Talk:René Lévesque

RFC: How should René Lévesque be described in the lead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How should René Lévesque be described in the lead?

• A) Canadian politician
  or
• B) Québécois politician

GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• A - As he was a Canadian & having looked over the bios of some other provincial & territorial premiers. They use "Canadian politician" in their leads, including the leads of Quebec premiers from the PQ -
  Pierre Marc Johnson (Canadian lawyer, physician and politician),
  Jacques Parizeau (Canadian politician),
  Bernard Landry (Canadian politician),
  Pauline Marois (Canadian politician).
  Also, Lucien Bouchard uses (French Canadian lawyer, diplomat and retired politician). GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the above vote and reasoning. Dobblesteintalk 17:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• B - the governing guideline, MOS:ETHNICITY, says that the lead should be guided by the context of notability relayed by the highest quality reliable sources. As I understand the sourcing, the context they support is "Québecois". The existence of other biographies that may or may not correspond to the sourcing is essentially an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS situation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• A G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• A - "Québécois" is typically used to refer to a specific group of people, the French-speaking descendants of French settlers. Per MOS:ETHNICITY: Ethnicity … should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Levesque's notability is not tied to his membership in this group (his election as premier was not notable for being the first time the province was lead by a Québécois) so putting this right in the lead is not relevant or appropriate. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• A but with a compromise - include both. "René Lévesque was a Canadian politician, journalist and Québécois nationalist who served as the 23rd premier of Quebec..." or something to the effect.--unsigned comment by WildComet
• A for all the reasons stated in the previous discussion above. In summary, he was a Canadian. As we write for an international audience, we should state that first. There is also no need to identify him as a Québécois in the first part of the first sentence, because immediately afterwards we already note that he was premier of Quebec, then a Québécois political leader, then involved in Quebec independence and sovereignty, and finally that he founded the Parti Québécois. All of this in four sentences of the lede. How many times do we have to say Quebec or Québécois in the lede to make some people happy?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• A For reasons already stated. Kind regards, --✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 22:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• A As Darryl Kerrigan points out, we already make extensive mentions of his Quebec connections in the lead. I think it does a disservice to non-Canadian readers to hide the fact that he was Canadian. Meters (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• A don't presume everyone knows Quebec is in Canada and that someone from Quebec is Canadian. We should be clear and not presume knowledge like that on the reader. The fact he was indeed a Canadian politician isn't disputed. Canterbury Tail talk 17:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• A. This is a no brainer. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• A. As I've stated elsewhere, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, whether from Quebec or Toronto or Victoria, B.C. Regardless of Lévesque's own views on his nationality, he was born a Canadian (outside Quebec, incidentally), lived a Canadian and died a Canadian. That's the only thing that should matter. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.--unsigned comment by TheCelebrinator
• A - Lead could read as "[René Lévesque] was a Canadian politician and journalist who served as the 23rd premier of Quebec from 1976 to 1985. He was the first Québécois political leader since [...]" which mentions he is Québécois immediately. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• C First off, I think some of the above commenters aren't fully aware of the, uh, political relationship between Quebec and Canada.

Anyways, what is option C? I vote for 'all of the above': René Lévesque was a Québecois Canadian politician... Cremastra (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it is necessary to refer to him as both (Canadian and Québecois) in that way? Even if, as is currently the case, the rest of the first sentence notes that he was the "23rd premier of Quebec" and the second sentence of the lede notes that he was a "Québécois political leader"? I understand this RfC to only be about the first half of the first sentence in the lede as that was what was been edit warred about. I am not sure your suggestion that commenters are unaware of Quebec's political situation is correct, it just seems to me that many are just happy with the balance present in this version of the lede. Or this one.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Note - On December 8, 2023, a notice was placed on the Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board concerning this RfC.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Note - On December 11, 2023, a notice was placed on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government concerning this RfC.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• B per Newimpartial. Two weeks ago I commented below that we should follow sources rather than personal opinions or what other biographies do, and nearly every comment since then has been a personal opinion or exploring what other biographies do. Lévesque was Québécois (whether that's an ethnicity or a nationality or a demographic is not really relevant) and sources describe him as such per Newimpartial's argument; writing for an international audience is irrelevant because readers are capable of clicking on either Quebec or Québécois to learn the relevant context without us going out of our way to spoon feed it to them. Or in other words: nobody is Québécois and not Canadian. Furthermore he is known primarily for his nearly lifelong advocacy for Quebec sovereignty, and insisting that he must be described as Canadian first is a POV slap in the face to the man's legacy, and a black mark on Wikipedia's reputation as a source of neutral information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect many will disagree with you. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  That happens. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• A I looked through List of premiers of Quebec by time in office and not once was the premier simply described as Québécois in the lead. It was Canadian, French-Canadian, or no descriptor. Besides that, I agree with User:Kawnhr's points. Masterhatch (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Both A and B and it should be that way for all Quebecois figures, particularly separatists like Levesque. There have even been attempts to enshrine in the written constitution that quebec is a distinct society and that Quebec is a nation within Canada. I don't think people are considering the full picture here. Look at Scotland, probably the closest contemporary analogue for Quebec, where politicians are described as being "Scottish" despite Scotland being a mere devolved district of the unitary Britain and not even a federal constituent (see for example Nicola Sturgeon). Call him a Quebecois Canadian like Cremastra said. JM (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023: you may want to bring that argument to the talkpage of WP:CANADA, if you're proposing to include that for all politicians from the province. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Both A and B — Sadko (words are wind) 14:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Why should we use both in the first part of the first sentence? The rest of the first sentence already notes that he was the "23rd premier of Quebec" and the second sentence of the lede notes that he was a "Québécois political leader". There are numerous mentions of his Quebec and Québécois connections which will remain regardless.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sadko: Check over the lead. We're merely asking if "Quebecois politician" should be replaced with "Canadian politician" GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I did and I'm not in favor. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 17:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

So @Sadko:... you're saying use "Canadian and Quebecois politician..."? GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, using only one option is too limiting in all sorts of way. — Sadko (words are wind) 06:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, it is. Maybe we should be revisiting whole lede as opposed to just the first part of the first sentence, as those arguing for both seem to be disregarding the other extensive mentions of Quebec and Québécois in the lede, and the current absence of any mention of Canada/Canadian. If the only mention of Canada is going to be prefaced with a reference to ethnicity contrary to MOS:ETHNICITY, the other mentions seem unnecessary and/or undue in the circumstances. Perhaps a complete rewrite of the lede is needed then.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• A He's a Canadian politician who was premier of Quebec. Meters (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that he was actually a Federal politician for aa significant period before he became a provincial politician. Meters (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• A & B - (Brought here from RFC/A) I do think that including both has its merits as it covers all the bases, as opposed to using just one option is limiting and the purpose of the lead is to give a summary of the notability and weight from the body. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Both A & B, also called Option C. The describer "Québecois Canadian politician" given by Cremastra. It will not right proper to call him only Canadian since he was a separatist and it is almost like taking a side in a nation debate by in manner rejecting the nation he marked himself with. Both will cover it all since he was within the Canadian state as well, obviously. Braxmate (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• A but I do think A & B is a good solution here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I've opened this RFC, due to ongoing discussion on the topic & back-and-forth reverting, concerning the topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Kawnhr: in 21st-Century French (and English), "Québecois" is primarily used in refernece to the residents of Quebec, not a specific ethnic group. And what MOS:ETHNICITY actually mandates is to pay attention to the context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, The sources seem to suggest that Quebec not Canada, is most relevant to the subject's notability, which is what the guideline mandates. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC) moved, and addressee added Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  It may be used that way in French, but this is the English Wikipedia, and English has a long history of applying its own connotations to the words it borrows. I generally see "Quebecois" used to mean an ethnic group, and this meaning was part of the controversy behind the Québécois nation motion. I will grant that it's a term of several meanings… but I will also say that that ambiguity is a reason it should be avoided.

  As for sources suggesting that his notability is tied to Quebec specifically rather than Canada more generally: sure, but this is true of any regional politician. For example, articles about Rob Ford generally identified him as a "Toronto" mayor or politician — the NYT's obituary doesn't even mention "Canada" once! — but I don't think anybody would argue that we should thus identify him foremost as a Torontonian. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, we wouldn't have Ford's bio lead as "Torontonian politician" or (another example) NS Premier Tim Houston as "Nova Scotian politician". GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• The compromise suggested by WildComet might be a good idea. ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 22:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am not necessarily opposed to this, but it is worth asking why the balance the lede previously struck isn't enough. In the lede we note he was premier of Quebec, a Québécois political leader, involved in Quebec independence and sovereignty, and finally that he founded the Parti Québécois. What does calling him a "Québécois nationalist" add that isn't already there? If we adopt the "compromise" are we then going to reduce some of the other mentions of his Quebec bonafides?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• @WildComet: The second sentence reads - "He was the first Québécois political leader...". This seems to cover the 'compromise' concerns. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• If describing Levesque as "Canadian" is contentious, I would rather we follow the Nicolaus Copernicus example and omit the nationality entirely. Because I think calling him a "Quebec(ois) politician" will result in editors taking that as reason to use a sub-national identity for other politicians — and it wouldn't be hard to find supporting evidence to say that, say, Danielle Smith identifies herself as "Albertan" more frequently, or that she's described that way in coverage, etc despite a clear difference in reason. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What's the source for the statement that Québécois refers to the residents of Quebec regardless of ethnicity? I note that Québécois people says the opposite: Québécois ... is a word used primarily to refer to a French-speaking inhabitant of the Canadian province of Quebec." 184.146.164.157 (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That's the problem I have with Québécois: when we call him a politician we should refer to the region in which he operated, not his ethnicity. No one for example would call Obama an African American politician. TFD (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer that question: for French, just consult any dictionary's entry for "Québecois". And concerning English meanings in particular, please note that the designation you quote from wikipedia a French-speaking inhabitant of the Canadian province of Quebec, is not an ethnic descriptor. Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Even if Quebecois is only a linguistic group, I can't see why we would use it identify Lévesque. Language might not be listed in MOS:ETHNICITY but surely the same principle applies of only mentioning it if it's related to notability. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we clearly should apply it that way. I think part of the problem with the term is that it means different things to different people (sometime different things to the same people). Even our article on Québécois people is self contradicting. The second sentence of the lede reads The term is most often used in reference to descendants of the French settlers in Quebec and people of any ethnicity who live in the province.. Well, which is it? Only people of French Canadian ancestry? Or all people (of any ethnicity or mother tongue) who reside in Quebec? I have always believed that Quebecer means a resident of Quebec, while Québécois only refers to those with French Canadian heritage. When famous Canadian and Quebec/Québécois politician Jacques Parizeau blamed the Quebec independence referendum loss on "money and the ethnic vote", I hardly think he included non-white non-francophones among "Québécois". We also have Québécois language redirecting to Quebec French, which adds another layer of confusion. It just isn't clear what "Québécois" even really means, some seem to be clear it is more than just residence in Quebec and is an ethnicity and culture, while others suggest it is just about language, and further others just a matter of residence. Anyway, it seems a bit cute to suggest that Québécois is only about language given all of this, or that MOS:ETHNICITY thus does not apply.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Kawnhr, it seems to me that the defining aspect of this article is that that Levesque's being Québecois precisely is related to - well, more than related to, pretty much defining of - his notability according to the WP:HQRS. So MOS:ETHNICITY tells us to follow this in the lead.

Darryl Kerrigan, I don't think you have addressed the point that MOS:ETHNICITY tells us to use the context of nationality that is relevant to notability. Most national labels, including Québecois, have multiple significations in different contexts; for example, Fijian can be an indigenous identity or an ethnic identity or a citizenship, depending on the context. That doesn't prevent enwiki articles from using the term Fijian in articles when HQRS use the term. You haven't really given a reason not to follow the sources and the guideline on this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Read MOS:Ethnicity and my comments above. MOS:Ethnicity says we should avoid these sort of ethnic labels in the first sentence of a lede... but that if significantly important to the topic they can be introduced in the second, third etc. We have significant mention of Québecois after the first sentence. We don't need it in the first sentence, and MOS:Ethnicity says it shouldn't be in the first sentence.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY does not seem to say what you think it does. It says The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident. It does not say, "use the passport nationality, not the region or territory". And the section on ethnicity certainly doesn't say that mentions of ethnic or linguistic identities should be deferred to later in the lead; the closest thing to that is the Isaac Asimov example, and if you think the sources support the conceit that the identifier "Jewish" plays the same role in relation to Asimov's claim to notability that "Québecois" plays to Lévesque's, I would suggest that you take a look at the sources again. The guidance you expect to find in MOS:ETHNICITY just isn't there, as far as I can tell.

MOS:ETHNICITY certainly does not say that a term used nearly universally in HQRS should be excluded from the lead sentence because it might be read as an ethnic label, which is the steelman version of your argument as best as I can manage. It actually says, like the other sections of MOS:BIO, to follow the practices of the best sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have a different interpretation of MOS:ETHNICITY and WP:RF than all other editors who have so far participated in the survey above. There is not much more to say.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we define "Québécois" as meaning "French as a first language" or "of French settler descent", I don't see how it's defining of Lévesque's notability. Yes, they were absolutely part of his self-identity, but they also aren't unusual aspects of oneself in Quebec. This isn't a situation like James Gladstone, where his place in the history books is in no small part because he was the first Treaty Indian to be appointed Senator… Lévesque's ethnic and/or linguistic membership is so expected as to be trivial. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Lévesque played as large a role as any single figure in the shift away from "French Canadian" national identity as predominant in Quebec towards the pre-eminence of "Québecois" identity. To say that his membership as Québecois is so expected as to be trivial seems to be a complete misreading of the factual situation, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I would imagine that a national identity would imply the existence of a country or nationality, but there has never been a country nor a nationality of Quebec. When Quebecers mainly identified as French-Canadian, it was with the understanding that they're ethnically French, but Canadian in nationality. The emergence of a more regional instead of ethnic-based identity like Quebec does not negate the nationality aspect - Quebec has already had two referendums on the issue and most of us voted to affirm their Canadian identity. Maybe you didn't, or couldn't vote before you're not a Quebecer, but the fact remains - a regional identity should never be mistaken for nationality. Lévesque's case is no different. TheCelebrinator (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This comment is a great example of why content issues should be decided based on reliable sources and not based on the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors. A large number of !voters appear to have arrived at this discussion to opine that "nationality" requires the existence of "a country", but that is simply a personal opinion strongly held by certain editors and does not reflect what the WP:HQRS on the topic of nationality have to say, nor does it reflect what the reliable sources state in the context of specific biographies such as this one.

When it comes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, MOS:ETHNICITY does not say anything like, "use the nation state rather than the region", it says "use the nation state or the region that aligns with the notability of the subject". A whole lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS !votes pointing to biographies that do lean into Westaphalian passport nationality provide more heat than light, IMO, when they conflict with both P&Gs and HQRS. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Now you are giving a third possible interpretation of "Québecois", which is all the more reason to avoid it. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I can consult any French dictionary, and you won't come back to me later and say, "Oh, no, not that dictionary; it doesn't count."? 184.146.164.157 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• The proposer left out the most common description, Quebec politician or the option of leaving out any description of his regional identity, which is what his Encyclopedia Britannica article does. TFD (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The two options, is what was being basically edit-warred over. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What if most editors don't like either wording? TFD (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect. I rarely know (figuratively) where you're coming from or what you're aiming for. So I doubt I'll be responding to you any further. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

My point is that of the four possible options, you have offered only two. The problem is that many editors may prefer options you have not included. That may require a further RfC to determine whether either of the two options you left out is preferable.

If you don't understand my comments, then you should ask me to clarify them. TFD (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• The descriptions of other politicians, and our opinions about citizenship and nationality, are entirely irrelevant here. How is he described by reliable sources? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, can you please provide a policy or guideline that says that descriptions must be consistent between articles. Where does it say that if an article calls someone a Quebec politician, then all articles about Canadian politicians should refer to their province?

There are countless examples where people are referred to by region rather than nationality. The article on Ghandi for example refers to him as an "indian lawyer" despite the fact he never was a citizen of India. No one refers to George Bernard Shaw, Walter Scott or Dylan Thomas as British writers.

TFD (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

IF you want to go to WP:CANADA's talkpage & make an argument that "Canadian politician" should be removed from the leads of bios of all Canadian politicians who didn't hold federal positions? Then go for it. I'm guessing you won't likely succeed. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

TFD, if Québec ever becomes independent, that argument might hold water. It hasn't, and it doesn't. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay,my argument is that we should follow policy and guidelines and describe Levesque the way most reliable sources do. What does Quebec independence have to do with that? Can you point to any policies or guidelines that support your position? TFD (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I already told you. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve & so won't be engaging with you any further in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

We all understand that this is one of your various arguments. And as we have said numerous times above the issue with this is that most WP:RS about him are for a Canadian audience where calling him a Canadian would be redundant. Unlike these sources we write for an international audience, not a Canadian one. There aren't sources saying he wasn't Canadian, they are just focusing on his Quebec links because those are more important to a Canadian audience that already knows he is Canadian. Again, how many times do we need to note he is of Quebec or is Québécois? This is already covered like six times in the lede. Why do we need a 7th mention of Quebec/Québécois? And why is it somehow unbalanced to note he is Canadian, when we mention EXTENSIVELY his Quebec/Québécois roles, connections etc? You seem to be ignoring this, why?-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

But that is also how he is described in non-Canadian media. TFD (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

G. Timothy Walton, as you are well aware I never made that suggestion and I note that you have avoided answering what policy or guideline you believe supports your position. If there is none just say so. TFD (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

TFD, what policy or guideline supports your position? Don't veer off to media usage where examples can just be cherry-picked to support any side one chooses. Make a good-faith argument or receive nothing other than what you dish out. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (policy): "An article ...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Reliable sources, including those published outside Canada, always give greater prominence to his connection to Quebec, if they mention Canada at all.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography (guideline) says, "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident."

No one questions that Levesque's main reason for fame was his activity to bring about Quebec independence.

Also in MOS/BIO, "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources." Since the description Quebec rather than Canadian is commonly used, the lead should reflect that.

Finally, MOS/BIO says that when nationality is controversial, it is sometimes omitted, as in the case of the astronomer Nicolas Copernicus.

Note, I have not brought up the political debate over the future of Quebec. Our personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant and we should set them aside. TFD (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Repeated chosen chapter and verse, your interpretation disputed by other editors, is not what I meant by "a good-faith argument". Please pProvide some examples of non-Canadian media that explicitly mention nationality of M. Lévesque, including those from outside France that are not translations of Canadian sources. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you think you could avoid comments such as

• Don't veer off to media usage where examples can just be cherry-picked to support any side one chooses. Make a good-faith argument or receive nothing other than what you dish out.
• your interpretation disputed by other editors, is not what I meant by "a good-faith argument".

This is an assumption of bad faith which seriously detracts from the discussion. Furthermore, it is an ad hominem attack, rather than addressing the issue.

But perhaps progress is possible. Do you agree that per policy and guidelines, that the lead should reflect descriptions in non-Canadian sources?

You didn't explain why we should ignore French language sources but I will find English language ones. TFD (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I could not find any reliable sources that described Levesque as a Canadian politician and just one outside Canada that described him as a Quebec politician. However, Google shows that he is often decribed as a Quebec politician and I could find no mention of him as a Canadian poltician.

• "RENE LEVESQUE AND THE DIVIDED HOUSE OF CANADA," William Stockton, New York Times, May 20, 1979. Refers to him as a "Quebec politician"
• "Canada recalls Quebec separatist violence 40 years on," Sian Griffiths, BBC, 16 October 2010. Refers to Pierre Laporte as a Quebec politician.

Most reliable sources describe him as a premier of Quebec or Quebec separatist leader and leave it at that. See The Guardian,[1], Encyclopedia Britannica[2]. TFD (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I specified non-France sources because their government has a history or supporting Québec separatism; I did not specify non–French language sources.

Some reasonably reliable sources that refer to Lévesque as a Canadian politician:

• Scotland and Nationalism: Scottish Society and Politics 1707 to the Present by Christopher T. Harvie
• The Los Angeles Times
• Winnipeg Sun

Easily found even when rejecting out of hand any Google hit that looks at all like it's been plagiarised from Wikipedia. I'm sure I could find a few with search strings in other languages, including French. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You should be more selective in your choices. It's more like cherry-picking than conducting a meaningful overview.

In the first source, Levesque is referred to as a "French Canadian politician." That's similar to calling him a Quebecois or Quebec politician. Is it an acceptable compromise description for you?

The second source reads: "Rene Levesque, the separatist leader elected provincial premier of Quebec in 1976, was the only Canadian politician to rival Trudeau in charisma." If they had used the term Quebec politician it would have changed the meaning, because it means there could be politicians in other provinces that were more charismatic. Sources could for example say that Orban and Meloni were the most right-wing European politicians, but we would not describe them as European politicians in their articles.

The third source is from a Winnipeg, Canada, tabloid that refers to "Canadian politician and premier of Quebec Rene Levesque." Whether or not it is a reliable source (it is modelled on the UK Sun), we already agreed that the vast majority of Canadian sources refer to Levesque as a Quebec politician.

Also, France has an independent media and their policies are not set by the government. And while no doubt some in government may support Quebec independence, that is not the position of its government. TFD (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Now post some of yours. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Please reread my post at 20:41, 9 December 2023. I'll take your reply to mean you have no answer to the issues I raised. TFD (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We have different conclusions as to how your sources are using "Quebec politician". Both are referrring to him in the context of Canadian politics, not international; neither refers to Quebec without also referring to it as part of Canada. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I have read your post and the cited sources; we have drawn different conclusion about how the phrase "Quebec politician" was used. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Why would you say that Canadian sources were unacceptable because they usually refer to him as a Quebec politician, then present a Canadian source that calls him a Canadian politician? Isn't that cherry-picking? TFD (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

You have interpreted my words in a way completely different from my meaning. This is not surprising, given your early equation of France with French language. My vote will stand. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There are not many French language sources we would use other than from Quebec or France to make that distinction material. TFD (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You misinterpreted (deliberately, I suspect) my reference to sources from France to mean any French-language sources. If you ever wonder why you're accused of bad-faith arguments, this is a perfect example. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

G. Timothy Walton, are you suggesting that French (from France) sources are biased in favor of Quebec separarism to a greater degree than Canadian English sources are biased agaisnt Quebec separatism? Or do you sinply treat some biases differently feom others? Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Along with de Gaulle's infamous "Vive le Québec libre!" speech, the French government was (at least) rumoured to be financially supporting the separatist movement. I would expect France to be the country most likely to produce sources that treat Québec as a country. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, ever since Mitterand or so, who was Lévesque's contemporary, France has seemingly adopted a neutral policy towards Quebec seperatism/independence. "Non-interference, non-indifference." De facto, France doesn't really care much for the cause of Quebec separatism anymore. If anything, it's more of a one-sided relationship where the separatists try to court French support (like with the last PQ premier's insistance that the "French elite" only conduct themselves in French) and the French mostly respond with indifference. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself here, but it seems like some of the users here oppose referring to Lévesque as Canadian, which he was, not out of some encyclopedic or pedagogical purpose, but rather out of some ideological or political basis. Wikipedia should never be used as a platform to push your own bias. We should strive to be as neutral as possible. There's a ballot box for that other kind of discourse, but I think we all know too well the results of that. TheCelebrinator 21:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence for your opinion? My position on this and any other articles is that we should refer to subjects in the same way that most reliable sources do which is what neutral means in Wikipedia. I notice that you have provided no policy or guideline reasons for your position. TFD (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why so many people would seem so keen on especially referring to René Lévesque as a Québécois politician as if that's his nationality. Usually, the kind of people who share such views tend to be Quebec nationalists or separatists. I'm not saying that's what you are TFD, but I think some people would certainly be upset at their main political leader being listed as a citizen of the country he fought to separate from.

Now as to my reasoning, I am basing this purely off of following standard Wikipedia policy, which is to describe the subject using their nationality, which, in this case, is Canadian. A term like "Québécois" would be more of a regional or ethnic (incorrectly might I add) identity, and Wikipedia in fact explicitly discourages such things. My approach is simply to follow consistency and what works for most other Quebecers. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to state something I take to be obvious: I don't think there is a general consensus on enwiki that nationality is to be equated with citizenship. The obvious counter-example is the UK, where the standard practice is to follow sources when they use "English", "Scottish" or "Welsh" for biographies rather than "British" or "UKvian". "Québécois", in the way it is used by the actual sources on this topic, is strictly analagous to "Scottish" in this sense, and the status quo version of this article takes no more of a political stance in referring to Lévesque as Québécois than when articles refer to a Scottish politician as Scottish or a Catalan politician as Catalan. The fact remains that Lévesque's nationality - whether derived from secondary sources or his own statements - was Québécois with just as much certainty as that his citizenship was Canadian. It seems to me that some editors here may be unware of this, but that others seem willing to go to great lengths to obscure the former and promote the latter for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The UK examples do not apply here, as England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are traditionally considered separate countries under a single head of state, a fact reflected in its international sporting competitions; Québec is not treated in such a way outside the Francophonie Games. Spain is a better example; despite the autonomy of its various regions, all are normally treated as a single country internationally. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The UK is pretty much the only real exception to this rule, but I believe that's in part because it's the only English-speaking country that has that kind of dynamic with its nationality(ies). There's even a specific article on that issue that advises Wikipedians that both (national/regional) descriptors are acceptable, depending on the subject.

No such article exists for Canada. There is no officially sanctioned Wikipedia policy, unlike for the UK, that states that either Canadian/ Quebecer may be used, so the example doesn't really apply here. Furthermore, unlike the different UK home nations, Quebec does not have any significant international representation at things like sporting events like G. Timothy Walton said. Nationality is universally acknowledged to mean citizenship, very few exceptions aside. "Quebecer" certainly isn't one. Not even Quebec seperatists would claim that it is one (although they'd certainly like for it to become one...). TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The sole criterion should be what rs do. However, Quebec does differ from other subnational units. First, unlike Scotland but like other units in federations, it has sovereignty, i.e., the federal government cannot abolish it. Second, like all Canadian provinces, but unlike similar units elsewhere in the world, it has an international personality. IOW, it can enter into its own treaties and is not bound by treaties signed by Ottawa.

Like Great Britain in 1707, Canada was formed in 1841 by the union of two separate nations, which continued to retain separate languages, laws and religions, although parliament was merged. In fact, the legislation in both cases was called the Act of Union.

Also, the Canadian Parliament overwhelmingly recognized the Quebecois as a nation.

Also, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized Quebec's right to separate and the UN recognizes its right to self-determination, which is unique among internal rather than overseas territories.

Also, unlike the other provinces, Quebec has never agreed to joining Canada. All the other provinces did so in 1981 when they signed on to the constitution.

Also, Quebec is one of the few territories that have separatist parties capable of winning power. Catalonia and Scotland might be the only other examples.

Finally, Levesque self-identified and was identified as a Quebec politician, rather than a Canadian.

So calling Levesque a Quebec or Quebecois politician or leaving it out entirely does not set any precedent other articles, except possibly for Quebec separatist politicians. TFD (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, you really don't know what you're talking about. Let's go point by point.

Canada may be a federation where provinces have much greater autonomy than other subjurisdictions in the world, but every law enacted by the federal government applies to all of Canada, including Quebec. Quebec cannot just unilaterally decide to 'cancel' certain articles it doesn't like without consent of Parliament. We are a federation, not a confederation.

Canada was not formed in 1841, you are referring to the Province of Canada, which was formed out of the union of two British colonies and still remained a British colony. There was no "Québécois nation" to speak of as by and large, French-Canadians referred to themselves as... French-Canadian, not Québécois, a province which didn't even exist until 1867, the actual year of Canada's formation.

You're anachronistically trying to use present-day concepts to analyze historical facts. It'd be like saying that 'Italy' conquered the Mediterranean 2,000 years ago.

Nation =/ Nationality. The bill itself stated that it was purely symbolic and had no legal status, meaning that it did not 'recognize' any Quebec nationality.

Every province in Canada has the right to separate, not just Quebec. The Surpreme Court did not single out Quebec when it made that decision. There is therefore nothing 'unique' about that. You're again misinterpreting the facts.

That has no bearing on the fact that there has never been any so-called Quebec nationality to speak of.

If I decide to mainly identify as a Montrealer, would that make me any less of a Quebecer or a Canadian? Should we start listing some Montrealers as Canadian, some as Quebecers and others simply as Montrealers? Would that change their nationality (Canadian)? TheCelebrinator (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please not preface your comments with coments such as "with all due respect, you really don't know what you're talking about." That's very offensive. Mind you, it would have been more impressive if you had been factually accurate in your replies.

I did not say, Quebec can "unilaterally decide to 'cancel' certain articles it doesn't like without consent of Parliament." I said, "the federal government cannot abolish it." The federal government also cannot "unilaterally decide to 'cancel' certain articles it doesn't like without consent of [Quebec's] Parliament." That is the definition of federalism.

Quebec in fact was the name of the French colony that was ceded to Great Britain in 1763. The French speaking people in the colony called themselves Canadiens while the English speaking people called themselves Americans.

If you decide to call yourself a Montrealer, refuse to identify as a Canadian or Quebecer, get elected mayor, get half the French speaking Montrealers to vote for separation, get your right to separate accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada and the UN, etc., then maybe we would call you a Montrealer.

And no, no other provinces have the right to separate. Where did you get that from? Please don't invent facts, because it just lengthens the discussion and the time invested by all of us. TFD (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, your knowledge of Canadian affairs and history is rather limited and superficial. If it wasn't so, I would not have made my observation.

Quebec, just like all the other Canadian provinces, is explicitly mentioned and defined in the Constitution, with the stipulation that any modification to a province's territory has to be done with both the province's and the federal government's consent. Now, obviously, no province would consent to being abolished. But that goes for every province. A bit like the 50 States down south. Does that make them sovereign?

If Parliament passes a law, then it's the law of the land, regardless of whether you're in Victoria, B.C. or Quebec City. Ottawa has its jurisdiction, the provinces their own, but Ottawa's jurisdiction covers all of Canada. Provinces are bound to follow the law, that's why they're provinces.

Quebec was in fact the name of the province the British created after they had annexed what was left of New France, or the French colony of Canada to be precise. By the way, that province comprised much of what is now Ontario, Ohio, etc., so it's not exactly a predecessor to the modern province of Quebec. You yourself acknowledge the French-speaking people there called themselves Canadiens, not Québécois. That's because, and maybe if you were a Quebecer you would know this, French Canadians (in Quebec) only started using the term "Québécois" as a marker of identity towards the 1960s.

I didn't invent anything, I simply took the words of the court of the government. The government asked the Court if unilateral secession was legal; the Supreme Court said no. The government then passed a law (the Clarity Act) that established the conditions under which it would negotiate with a province that would want to secede, not just Quebec. So hypothetically, even a province like Ontario could secede under the Act. Obviously just an hypothetical, but my point is that every province can theoretically secede.

And that's why I said that your knowledge of Canada is rather limited and superficial. If you were informed, you would have read about the Clarity Act and its application to all provinces, you would have known that Quebec was the name of the colony Britain created, not took, from New France. That Canada was formed in 1867, not 1841. In all those cases, you had a kernel of the truth, but you ended up being wrong because of how rudimentary your knowledge is. TheCelebrinator (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to present your arguements without ad hominem attackss? "Your knowledge is rather limited and superficial" is not a persuasive arguement and frankly offensive

Quebec predates Canada, has its own national identity and the right to self-determination recognized under Canadian and international law, something that does not apply to any other province. I appreciate that Canadian federalists disagree, and am not saying they are wrong, I am just saying what the consensus of expert opinion is.

Of course Parliament has the power to determine under what conditions the government will negotiate secession with provinces. However, it cannot unilterally determine the conditions under which provinces can leave the country.

What's important is how Quebec is perceived in reliable sources. It doesn't matter if the experts are wrong (they often are). Our opinions on Quebec separatism are irrelevant to how Levesque is described.

TFD (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have never resorted to any type of personal attacks, why should I do that when your arguments are enough by themselves to discredit your viewpoint? I never attack the person, only the idea. Now to further prove my point...

Quebec does not predate Canada anymore than Boston predates America or Berlin predates Germany. The existence of a modern province of Quebec, with its modern territories, with its modern constitution such as a Parliament and whatnot, is the invention of Canada. Before 1867, there was no such thing as the Province of Quebec as we know it today, which brings me to my next point.

Quebec nationalism is a very recent phenomenon. Prior to the 1960s, no one, or very few, in Quebec spoke of a Quebec nation, a Quebec people, a Quebec land. They were French-Canadian nationalists, which included the Acadians, Franco-Ontarians, etc. Quebec was understood to be a province of Canada, not a nation. Of course, then came the separatists who tried to reappropriate Quebec as a national identity, but that came much later.

No province in Canada can unilaterally secede from Ottawa. Their independence would have to be acknowledged by the federal government, via negotiation. Every part of the Earth is entitled to the right to self-determination, including Quebec, but also every other Canadian province. It was just that the only active separatist movement was (is?) in Quebec, so the UN and Supreme Court documents you refer to only spoke of Quebec, as that was the only relevant example, but that doesn't mean no other province couldn't do the exact same thing the PQ tried to do here.

At any rate, I think we both digress. Lévesque was born in Canada, lived in Canada and died in Canada. There is no standard policy on WP:Canada that states that Quebecers are to be treated differently when it comes to nationality. If you think they should, go make your case there for all Quebecers. Otherwise, let's just stick to what is conventional policy.

User:TheCelebrinator 2:38, December 18, 2023 (UTC)

legal and historical digression

TheCelebrinator's comment is somewhat misleading, in that the prior comment it is defending contains a number of unsourced or incorrect statements: every law enacted by the federal government applies to all of Canada, including Quebec. Quebec cannot just unilaterally decide to 'cancel' certain articles it doesn't like without consent of Parliament - both parts of this statement are false, because a federal law can be challenged as ultra vires and a provincial law can override provisions of the (essentially federal) Charter. Unlike the UK, Canada is fully constitutionally federal, and like the UK but unlike, say, Germany, Canadian federalism is an asymmetrical one in which Quebec exercises more powers (and has more rights under international law) than other provinces. TC's more recent assertion that Provinces are bound to follow the law, that's why they're provinces is simply a misstatement of how Canadian federalism works. Nation (does not equal) Nationality is fully misleading, and is not based on what reliable sources state on the topic. If what you are in fact saying is that not all nations have an associated Westaphalian state, this is of course true, but you are then assuming precisely the thing that needs to be demonstrated. Similarly, your doubling-down statement that there has never been any so-called Quebec nationality to speak of is a misunderstanding of what nationality, nationalism, and nations are according to WP:HQRS. As to every province in Canada has the right to separate, not just Quebec - the Supreme Court of Canada did not rule about provinces other than Quebec, and what is more, the Supreme Court of Canada has not erased Quebec's national claims under international law any more than UK or Spanish courts have erased the claims of Scotland or Catalonia under international law. Certainly the claim that, say, Alberta has a right to separate from Canada is, ahem, unproven and to assert this based only on the wording of the Clarity Act seems bizarre to me. More generally, to assert that nations only exist in some subset of the cases where they are recognized in the domestic law of countries where their co-nationals reside seems EXTRAORDINARY and not a claim to accept without evidence.

Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Would be very interesting to see you bring your arguments for Quebec special treatment, to WP:CANADA, not to mention the Canada & Quebec pages themselves. I doubt many will agree that Quebec is somehow above the nine other provinces. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, personally, as a Quebecer, I don't see why we should start separating Quebecers from other Canadians when it comes to nationality when virtually every other article on other Quebecers (like François Legault, Maurice Richard, Céline Dion, etc.) lists them as Canadian, but I'm sure we ought to let the other Quebecers here in the thread have a say. TheCelebrinator (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, changing Dion's intro to "Quebecois singer" or Lanny McDonald's intro to "Albertan former professional ice hockey player..." wouldn't likely be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If we used the principle that met with consensus in the 2018 Spain RfC, to use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most, I don't think any of the articles mentioned would change and the status quo lead of this article would be maintained. I'm not sure why editors are objecting to adopting this principle consistently, since it had already met with consensus at a high WP:CONLEVEL. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What relevance is your self-identification as a Quebecer to this discussion? TFD (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, in a discussion about Quebec's identity and how it relates to Canada, I'm sure my opinion as a Quebecer would count just as much if not more than a non-Quebecer's, but what would I know of Quebec aside from living there for as long as I can remember... TheCelebrinator (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, I neither stated nor implied that Quebec is somehow above the nine other provinces. But if you think that Asymmetrical federalism is not a real thing, or that it does not pertain to Canada, your conflict is with the HQRS on the topic and not with me as an editor. Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

None of your arguments have convinced me to change my position on this content dispute. You'll have to convince the others who have & will give input into the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Note - WP:CANADA & all the provincial & territorial WikiProjects, have been notified of this RFC taking place. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I regard the notification of addional WikiProjects aside from Canada and Quebec as a form of canvassing, albeit probably not one of any consequence. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The other WikiProjects were notified, as I presumed you forgot to notify them. Anyways, all of them (except Canada) are either inactive or semi-inactive. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, Okay. As noted above, I placed a notice on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government as this article is within that project. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I haven't put a notice on WikiProject Journalism as I expect no one there cares, but welcome someone to do so if they think it would help.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Closing

When the RFC tag expires in three weeks. I'll contact Wikipedia:Closure requests, to close the RFC with a decision. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess that might be the right way to go. While it is not a !VOTE, we are currently at 11 (or 12 with Dobblestein) for A and 1 for B, with one editor calling for both A&B. This might not be WP:SNOW, but if the mood remains the same in a week or two, I would not be opposed to listing it early and leaving it to the closer to decide when the discussion has run its course.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of closing these early, having seen how that can make a bad situation worse. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there will be much support for "Québécois politician." According to Merriam-Webster, it meaans "a native or inhabitant of Quebec...specifically: a French-speaking native or inhabitant of Quebec."[3] While technically it can include non-French speaking Quebecers, most readers would not interpret it that way, As such, it goes against guidelines.

As I mentioned, the RfC leaves out two other options: "Quebec politician" and omitting it altogether. I suggest therefore that we close the current RfC and start a new one with all four options. Or we can wait until this RfC is closed and begin it then.

Regarding early closing, it's usually a bad idea because followers of the discussion will tend to answer first and uninvolved editors later. I have seen RfCs where there was overwhelming support for one side intially, but little subsequently.

TFD (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I noted the opposite with the inclusion of the PPC in the 2021 federal election infobox – editors who'd never been involved with the page swarmed in early, voted to include the party, then departed without ever editing again. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You and I were two of the first four editors to vote. What was unusual was that none of the editors who wanted to exclude the PPC from the into-box bothered to vote.

My position was that because all mainstream media included all six parties in their info-boxes, so should the article. So I got accused of being pro-PPC in that article and am being accused of being pro-PQ here.

It's best to leave our opinions at the door and present information as it appears in mainstream sources, even if those sources have biases with which we may disagree. At least mainstream sources provide a standard we can use, even if it is not always correct. Otherwise we waste time in discussions such as this one. Furthermore, readers expect a summary of stories reported in reliable sources, with their biases, rather than an interpretation by Wikpedia editors.

I sometimes disagree with mainstream presentation of stories. But this is not the place to correct them. If we did that, overall credibility would suffer, as it has in Conservapedia. TFD (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Our recollections differ. The editors opposed to including the PPC mostly did not have time to vote before the RFC was closed, it was so quickly done. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Six of the first eight replies came from editors who had participated in the discussion. Of the final twelve replies, only two were from accounts that had edited the talk page or main article.

I suspect there was outside canvassing of PPC. It was the day after the election.

Ironically, some editors accused me of having a pro-PPC bias when my argument was basically the same as my one here: that articles should reflect how topics are covered in rs. In that case, I argued that because every major media source covering the election six parties in their summaries, so should the article.

TFD (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

In three weeks, I'll be requesting closure. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe it's obvious by now that the A's have it if the voting is any indication. Some editors are still busy rehashing their old grievances about Quebec separatism and nationalism, but when it comes to the matter at hand, a clear majority supports the nationality change. Therefore, I believe the RFC can be closed before the 3-week deadline, perhaps even now.

Best to let it run its 4-week course. Otherwise, we'd have complaints that it was closed too early. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede and Québécois (again)

Following the RfC above, the first two sentences of the lede now read:

René Lévesque GOQ (August 24, 1922 – November 1, 1987) was a Canadian Québécois politician and journalist who served as the 23rd premier of Quebec from 1976 to 1985. He was the first Québécois political leader since Confederation to attempt, through a referendum, to negotiate the political independence of Quebec.

It seems that at least one of the uses "Québécois" is redundant and unnecessary. I presume there are not other "non-Québécois" politicians who since confederation have sought, through referendum, to negotiate political independence for Quebec. For the reasons above, I don't think the use of "Québécois" in the first sentence is necessary, but if we are going to keep it, it seems the other mention should be removed. If we are going to keep the second mention, we should remove the first. Regrettably the RfC above seems to have focused on the first sentence, with some contributors seemingly not giving consideration to the lede as a whole.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I disagree with the RFC closer's decision. IMHO, the consensus is "Canadian politician". But, I don't have the energy to take my 'challenge' to WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well short of a 'challenge' to WP:AN or elsewhere, the closing comments seem to permit going with either "A" or "A&B" for the first sentence. The close does not seem to weigh in on the second sentence. So I figure we could reach a consensus to go with "A" and then leave the mention of Québécois in the second sentence. Similarly, we could go with "A&B" for the first sentence and then remove the mention of Québécois from the second sentence. Other options might also be available. Just saying, it seems redundant and unnecessary to include both mentions.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with implementing option 'A' - "Canadian" in the first sentence & "Quebecois" in the second sentence. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That is my preference too for the reasons I have already stated. Alright, I will WP:BOLDly implement that. At the very least, it may jumpstart a WP:BRD cycle. At best, perhaps we will find there is now consensus for that option.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a process to challenge the close of an RfC, and this section (and the consensus of two editors it seems to have produced) is not that process. Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

A challenge of the close isn't required here. The closer found a consensus for either "A" or "A&B" ("Canadian" or "Canadian Québécois"), so we are able to go with either, and the closer hoped we would decide on one or the other as a result of further discussion here. S_Marshall wrote Editors are at liberty to continue to debate this point. I hope it isn't necessary to have another RfC about it, though. I suggest we continue to discuss this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be leaving out the key aspect of the close, In the circumstances I feel that should make the minimum possible edit, which is to insert "Canadian" before "Québécois". I'm choosing not to remove "Québécois" because I can't see a consensus to do so. The closer has found no consensus to remove "Québecois", and the closer has not concluded, as you paraphrase above that we are able to go with either. As I stated above, there is a process for overturning a close, and quoting it selectively in defense of BOLD proposals to implement a different result than that reached by the closer is not the relevant process. The closer states that "Québecois" could be removed if a consensus to do so were to develop in subsequent discussion. Given that a number of the latter !votes specifically endorsed the inclusion of both terms, I think the arrival of such a consensus to be an unlikely event, but who can tell the future?

Meanwhile, the question of word order addressed by my edit here is very much within both the spirit and the letter of the close, and is relevant until and unless consensus is reached for more drastic changes. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The closer said we can go with either, following further discussion here (and hopefully not another RfC). Above I have set out why I think using both is redundant and unnecessary. It is unnecessary to mention "Québécois" in the first sentence because it already mentions in the first sentence that he was the premier of Quebec, and prior to your edits, the second sentence included mention of his role as a Québécois political leader who sought independence of Quebec, and the third sentence includes mention of his involvement with Quebec's nationalization of hydro and Quebec sovereignty, and the fourth sentence notes his founding of Parti Québécois. Why do you think mention of "Québécois" is required in the first sentence, when mention of Quebec and Québécois appears more than six times in the lede? I expect looking at the lede as a whole is helpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I believe "Québecois" should appear in the first sentence because that is the term overwhelmingly used in WP:HQRS about him. If I am reading the above discussion correctly, very many editors wanted "Canadian" to appear in the first sentence because they find that term especially pertinent to non-Canadian readers, but few editors actually objected to the inclusion of "Québecois" in the first sentence. Once a proposal was made to include both, many editors supported that proposal.

I understand that you (and presumably GoodDay) find the inclusion of "Québecois" in the first sentence redundant and unnecessary, but the closer of the RfC explicitly found no consensus to remove that term. Therefore, a new consensus - whether formal or informal - is required before your self-proclaimed BOLD change would be appropriate to restore. Newimpartial (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so the closer found no consensus to include "Québecois" in the first sentence, nor to exclude it. So, the question is what is the appropriate balance considering the lede as a whole. There is more than six mentions of Quebec/"Québecois" in the lede. Which do you think are needed and which can be removed? Why is it necessary to include "Québecois" in the first sentence? The closing comments are rather indifferent about whether "Québecois" is included in the first sentence, and did not consider the other sentences. The closing comments suggest we discuss this to reach a consensus about where/whether to include "Québecois", so lets do that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The closer followed the principle of least change in their implementation of consensus, which seems to me to be a good place to start. Both you and GoodDay begin your comments in this section by taking issue with elements of the RfC result: you for the RfC seemingly not giving consideration to the lede as a whole and GoodDay more straightforwardly with I disagree with the RFC closer's decision. So the two of you looking to impose a different wording than the closer proposed because you disagree with the RfC looks to me like nothing other than sour grapes. I didn't agree with the result of the RfC either, but it is what it is and I for one would like to improve the article within the constraint of the result.

Obviously consensus could develop in favor of very different language in the lead sentence and in the lead section as a whole. But starting from the premise that the RfC process was flawed because you don't 100% agree with its outcome seems to me to be an unrpromising starting point in reaching a new consensus version. I have already explained, in my immediately preceding comment, that I think "Queébecois" belongs in the first sentence based on the principle of following the WP:HQRS on this article's topic. I have already proposed to drop the immediately subsequent use of Québecois, and I am open to any actual improvements in the prose of the lead section. Removing Québecois from the first sentence as a descriptor for the article's subject (an element that has been present in the stable version of this article for many years) does not strike me as a likely improvement. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to look past your comments that don't assume good faith and respond only to those which relate to content. The reality is that the RfC concerned the first sentence and not the lede as a whole, and the closing comments don't comment on the rest of the lede. The fact that sources refer to him as Québecois is a reason to include that content in the article, and perhaps the lede. It isn't a good reason to include it in the first sentence, or to do so when there is over six references to Québécois/Quebec in the lede already. I asked you which you think can be removed and which should be kept and why. I haven't heard a real answer to that. If you want to answer it and focus on the content, fine. In any event, I would much rather hear what other editors who have not already commented in this section have to say on the topic though. Thanks.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This & the following separate discussion should be combined, as they're about the same topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm just about fed up with this whole argument. This content dispute is likely going to end up getting an editor reported to WP:EW. I don't like the direction it's all heading towards. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the section below addresses a different question than this section. I also believe that revert-warring against the version of the first sentence resulting from the RfC, when you happen to disagree with the close, is not an appropriate way to resolve this issue - I would suggest that you stop doing that. I would love to reach consensus on better prose in the lead, but that will not be achieved by editors acting on their own without achieving consensus here. The agreement of two editors who have lingering issues with the result of their own RfC process falls well short of the WP:CONLEVEL required to move beyond a more formal RfC process.

Also, as I said in an edit summary, I have proposed to drop "Québecois" from the second sentence, a change that fits with the RfC close and doesn't run counter to the close and it's implementation. That is my response to the issue of "too much Québecois", and I don't really understand why the two of you are now resistant to that solution. Newimpartial (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your refusal to ever accept "Canadian politician" alone in the first sentence (via your multiple reverts), has become unbearable. I'm done with this content dispute, which is morphing into an editorial dispute. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest He was the first premier of Quebec to seek a mandate, through a referendum, to negotiate the province's political independence from Canada. I don't think anyone other than the Premier of Quebec would plausibly be in a position to do so, so broadening it to "Quebcois political leaders" adds unnecessary confusion.--Trystan (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean as an alternate to the existing second sentence? I don't have any strong view on that, but I suspect those wanting an early mention of Québécois ethnicity/nationality will not be satisfied with mention of his Quebec premiership alone. Others, myself included think referring him as a "Canadian Québécois politician" in the first sentence is clunky, excessive given the rest of the lede and generally inelegant. If the first mention of Québécois is removed from the first sentence, I don't think removal of it from the second will please anyone.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree Québécois should be in one of the first two sentences and ideally not both. The use in the second sentence is the much more awkward of the two. Unless "Quebecois political leader" has some meaning other than as an elegant variation cypher of "Premier of Quebec", that is the one I would eliminate.--Trystan (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are right that it is essentially elegant variation at least in how it relates to the second part of the sentence (ie the referendum part). It seems to me that some want to call him a "Quebecois political leader" due to the different meaning of Quebecois. They want to communicate not just that he was a resident of Quebec, or as you say premier "of Quebec" but the narrower meaning that his cultural/ethnic identity was Québécois. As an anglo, I have always been told that Québécois refers to French Canadian inhabitants of Quebec (ie excluding anglos and recent immigrants, maybe including French speaking immigrants, maybe not), and that the term Quebecers includes all residents regardless of language or ethnicity. Some use Québécois in the broader way, others the more narrow ones (eg descendants of the French settlers in Quebec only). It seems to me the choice of the term Québécois is because some want to identify him as being culturally or ethnically Québécois, not just generally associated with Quebec. Of course, including this in the first sentence (if the reason we are including it is because of this ethnic definition) seems to run afoul of MOS:ETHNICITY which seems to advise against including ethnicity in the first sentence of a lede, saying this can be "introduced in the second sentence if [it is] of defining importance". Anyway, it seems some of the complexity here is the ambiguity of the term, and the fact that some seemingly wanted it included for the ethnic/cultural reasons, while others, sometimes the same editor, seem to be arguing for inclusion of the term on the basis that it is not about ethnicity at all and simply about residence, or being "of Quebec". Anyway--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

TBH @Darryl Kerrigan:, I'm still amazed as to how the RFC could be closed as anything but a consensus for option-A. Simply mind boggling. GoodDay (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I also found the close somewhat strange. Use Canadian, and Canadian only, in the first sentence. Leave mentions of Quebec to the following sentences. Meters (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Canadian Québecois or Québecois Canadian

Per this revert - which version do editors prefer? Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the talk page. I think continued discussion is helpful. I am not sure why a new section is required though. This seems to be a continuation of the discussion immediately above. My preference and GoodDay's seems to be expressed above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am asking whether, among two ways of implementing the RfC close, editors would prefer "Canadian Québecois" or "Québecois Canadian". The previous discussion section is largely between two editors who disagree with the RfC close, and is therefore quite different in scope from the question I hope to see settled here - in fact, the question I am asking here was not raised at all in the previous section. Newimpartial (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The two ways that S_Marshall contemplated the RfC be implemented were either "A" or "A&B" (ie "Canadian" or "Canadian Québécois") per the closing comment above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the previous section, where I address this issue. The RfC close went well beyond "contemplating" implementation - it actually proposed a specific solution, for clearly articulated reasons, while allowing that in future a consensus could be found for further improvements. In this section, I am proposing one such (potential) improvement, which continues in the spirit of the close. Newimpartial (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Go with "Canadian politician" in the first sentence. PS - This should be a sub-section of the preceding discussion. We don't need to have multiple discussons concurrently, about the same topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this section is a choice of word order: "Canadian Québecois" or "Québecois Canadian". Proposals to remove "Québecois" are off-topic for this section. Newimpartial (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

We've got Quebecois mentioned enough times in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Both appear consistent with the RfC, but I think GoodDay's version is more elegant. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Okay, I will WP:Boldly implement that again. Editors should continue to discuss. Hopefully, we will hear from new editors who have not previously commented. I agree either would be consistent with the RfC close, but it is worth noting that the close found consensus for the inclusion of "Canadian" in the first sentence, but simply didn't find consensus to include, nor to exclude, "Québécois". Where consensus has not been established for inclusion (as has not been here for Québécois) the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content per WP:ONUS.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If two or three editors who preferred "A" over "A and B" repeat their !votes in this section, that does not create a new consensus for "A". The status quo version and the closer's version contain B. You simply do not have any kind of consensus much less the required WP:CONLEVEL, to remove B, and this is not an appropriate occasiom to invoke BOLD. As GoodDay indicated above, this is becoming an "editorial issue". Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Just like before the RFC. You're once again reverting multiple editors & that might lead to someone (not me) reporting you to WP:EW. Indeed, part of the reason I started that RFC, was to avoid your getting blocked for edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall: as the RFC closer. We may need some 'more' input from you, for the sake of clarity. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to hold a simple two-pronged RfC over whether or not to use "Québecois" in the lead sentence. The inclusion of "Canadian" has been decided, but the exclusion of "Québecois" has not - it would be great if editors could come to consensus through discussion and without a formal process, but this seems unlikely. Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

In response to the ping, my close is a variant of WP:BARTENDER. Either Canadian and Québecois or Canadian without Québecois, but not Québecois without Canadian. I wasn't able to determine a clear consensus on whether it's necessary to say Québecois in the first sentence -- the community seems split on whether to use it.

Please don't hold another RfC about the first sentence of this article. Wikipedia's limiting resource is volunteer time, and RfCs use up a disproportionate amount of it, so RfC is an "expensive" process, if you will. It would be much better if you could reach consensus here.

I am not Canadian, and have spent only a week in Canada of my whole life, so my understanding of Canada is very limited. I have no particular expertise to offer. But as I've been asked to try to break the logjam, I'm happy to take my closer's hat off and offer a view as an editor.

I think we're trying to make the first sentence of the lede do too much work. We're trying to say that he was both Canadian and Québecois, that he was both a politican and a journalist, that he was premier of Québec, and for how long. I think that's too much and it's making a convoluted, tortuous sentence. I suggest moving the whole question of his nationality into sentence two. In other words, if I was ruling tyrant of Wikipedia, this article would begin with:

René Lévesque GOQ (dates) was a politician and journalist who served as Premier of Québec. His nationality was Canadian, but he identified as Québecois, and he sought Québec's independence from the rest of Canada.

I hope this suggestion helps.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I presumed your reading of the RFC, didn't intend for the opening sentence to read "Canadian Quebecois politician". Having done a peek through the intros of Canadian politician bios on Wikipedia. This bio seems to be the 'only one' currently using "Canadian Quebecois politician" in its opening sentence, let alone lead. Sometime later this year (if this dispute hasn't been resolved by then), I'll consider opening up an RFC at WP:CANADA's talkpage. Concerning how to describe all Canadian politicians, in their bio intros. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm sure that you're right when you say this is the only example of that phrasing. Of course, we decide what each article should say individually -- there isn't a single, homogenous standard structure or wording to which all Canadian politician biographies must conform, and if you try to force such a structure to exist, then I would anticipate copious quantities of drama followed by an inconclusive outcome. I agree with you that it's suboptimal to say "Canadian Québecois" or "Québecois Canadian" and I hope that we can thread this awkward needle by moving both of those words to the second sentence.—S Marshall T/C 17:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion S Marshall. I wish something like that could help break the logjam but I think that proposal, or something like it is not going to please anyone. It seems more cumbersome, less "elegant" as SportingFlyer said, and somewhat less neutral on the issue of nationality than either side would really want. Of course, he was Canadian, but I think describing him as a "Canadian politician" in the first sentence is actually slightly softer than saying bluntly that his citizenship or nationality was Canadian. "Canadian politician" would allow some to read it as him being Canadian simply because he was a politician in Canada, by virtue of among other things him being the premier of Quebec, which follows immediately afterwards, with then him being identified as Québécois immediately after that. Saying his citizenship/nationality is Canadian, suggests that his nationality "isn't" Québécois, even if he identified that way. Or at least some might take it that way. Beyond that it just doesn't read as smoothly as "Canadian politician" alone, immediately followed by all of the other Quebec/Québécois context. I agree a further RfC isn't required here, and that an RfC to try to create a standard across many articles is unlikely to be helpful. Hopefully, we can continue to discuss here, new editors will comment and all editors will be open to hearing from them. I hope this content dispute can be resolved as that: a content dispute that can be talked through. But it is looking increasing to me that we have one editor misunderstands the close, on that basis is refusing an compromise, entering ownership territory and shutting down discussion with their misunderstanding and characterization of the close. If that continues, the only way out is going to be resolving the editorial dispute. I don't have much faith in a further RfC resolving this, as the existing close is being misunderstood, and mischaracterized as it is.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Québécois a nationality? I had thought that Québécois was a culture, an ethnicity, and a dialect, but a person from Quebec's nationality is Canadian? As I've already said, my knowledge of this is extremely limited.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A Catalan from Barcelona is both Catalan and Spanish, a French Canadian from Montréal is both Québécois and Canadian is the way I see it. There's a level of Quebec nationalism which exists that doesn't for other provinces. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. A Texan or a Californian's nationality is American, even if they're separatists.—S Marshall T/C 00:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the answer depends on what definition of nation you mean. If you mean what country are they citizens of, the answer is Canada. But nation is often used more broadly. There was the Québécois nation motion, which recognized "...that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." Both meanings are arguably relevant for WP:CONTEXTBIO.--Trystan (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

TBH @S Marshall: I'm a tad astounded as to how you could not see a consensus for option A, in the RFC. A huge majority of the participants, favored that option & others were acceptable to it. Very disappointing. GoodDay (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• That's why we use uninvolved closers.—S Marshall T/C 10:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

One could equally say that because "A and B" was not in the RfC as initially formulated, and since it gathered support gradually after being introduced, that there was clear support for an "A and B" consensus.

Alternatively, one could simply acknowledge that the RfC was not specified constructively from the beginning. Newimpartial (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Or one could say a few uninvolved editors came and decided to propose cutting the baby in half. Disappointing that they did so without considering the lede as a whole, including the second sentence where you had warred to get a second mention of Québécois prior to the start of the RfC. The current state of the article does not represent the consensus from the discussion before the RfC, from the RfC and as was beginning to form afterwards before you bludgeoned it to death. Now there really isn't any path forward, congratulations.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, there's only been one (before & now after the RFC) editor, 'reverting' option-A. So the RFC ruling has 'sorta' given the 'green light' for such continued obstructionism against implementing option-A. This entire 'content dispute' would've ended 'bout two months ago, if not for one individual's active (i.e. reverting of multiple editors) refusal to accept "Canadian politician", in the opening sentence. PS - A side note: It's rather disappointing, that members at WP:CANADA are showing little to no interest in this content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, a LOCALCONSENSUS that might or might not have formed between yourself and GoodDay would never have been a valid consensus, especially not after a formal process had pointed in another direction.

Second, as far as your BLUDGEON accusation goes, this time frame (since the above discussion opened) does not really support your accusation. Nor does this longer timeframe (beginning with the pre-RfC discussion). Being one of two editors who contribute most to a Talk page doesn't necessarily amount to BLUDGEON, does it? Or if it does, doesn't it apply to both editors?

Finally, I am very much open to a variety of approaches to the lead (and lead sentence) of this article. What I am opposed to is a cookie-cutter approach that discards the precedents set by reliable sources in favor of a muscular insistence that passport nationality be included in the lead sentence. That isn't a rule on enwiki, and it irritates me whenever editors act or argue as though it is.

Also, in this edit you state that I added a mention of Québecois to the second sentence, which is a thing that never happened. Please don't spread false news. Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, let us know what you decide.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm contacting the 'survey' editors from the RFC (@Dobblestein:, @G. Timothy Walton:, @Kawnhr:, @WildComet:, @Robertus Pius:, @Meters:, @Canterbury Tail:, @Earl Andrew:, @TheCelebrinator:, @IOHANNVSVERVS:, @Cremastra:, @Ivanvector:, @Masterhatch:, @JM2023:, @Sadko:, @Meters:, @Meters:, @MaximusEditor: & @SportingFlyer:) as they may be interesed in this post-RFC discussion. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

My view hasn't changed. It should be "Québecois and Canadian" or "Canadian and Québecois". Or hyphenate it. But they should both be mentioned. (I have a slight preference towards having "Québecois" first. But I think the lede is good the way it is right now.) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine either way. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a locum placement while Sisyphus deals with some family issues; I expect this issue to still be going when I finish. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

My opinion hasn’t changed. Québecois is mentioned frequently. I believe there’s some WP:OWN issues going on here with the user GoodDay is referring to. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 16:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, polling like this might be confusing. Editors just casually checking in might think the question is the order of A&B per the secton title (ie A&B or B&A) not whether we go with A or A&B (per the RfC and discussion immediately above). This section was started under the false premise that the RfC close was A&B. It was started by an editor who then bludgeoned the discussion immediately above.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Quebecois Canadian is good because it matches other terms like French Canadian, English Canadian, Scottish Canadian, Irish Canadian, African Canadian, etc; but Canadian Quebecois is good because it shows that Quebec is within Canada. I have no strong preference at this time. JM (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If you go by where he was born? then we'd have "New Brunswicker Canadian". GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a policy-based reason why we should not describe Lévesque the way sources describe Lévesque? MOS:ETHNICITY doesn't offer one, so I'm curious why people keep making suggestions that depart from what good sources do. Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, not everybody agrees with your interpretation of WP:ETHNICITY. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to be the case that certain editors interpret ETHNICITY as though it said, "never include an identifier in lead sentence of a 20th or 21st century biography that could be mistaken for an ethnicity unless the biographical subject is from the UK or Spain". However, that is not what the guideline in question says and is unlikely to be what it "really means". Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The bar is, rightly, high - Barack Obama is known as the first African-American president but he's rightly not described as 'an African-American politician' in the lede. GiantSnowman 18:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

But it seems to me that what ETHNICITY calls the context for the activities that makes the person notable is what matters here. In the case of Obama, this is quite obviously the United States (of which he was president), but in the case of Lévesque, it is just as obviously Québéc, of which he was premier and on behalf of which he lead a national independence movement.

I respect the decision, made in the recent RfC, to insert "Canadian" in the first sentence. From this it does not follow - and the closer did not conclude - that Québécois should be removed. This case is strictly parallel to the cases of Basque and Catalan politicians, and what we really ought to be doing is following the sources in the same way when it comes to key terms. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This case does not parallel the Basque and Catalan politicians, at all. Now, for this bio? in the second sentence it reads - "He was the first Quėbėcois political leader since Confederation to seek, through referendum a mandate to negotiate the political independence of Quebec". Why isn't that good enough, for you? We also mention in the first sentence, that he was premier of Quebec, too. Yet, that's still not good enough for you. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I feel that the direction of recent edits to the first sentence of this article, beginning with the IP edit in November, has been to insist that "Lévesque is Canadian, not Québécois" or at least that "Lévesque is most importantly Canadian, not Québécois". I don't believe that either the sources or enwiki policies support this assertion - it is simply a preference held by certain editors (it also doesn't reflect the judgment reflected in the very long history of this article). This isn't a matter of this or that article text being good enough for me; my interventions reflect my sense of what the WP:HQRS on the topic say, and they do not place Lévesque's Canadian-ness over his Québécois-ness the way many BOLD edits to the first sentence have tried to do over the last 2-3 months.

Now GoodDay, why exactly do you argue that this case does not reflect the Catalan and Basque cases? Is it because Canada isn't Spain? Or is it because Quebecois identity only supplanted French Canadian identity in Quebec in Lévesque's lifetime? Because I would say that the latter is a reason to include "Québecois" in the first sentence - under other circumstances, I would be comfortable with "French Canadian" in the first sentence, and Lévesque was certainly born "French Canadian", but he quite clearly died as, and was most notable as, Québécois. But perhaps you have some other aspect of the cases in mind when you reject the comparison. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you willing to accept "French Canadian politician", in place of "Canadian Quėbėcois politician", in the first sentence? Because, from the second sentence onward, we mention him being a Quebec separatists. Yet, that's still not good enough for you. Also, you're the only editor who's 'reverted' "Canadian politician" standing alone in the opening sentence, both before & after the RFC. At this point, I realize you're never going to agree to having "Canadian politician" stand alone, in the first sentence & will continue to actively oppose it. If five, ten or more editors showed up & reinserted "Canadian politician" alone, in the first sentence. Would you still 'revert'? GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, if there is consensus to remove Québecois from the first sentence, I will of course respect that consensus. So far only a minority of participants on this Talk page have supported that proposal, and of those who have few have based their preference on policy (and none on RS).

I repeat my own question, though: why do you see this case as different from the Basque and Catalan cases? It might be easier to reach a meaningful consensus if editors were to explain where they are coming from (as I have done to some extent, in my somewhat rambling comment above). Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Canadian Québecois. My opinion is that Quebec is in Canada, why are/would we put more emphasis on the area within Canada than the country itself? Canadian in the nationality, Québecois is fine tuning that information.

Dobblesteintalk 16:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A large majority in the RFC, supported changing to "Canadian politician" in the first sentence & others in that RFC, expressed being able to live with that change, even if it wasn't their first choice. As for WP:ETHNICITY? I don't see Quebecois mentioned there, but you're free to open an RFC there, to add it or seek clarification. This is Canada, not Spain. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Ping acknowledged. Please do not ping me to this discussion again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Neither. Use Canadian, and Canadian only, in the first sentence. Leave mentions of Quebec to the following sentences. Meters (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Most participants in the RfC !voted without being presented with the option of including both descriptors; therefore, they did not express a clear preference for removing "Québecois". Also, most participants in the post-RfC discussion have not expressed a preference to remove "Québécois". So I simply don't see a consensus (yet) to do it.

So if I understand you correctly, you are interpreting the "Spain" provisions at ETHNICITY as an exception to the rule, rather than as expressing the correct interpretation of the rule. I disagree (just as I regard the practices for UK nationalities as an interpretation, not an exception). At some point I do expect to workshop an RfC on this question at ETHNICITY, since the misapprehension that "we treat the UK and Spain one way, and the rest of the world another way" seems to me so widespread. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I do see a consensus for "Canadian politician", standing alone in the first sentence. You're the only editor who's 'reverted' the change, both before & after the RFC. PS - I'm glad, you're willing to open up an RFC at WP:ETHNICITY, btw. Though good luck in getting the special treatment for UK & Spain, expanded to other sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Canadian politician vs Canadian Quebecois politician

It's an improvement from the previous "Canadian politician" vs "Quebecois politician" content dispute. But here we are, disputing between "Canadian politician" & "Canadian Quebecois politician" in the opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an odd interpretation of the situation, GoodDay. Multiple editors have recently supported "Québécois Canadian politician", while other editors support leaving "Canadian" and "Québecois" (or equivalent terms) to the second sentence (to which I am also favorable in principle). Why are you only interested in talking about these two options in particular? Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

They're the only two options (via reverts) being disputed, right now. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

They are also the two options the RfC closing comments left us with (ie A or A&B, "Canadian politician" or "Canadian Québecois politician").--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the goal of all these discussions should be to arrive at consensus on the lead paragraph. "Québécois Canadian politician", or moving the nationality terms to the second sentence, are both potential bases for consensus, are they not? I didn't revert to my proposal for Québécois Canadian politician because another editor objected; I restored the RfC version against my own proposal. (To be clear, the RfC closure itself didn't specify that "Canadian" should appear before "Québecois" in the first sentence; only the closer's edit to the lead sentence did so.) That doesn't mean that proposal is any less "valid", and the same is true of the closer's newer proposal to move national terms to the sefond sentence. We should be looking for an actual consensus here, and my reverts to the closer's version do not at all mean that is the version I prefer. They are essentially "procedural" - reverting to the "last good (enough) version". Newimpartial (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No. The RfC found a clear consensus to include Canadian in the first sentence.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't you think we've got it mentioned enough times in the lead, that he was a Quebec separatists? "Canadian politician", is all we need in the opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I have already stated that I agree that "Québecois" appears too many times in the lead section. I have proposed to reduce this. But I also feel that the article should follow the sources and provide the context of notability. Almost any of the options proposed to date do a better job of this than a bare mention of "Canadian politician" in the lead sentence (Lévesque's career after 1970 is not communicated in any meaningful way by the phrase "Canadian politican" - as opposed say to the career of Lucien Bouchard, which is). If a consensus emerges to say only "Canadian politician" in the first sentence, then that's great, but is hasn't happened yet, and pretending that "Canadian Québécois politician" is the only alternative under consideration seems misleading to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Quebecois is already mentioned in the lead. It doesn't have to be in the first sentence. "Canadian politician" is enough. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want to remove Canadian from the first sentence you are basically going to need a new RfC (because that proposal goes against the closing comments). I understand you will not consent to any situation where Canadian appears in the first sentence but Québécois does not. So besides these two options, what proposal would fit within the confines of the current close consensus?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"Québécois Canadian politician" does so. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a non starter proposal. It's even worst then "Canadian Quebecois". GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to put that option on the table perhaps we should consider French-Canadian politician as is used for former Bloc Québécois leader Lucien Bouchard. I have never heard Québécois-Canadian combined in my life. Nor Canadian-Québécois. The traditional term doing that is French-Canadian. Interesting to note also that Gilles Duceppe another Bloc Québécois leader, not yet mentioned, is simply described as a "retired Canadian politician" in the first sentence of his article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think French Canadian is quite right. It's not synonymous with Quebecois or Quebecois Canadian. For one thing, there are the Acadians in Atlantic Canada (Acadie) who are also French Canadian. JM (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is not exactly the same thing. But is a Canadian-Québécois or a Québécois-Canadian actually mean anything? Is there actually any reliable sources using those terms together? What about using them to describe René Lévesque? Or would we simply be inventing the term here? And then being the first to apply it to Lévesque?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that he is described as both Quebecois and Canadian (although, probably more often Quebecois, the same way Scottish politicians are almost always just "Scottish"), I don't think we're inventing anything to simply say he is "Quebecois Canadian" or "Canadian Quebecois" without the hyphen. Notice that there is a difference between hyphenation and having two fully separate unhyphenated terms. If we hyphenated it, then yes, it would be an invention, but as far as I know, no one here has proposed hyphenation, so I don't think we're inventing anything. JM (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Polite reminder to all that MOS:ETHNICITY applies and states "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability". Therefore, the question we have to decide is whether or not "...was a Canadian politician and journalist who served as the 23rd premier of Quebec from 1976 to 1985. He was the first Québécois political leader..." sufficiently deals with him being from Quebec. If not, then we should say "...was a Canadian Québécois politician and journalist..." (as I don't think 'Québécois Canadian' sounds right). GiantSnowman 09:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the lead? Your first example meets the requirements. I mean, how many times do we have to mention Québécois in the intro? Indeed, I think we're overdoing it in the entire opening paragraph, concerning pointing out that he was a Quebec nationalist. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the question is that simple. There are several situations where national identities other than (or in addition to) country of citizenship are used to establish context under MOS:CONTEXTBIO, such as Spanish regional identities. A Québécois national identity is arguably the sort of context that should be included to properly establish context, particularly in the case of a prominent nationalist.--Trystan (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, the motion is just that, a motion, which doesn't give a Francophone Canadian living in Quebec, any more special status then a Latin Canadian living in Ontario. But if it's considered that important? Then in the second sentence, one can just wiki-link it to "He was the first Quėbėcois political leader...". GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I keep referring to the way Scottish politicians are simply called Scottish and not British. Given the importance of his nationality to his political career and ideology, it would be strange not to have it there. As for "He was the first Quebecois political leader..." it looks to me like that "Quebecois" is an adjective referring to the province of Quebec (i.e., "Ontarian premier") and not a reference to his nationality. JM (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it is done for Scottish politicians. For Quebec politicians we have gone with Canadian (as was decided in the RfC). It is enough to note his Québécois ethnic/cultural/linguistic identity in the second sentence. As already noted, for most Quebec politicians, we don't even do that. Another example being current Quebec Premier François Legault.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Why are we going over this again after just having an RfC which resulted in the use of both "Canadian" and "Quebecois"? JM (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As has been said many times above, on adminstrative notice boards, and on individual editors talk pages... because that is a mischaracterization of the close. The close decided that "Canadian" belongs in the first sentence of lede, and that continued discussion was needed to decide whether "Québécois" does also. I am rather tired of correcting editors comments that misunderstand the RfC close.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I wasn't exactly wandering around random noticeboards and user talk pages looking for all this discussion. Couldn't you be a little more patient? JM (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, link to one of these is above. Much further up you will find a wall of text explaining this, including another editor arguing insistently that the closing comments of the RfC don't mean what they say the mean. I admit that that misunderstanding of the close repeated to the point of bludgeoning has made it hard for editors new to the discussion to come in and get their bearings.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Has anybody contacted the RFC closer about this? GiantSnowman 21:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and he stated that using both Canadian and Québécois was "suboptimal" though then he also made an alternative proposal of removing both from the first sentence, which doesn't exactly accord with his closing comments or the RfC. And I expect really wouldn't please anyone. Full discussion is here. Sorry, bit of a wall of text.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-contact the closer, about this ongoing content dispute? I couldn't be that cruel ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

But the closer might still be watching. Darryl Kerrigan -- as a closer I was uninvolved and had no opinion about what should be decided. Then I got pinged (repeatedly) to this discussion and I tried to help by taking my closer hat off and participating as an editor. Now I've done that, I do have an opinion about what should be done -- and it's not quite what the community decided in the RfC. But my personal view as an editor doesn't and shouldn't overrule the discussion close.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course. I am not suggesting there was anything improper about the close, nor your suggestions thereafter as an editor. Just to answer GiantSnowman's question. And frankly, I thought my initial answer might have been misleading without noting your other comments as an editor. So I did that immediately after. Thanks for keeping an eye, and continuing to try to help us resolve this.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Use Canadian, and Canadian only, in the first sentence. Leave mentions of Quebec to the following sentences. Meters (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This is so frustrating. Levesque was born in Canada, lived in Canada & yet we're being prevented from calling him a "Canadian politician", in the opening sentence. Meanwhile, I'll (figuratively) wager that we've got bios of Canadian politicians, who were not born in Canada, called "Canadian politician" in their opening sentences. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@XeCyranium:, you're welcome to give input. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, hi sorry didn't realize there was a war going on over this. After reading through it I stand by the change I made, there's no consensus to include québécois in the first sentence, only one for Canadian, and there are MOS concerns that specifically suggest avoiding the way it is currently written. From my newly done (brief) perusal of the history and talk page, it seems like Newimpartial is the main voice advocating against exactly the type of change I tried to implement, seemingly for no policy or MOS based reason and without the consensus of other editors. Given the lack of consensus for Newimpartial's preferred version, I feel following the MOS should take priority until such time as another RFC is performed to hammer down the decision. As it currently sits I'd ask Newimpartial to not revert the change again, given the MOS concerns highlighted by my edit summary and because "Canadian Québécois" is about as asinine a descriptor as "French parisien" or "American New Yorker". Most importantly though, because Newimpartial is the only editor I can see going back for months now who has ceaselessly edit warred to include their preferred version without the support of policy or consensus and against the objections of a half dozen other editors. XeCyranium (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Most importantly though, because Newimpartial is the only editor I can see going back for months now who has ceaselessly edit warred to include their preferred version without the support of policy or consensus and against the objections of a half dozen other editors. That sounds a lot like an accusation about behaviour, which doesn't belong on an article Talk page, and it also isn't accurate. For a start, the current version isn't what I prefer - I have preposed a different word order, and am open to other ways of including descriptors, as discussed in previous sections of this Talk page.

Second, several other editors have expressed on this page that they prefer to retain both Canadian and Québécois, and this is what the closer of the prior RfC implemented following their close. I am not maintaining a WP:1AM position here. My edits in article space are actually supported by MOS:ETHNICITY, as I have explained in multiple discussion sections above, and are also supported by Wikipedia:Closing discussions. So I would appreciate it if editors could keep allegations about conduct to an appropriate venue, and that they be based on things that actually happened. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Canadian and Quebecois are referring to different things here. The fact he self-identified as Quebecois is relevant to his biography—blindlynx

"Quebecois" is already mentioned in the lead, though. We don't need it mentioned twice. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's better as is than with a weird hyphenation. That said Quebecois does need to be early in the lead is all i'm saying—blindlynx 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)