absolute non-sense. -- Mathieugp 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As for ambiguity Quebecois identity and Quebecois citizenship, in English, as pointed out in the article, it is very clear that 'Quebecer' is usually used to identify citizenship and residence, whereas 'Quebecois' is generally used to describe personal identity, which can be related to language, cultural affinity, "sens d'arpentenance", or ancestry. At least you finally confirm above that these two senses of the word exists in Quebec. --Soulscanner 08:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not deny that has become the usage in English to give to Quebecois a meaning that Québécois does not have. This became quite obvious with the Harper motion which said something perfectly clear politically and legally in French and lead to a ridiculous controversy in English. I deny the conclusions you derive from this fact because it makes abstraction of other facts and so far you have been very good at supporting your conclusions with inferences that fail the most basic logic checks. -- Mathieugp 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you are denying definitions clearly spelled out in dictionaries. I cannot help you there. --Soulscanner 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It was made clear in this talk page or another that you wish for one definition not only to overrule the other one, which is the fist meaning, but you also infer all kinds of twisted conclusions from it. -- Mathieugp 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentiment d'appartenance is in people's minds and hearts, not in their blood. You have a lot of guts taking a excerpt of a text and try to make it say something else the author means to say, and all this inside an encyclopedia. You are taking advantage of the fact that most English speakers won't be able to read Dufour's text in its entirety. It will not work. -- Mathieugp 13:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would English speaker's not be able to read the text? It is in English.

This was clumsy on my part. The text is in English, but all the key words are in italics and he relies on the meaning of words and concepts in a foreign language. His text is virtually unreadable for someone who does not know French and Quebec history/politics. It has zero pedagogic value, but he might end up with a chaire du Canada if he continues to publish in English long enough. -- Mathieugp 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of adding this reference here is that we have a scholarly article in English by a francophone Quebec nationalist using Quebecois in a way that is different from Quebecer, a distinction some here have argued does not exist. I have also not said that identity is in the blood, as you accuse; I said that identity is a subjective thing (as you would put it, in your mind and heart), and can be based on several things, including ancestry. Identifying with your French Canadian ancestry would strengthen your personal affinity to the "Quebecois nation" if you live in Quebec. The extent is debatable, and perhaps impossible to discern, owing to the fact that only you can know your own heart, and many might be reluctant to admit to this in an age of political correctness. --Soulscanner 19:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of this reference is obvious: you are hunting for anything to support your indestructible prejudice that only Canadian nationalism is territorial. Who does not know or denies that francophones are the ones identifying as Québécois/Quebecers, as their national identity and anglophones are the ones identifying as Canadians/Canadiens? This changes nothing to the fact that in both cases, those who do not (yet) identify with the majority of the people on the territory are treated by the State, by the law, by all that is officially enforced by government and financed by public taxes for the common good, as Québécois/Quebecers or Canadians/Canadiens anyway. Without the competition of the two States, would there even be something to talk about? -- Mathieugp 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are inventing motivations. I am merely providing more evidence of the way even Quebec nationalists use the word "Quebecois". People can read it for themselves and decide how it is used. I also know fully well that there are Quebec nationalists that see English as a fully Quebecois language, as being as essential to the character of Quebec as French, and who believe fully in bilingualism; unfortunately, they are very quiet about it, which is a shame. --Soulscanner 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not inventing. You refer to Quebec nationalists, yet you never refer to Canadian nationalists. You are trying to make the rule out of exceptions to suit your purpose. -- Mathieugp 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we agree on this: Being Quebecois, as it is used in English, is primarily (but not exclusively) a case of "sens d'appartenance", which depends on a personal affinity for francophone culture in Quebec? --Soulscanner 19:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we do not agree. Being Quebecois, as it is used in English, is primarily (but not exclusively) a case of "sens d'appartenance", which depends on a personal affinity with Quebec society, without rejecting the fundamental character of this society, which goes without saying for most people but involves civility and open mindedness for individuals who strongly identify with Canada as a nation made out of ten equal provinces and do not consider nor want to consider themselves as immigrating to Quebec, especially not when they are born there. Two large groups of people consider themselves born in their own country inside Quebec, but it does not mean the same thing for both groups. This is the result of two successive colonizations and its consequences, the rise of two nationalism which overlap. To deny this, which is straightforward and obvious and the starting point of understanding what is going on in the minds of Quebecers, might explain the need for a wacky thesis like yours, which will always be received as defamation by rational people who try to understand. To say that French-Canadian is synonymous with Quebecois or worst Québécois is to assert that the past 40 years have not occurred. -- Mathieugp 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is to assert a simple fact. Quebec nationalism is an attempt to use the Quebec state, at it's best, to raise the standard of living of French Canadians living in Quebec, and at its worst, to use the state to force language, culture, customs and values on others living in the province; the stronger these are forced, the more they are resisted and resented. The less they are forced, the more they are accepted. It is a question of seeing an ethnic nationalist attitude of seeing English and French nations as locked in mortal combat and seeking dominance over one another based on cultural values, or as two equal linguistic groups seeking to share the same territory based on common civic values and cultural and linguistic equality. There is no need for one culture to dominate the other. --Soulscanner 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to ignore the definition of a fact. You are confusing your interpretation of reality with a fact. You are, whether you are conscious of it or not, fighting against the majority of Quebecer behaving as a free majority. Yet you do not do the same for other majorities. You are denying the existence of the original injustice so as to justify being against actions to restore justice and balance between two groups. Following your logic, the only language group allowed to be a free majority in Canada is the English-speaking one, the others are to be bilingual and adapt. This would be fine by me if Canada was not a multinational State and a federation, but their are other groups who are at home only in some part of Canada. Equality is that each nation enjoy the same rights are anglophones in what they consider their country. They need a territory of their own where the same logic will apply. Italians have it, Germans have it, French people have it and in each case it is uncontested. For nations that do not have a sovereign State, things are more complicated, but arrangements are possible and there are many examples in the world. You really ought to read on sociolinguistics and linguistic rights. Please read this at the very least http://www.linguistic-declaration.org/index-gb.htm -- Mathieugp 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you quote this: "The problem with the Canadian political system is that it fails to consider the fact that Quebec constitutes the only non-anglophone society on a massively English-speaking continent (where francophones are outnumbered 40 to 1) that tends to consider Quebec society as an ethnic phenomenon." You are a perfect example case of an individual who pathologically refuses to consider the territorial and political aspect of Quebec nationalism and reject it as a vulgar ethnic phenomenon. You can't just quote out of context all the time. The semantic ambiguity you are playing with would not even have been possible in the French language version of this text. -- Mathieugp 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider pride in one's culture vulgar. I consider it vulgar to see to use the state to impose culture, religion, or language on others, especially by using the state. --Soulscanner 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you give a nonsensical definition of ethnic nationalism. Should anglophones also abandon the support of the State they control to impose their language on others? What about the Americans? You must be able to draw a line between a people using its own State to keep its language alive, pass it own to future generations of citizens, and a people using it to conquer new territories. -- Mathieugp 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Anglophones in Canada have: they have made Canada an officially bilingual country, have made French part of their national identity, and have made its preservation a part of the national project. If Quebec nationalists did the same with English, there would be much more harmony. As for the Americans, even an arch-conservative like George Bush is smart enough to learn Spanish in a largely Hispanic state. I'll leave it that. I don't want to provoke another long nationalist manifesto. --Soulscanner 07:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quebec is a nation, not Quebecois

I removed the whole paragraph. If you look up in Oxford American Dictionary you will see Quebecois or Quebecker means inhabitant or native of Quebec. Stop changing the meaning of the words ! Are we just like in the 1984 novel? Pgsylv 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the Canadian House of Commons motion, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, said: "...this House recognize[s] that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada...". As you can see the motion does not say "...this House recognize[s] that Québec form a nation within a united Canada...". nat^tang 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Title

I just noticed something really stupid.. This is the English wikipedia, and the title of the article is written in French using characters that don't exist in the English character set. Since this is an English encyclopedia that's used by english speakers throughout the world shouldn't the article be named as such. Like: Quebecers or French Speaking Quebecers.

searching for "Quebecer" redirects to the page called "Québécois" which is titled in a language other than english, Does this make sense in an English language encyclopedia, I checked just checked Canadiana, and Britanica.. no foreign language titles there.. and it looks like a rotted and neglected stub article. Someone who doesn't speak the local quebec english pigeon doesn't have a clue about this..

So, since this is the "English" wikipedia wouldn't it make more sense to title the articles in english, and then define "Québécois" in the begining of the french article, and and in the "English Speaking Quebecer" article describe the difference in meaning of the local dialect "loan word 'Québécois'" and link to this article..

For example "quebecer" in the french wiki doesn't find an article. Just as typinng Nihonjin in kanji doesn't return any results in either the french or english wikipedia.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.141.88 (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything you wrote is pure common sense to me. Unfortunately, a particular user, User:Soulscanner, has prevented many of us from fixing this old problem as he/she insists on using this page as a high-visibility platform to promote his/her absurd point of view of Quebec nationalism of which he is a political adversary. By the accident of an inexperienced user who proposed a deletion of the page (which failed), the case was made worst that it should have been. Many solutions have been proposed, but turning Québécois into a simple disambiguation page was the one solution that seemed most reasonable to me. However, in order to do this, we need a consensus. -- Mathieugp 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was against this option. Please respect this consensus. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. --Soulscanner 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a factual mistake. Failure to reach consensus on delete (which was not my favourite option by the way) failed. There is no more a consensus on delete, or disambiguation, or status quo as any other option. The impossibility to achieve consensus on a way to resolve the issue means we are stalled, which favours the status quo. Frustrations over the whole thing has lead many of the original players to quit. Consequently, the status quo was reinforced despite it being judged unacceptable to various people. -- Mathieugp 02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There IS a Québécois (disambiguation) page. You wanted to see the Québécois article deleted and redirected to that page, and proceeded to do so despite the consensus. When corrective actions were taken, you stopped deleteing the article, and consented to abide by the decision (See Consensus in practice).

Wikipedia has various ways of reaching consensus. The dispute settling mechanism that decided to keep the article and define its scope defines the consensus. I did not agree with the narrow scope defined there, but I recognize it as a consensus and I respect it in all my edits. Consensus, on Wikipedia, does not require all people to agree with that consensus, it just requires that they abide by it in their actions. Indeed, with many here pushing their personal ideological beliefs as undisputed fact with long manifestos, everyone agreeing would be impossible. Please respect Wikipedia policies in this regard. Do not say there is no consensus when there is. --Soulscanner 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you assert things you must know to be factually incorrect. I wanted Québécois to be the disambiguation page. The other was created by myself after since the incident of the failed attempt at deleting froze the content of Québécois. I am only stating facts here. Other users succeeded at preventing your complete hijacking of the article, which is now reduced in content but still contains mostly your POV. Notice how all the original players have given up and went back to editing serious articles. In the long run, you cannot win, because we are in an encyclopedia here, not inside The Gazette. When more serious contents on Quebec will have been written/translated, your POV will be revealed and will have the place it deserves.-- Mathieugp 13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

1) The article documents where "Quebecois" is commonly used in the English language. This includes references to dictionaries, scholarly articles, newspaper articles, and even Parliamentary motions. It is a documented English word, and not a local dialect.

2) We can have "Quebecer" and "Quebecker" redirect to "Quebec". But this article should stay. --Soulscanner 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Added reference to support definitions

LYSIANE GAGNON, of course, was the editor of Quebec's largest french-language daily, and knows a thing or two about how language is used:

"During the 1980s, ethnicity became an unsavoury concept because it smacked of ethnocentricity and xenophobia. Sovereigntist leaders replaced it with the concept of a “civic nation” that would exclusively refer to contemporary, multicultural Quebec — never mind that practically nobody outside the French-Canadian community feels part of a Quebec nation.

This semantic about-face had several advantages for sovereigntists: It excluded the word “Canadian” (as in French Canadian) from the political vocabulary; it masked the existence of the French-speaking minorities (always a problem for sovereigntists); it provided an attractive (if false) image of the sovereigntist movement as a wide gathering of Quebeckers of various origins, and finally, it would lead to sovereignty, seen as full nationhood. But it was a linguistic fraud.

In the process, French Canadians lost their identity. Those who live in Quebec are the only community in Canada without a name. They use periphrases to identify themselves, describing themselves as “francophones” (but this also applies to people of Haitian or Lebanese descent) or as “old-stock Quebeckers” (but this also applies to the anglophone minority of British origin).

Yet, the distinctions prevail in the daily language. Quebec anglophones routinely use the French term (“Québécois”) to refer to French Canadians. When the late premier René Lévesque appointed Robert Boyd to the board of Hydro-Québec, he said with a wink: “He's a good Québécois” (meaning, he's a French Canadian despite his English surname).

The word Québécois, or Quebecker, has two meanings: It designates the citizenry at large who share the same driver's licence and health-care card. But when it comes to identity, French Canadian and Québécois are synonyms, as in “At my school, there are more Haitians and Arabs than Québécois.” Or, speaking of a Quebec-born Jew who married a French Canadian: “He married a Québécoise.”

The concept of a civic nation uniquely based in Quebec was created by the sovereigntists for tactical purposes. The provincial Liberals, under pressure to cater to the nationalist vote, foolishly fell into the semantic trap. They too have been half-heartedly talking about the “Quebec nation” for a few years. And then, Michael Ignatieff and the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada blindly followed suit. They should have known that words are not innocent.[25]

Of course, the usual suspects here will deny this and accuse Ms. Gagnon of being racist against francophones for merely stating facts. Sigh. --Soulscanner 07:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see who could accuse her of being racist. She is correct in some of her observations, but her political bias, and not the least of biases, and her ignorance of historical facts (or blindness?) mislead her in her conclusions. She writes:

"During the 1980s, ethnicity became an unsavoury concept because it smacked of ethnocentricity and xenophobia. Sovereigntist leaders replaced it with the concept of a “civic nation” that would exclusively refer to contemporary, multicultural Quebec — never mind that practically nobody outside the French-Canadian community feels part of a Quebec nation.

First of all, she is wrong to attribute the concept of civic nation to sovereignists. The sovereignist movement, founded in 1968, did not exist when the change occurred. It is the Liberals of Jean Lesage who rendered the expression Canadien français quasi-obsolete among the political class. While autonomists like Jean Lesage and Lévesque were in power, André D'Allemagne, her husband, still spoke of the French Canadian nation and Quebec people as distinct like most indépendantistes, i.e., one was the majority in the other. Identification as Québécois, the territory, the country to be, not the province, was indeed then only a reality among francophones or francophiles, and continues to be so today to a great extent. The ambiguity between Quebec, the country to be, and Quebec, the province of Canada, is very much visible in the French language culture of Quebec, while it is absent in the English language culture of Canada (and Quebec) because the number of people infatuated with the dream of independence if more than marginal in this language.

This semantic about-face had several advantages for sovereigntists: It excluded the word “Canadian” (as in French Canadian) from the political vocabulary; it masked the existence of the French-speaking minorities (always a problem for sovereigntists); it provided an attractive (if false) image of the sovereigntist movement as a wide gathering of Quebeckers of various origins, and finally, it would lead to sovereignty, seen as full nationhood. But it was a linguistic fraud.

Naturally, her premise being factually incorrect does not help. Her assertion that it "masked the existence of the French-speaking minorities" is something that only seem to make sense to a person who ignores (or conveniently makes abstraction of) the existence of a much greater number of "French-speaking minorities" in the United States who were also French Canadians not too long ago. Only adversaries of Quebec nationalism conveniently speak of a Canadian Francophony, i.e., a British North American Francophony while Quebec nationalists, and especially those who favour independence, speak of French-speaking America (and of our Americanness), and evoke the obvious new capacity of a French-speaking State to better support minorities all over the continent.

In the process, French Canadians lost their identity. Those who live in Quebec are the only community in Canada without a name. They use periphrases to identify themselves, describing themselves as “francophones” (but this also applies to people of Haitian or Lebanese descent) or as “old-stock Quebeckers” (but this also applies to the anglophone minority of British origin).

Indeed. The contemporary Quebec national identity is incompatible with Quebec being a province in an unchanged Canadian nation-state. Its funny how she implies that sovereignists are at the origin of Quebecers of French-Canadian culture being deprived of their name! How convenient to ignore the initial usurpation of the Canadien gentilic as a result of British North America being given the name of Canada in 1867 while the historical Canada was renamed, definitively this time, the province of Quebec. But lunatics, dreaming of a revanche des berceaux, imagined that the old Canadians would eventually outnumber all British North Americans and reconquer federal Canada.

Yet, the distinctions prevail in the daily language. Quebec anglophones routinely use the French term (“Québécois”) to refer to French Canadians. When the late premier René Lévesque appointed Robert Boyd to the board of Hydro-Québec, he said with a wink: “He's a good Québécois” (meaning, he's a French Canadian despite his English surname).

Yes, the implications of the name change was rejected by anglophones who continued to view French Canadians as an ethnic minority of their country despite the pretencion of the provincial politicians. “He's a good Québécois”. The interpretation she gives is unlikely to be connected with reality. Deprived from context, the reader is unable to judge by himself or herself. How dishonest.

The word Québécois, or Quebecker, has two meanings: It designates the citizenry at large who share the same driver's licence and health-care card. But when it comes to identity, French Canadian and Québécois are synonyms, as in “At my school, there are more Haitians and Arabs than Québécois.” Or, speaking of a Quebec-born Jew who married a French Canadian: “He married a Québécoise.”

She is entirely correct. Most Quebec anglophones, in their world of sense, remained Canadians who live in Quebec. Meanwhile, the Charter of the French language gave rise to a generation of French-speaking Quebecers who are more multiethnic than ever before. These ones are not united by common descent, common native language, certainly not by religion, but by a shared culture resulting from their participation to civic institutions which function primarily in French, the official language of Quebecers. Every one in Quebec is free to participate. Lysiane Gagnon is too old to have experienced what it means to be brought up in a world where the old segregations between Franco-Catholic and Anglo-Protestant seem literally folkloric.

The concept of a civic nation uniquely based in Quebec was created by the sovereigntists for tactical purposes. The provincial Liberals, under pressure to cater to the nationalist vote, foolishly fell into the semantic trap. They too have been half-heartedly talking about the “Quebec nation” for a few years. And then, Michael Ignatieff and the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada blindly followed suit. They should have known that words are not innocent.

Well here the cat comes out of the bag and her partisanship is no longer hidden. She repeats the factually incorrect premise that sovereignists invented the civic nation. She is right though that sovereignists supported the concept for tactical purposes: they wished for Quebecers to self-assert immediately, before independence, so as to make self-determination unavoidable and only a question of time, not a question of feasibility. Michael Ignatieff, who knows for a fact that Quebec liberals support the new political Québécois identity their party is mostly responsible for, is the one who did not blind himself. -- Mathieugp 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed a few things in the article just to make it more clear. Pgsylv 18:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is very funny, someone wrote Gaybecker, that is very funny ! It's true we are all gay. But you know, if Canadien Nation hates us, why don'T they just separate from us. They are hetero, we are homo... Pgsylv 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate the minutiae of the article and publish manifestos of my personal political beliefs. I'm here to document how the reference fits into the article. I recommend others do the same. I've addressed the few relevant issues Mathieugp brought up below. --Soulscanner 06:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Added French version of Gagnon article as reference [26]

Clearly, Quebecois refers to French Canadians living in Quebec in certain contexts in both French and English. Gagnon was refering to common usage among ordinary French-Canadian francophones. It is not a conspiracy by evil anglophones and a corporate media, as has been so often depicted here. The relevant section of these two articles are:

English version: The word Québécois, or Quebecker, has two meanings: It designates the citizenry at large who share the same driver's licence and health-care card. But when it comes to identity, French Canadian and Québécois are synonyms, as in “At my school, there are more Haitians and Arabs than Québécois.” Or, speaking of a Quebec-born Jew who married a French Canadian: “He married a Québécoise.”

French Version: Même chez les francophones de vieille souche, le mot "Québécois" est devenu, dans la langue populaire, synonyme de "Canadien français". On dira, par exemple: "Dans ma classe, il y a autant d'Arabes et de Haïtiens que de Québécois." Ou alors, parlant d'un Juif pourtant né au Québec: "Il a épousé une Québécoise." Souvenez-vous de René Lévesque, alors qu'il annonçait la nomination de Robert Boyd à la tête d'Hydro-Québec: avec un clin d'oeil, il soulignait que M. Boyd était "un bon Québécois" (sous-entendu: malgré son patronyme écossais).

The ethno-cultural sense of the word exists in both languages. If anglophones in Quebec refer to French Canadians as Quebecois, it is out deference to their chosen identity, not out of some racist conspiracy to malign them. The reason they do not share that identity is simple: they are not French Canadian.--Soulscanner 06:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, many Quebec anglophones do not identify as members of the political community which is in the majority French-speaking and which uses French as the common language of public affairs. As a result, they see the Québécois as others, as those French Canadians of Quebec who call themselves as such, and rank them among the various minorities of Canada. Meanwhile, francophones, allophones, and anglophones who do identify as members of this political community and agree that French is the common language of public affairs, have no problem being referred to or referring to themselves as Québécois like the majority does. In the French language, there is no possible way to distinguish between Québécois and Quebecers since there is only one word. Much like there are Anglo-Canadians who typically call themselves Canadians alone, since they identify with Canada and not some other place their parents or ancestors may have come from, there are Franco Quebecers who just call themselves Quebecers (in their language Québécois) for the same reasons. The two national identities clash in Montreal because the two groups expect that it is the other who should be the minority in the place.

Lysiane Gagnon uses fallacious arguments to support her conclusions. She implies that since people distinguish between Arabes, Haïtiens, and Québécois, it is because Québécois does not mean all Quebecers. This is a flawed argument as can be easily proved by stating how Canadians or Americans (or else) will naturally do the same. When I lived in Western Canada, Chinese Canadians were called Chinese, Japanese Canadians only Japanese, and I was called a French for years by most people around me. While British Canadians just referred to themselves as Canadians, they referred to members of minorities through shorter names than the full politically correct term. People interested in the subject can read on colloquialism instead of thinking that Franco Quebecers or British Canadians do not consider minorities as equal members in spite of their difference of origin, language or religion.

The constant stream of newspapers articles stating or implying that in Quebec there is a dangerous nationalist movement, unlike the beautiful and virtuous Canadian one, is part of an effort to discredit the political claims of Quebec sovereignists. Since the 1995 referendum, the attacks and the slanders, aiming to influence international public opinion and ethnic minorities in Quebec, have degenerated because the Canadian regime knows the evil separatist can actually win the support of the majority. In 2000, Joseph Biden, democrat senator of Delaware, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, stated that in time of peace, the Canadian foreign policy is to fight Quebec. [27] -- Mathieugp 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not put the article here because I agree with opinions here, I just put it there because it shows that there are academics and leaders in French Quebec who have various perspectives on how the word is used in French, and various people here have denied that the word is used this way, and tried to delete this article in the process. I'm not here to push my personal political views, and I pretty much know what yours are, so please save yourself some writers cramp and stick to discussing matters related to wiki policy and the article rather than soapboxing about conspiracies against Quebec. --Soulscanner 16:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Québécois, English

This may or may not have been addressed, I did not read through the entire talk page as I found the various personal attacks and politically coloured rants from all sides tiresome. Anyways, when I read the article I was left with the assumption that the term Québécois could not refer to English speaking residents of Québec. I do not believe that it is correct to assume that no people of English mother tongue identify as Québécois. Basser g 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my contibution to arguing issues of politics instead of sticking to writing a neutral article. I am now attempting to stay clear of political arguements and focus solely on the article on this discussion page as a recognize it is tiresome for editors to wade through the wads of political rhetoric and personal attacks found here.

As for the definitions here, I think it's clear. Some English speakers do, and some do not refer to themselves as Quebecois, and I think the definitions makes it clear that, in English, Quebecois can be used to mean 1) anyone who lives in Quebec, 2) someone who identifies with Quebec's francophone culture, or c) A French Canadian in Quebec. These are dictionary definitions that document this usage, so it's acceptable in the Wiki article. Generally, when someone talks of his "quebecois" friend in English, they are referring to "French Canadian in Quebec" because many find the word "French Canadian" or French antiquated or insulting,a nd the word francophone somewhat clinical. I would never refer to myself as Quebecois in English, and would hesitate to do so in French. Of course, that is just in my circles, so I do not include that in the article. --Soulscanner 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)