Talk:Fête nationale du Québec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am trying to get information about this holiday. Ihave read about a feast. What is eaten at such a feast? Alby

  • Heh heh heh, at the feast that I know of we only drink beer, a lot of it. Red Star
  • Haha, this article is a bit lacking on what REALLY happens on St. Jean Baptiste, after having speat my summer in Montreal, everyone essentially gets the day off to drink, and in Copious amounts, in the parks, in the streets, and in their homes, it's a great holiday, much better than Canada day.
  • BEER. The Saint-Jean is a celebration of beer. And stuff. Mostly beer. But stuff too!

Contents

[edit] July 1st renewal of rental agreements in Québec

From the article: There is also a law in Quebec which stipulates that July 1st is the day for yearly renewal of property rental agreements. Really? I don't see any mention of july first in the Code civil du québec (See articles 1941 to 1946 which deal with renewal). Am I missing something?

You are correct. The current civil code no longer prescribes any particular period of the year for the renewal. Read this for a possible explanation :

[edit] Reject the Koolaid Blog Link

Reject the Koolaid Blog celebrates the fete today with a short tribute as a link to this is irrelevant, unencylopedic and is simply an attempt to a) get people to go to the blog in question or b) encourage negative feelings towards French Quebecers because of her negative experience as an Anglo-Quebecer on the Saint-Jean-Baptiste. It has been removed a few times I believe but Tearfree keeps putting it back in. - TheJF

I do not consider my experience as an Anglo Quebecer negative at all. I love Quebec. That's why I live here. This is a humour piece about Quebec and, as such, is perfectly appropriate for today and the next few days. After that, I agree with you that it becomes irrelevant. Why don't you just add your comments instead of constantly removing this piece? Tearfree

[edit] Okay everybody, take it easy.

I humbly recommend that everyone take a break from the reverting. I already see one breach of the 3 revert rule here, but have no intention of reporting it as long as the reverting stops. I recommend that the people involved in the brewing edit war take a break from editing this article for a while and let other people sort it out. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 00:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that evenif I never thought of Che as being one to compromise. Tearfree

Thank you, Tearfree. I have no knowledge of the subject, so I'm not here to sort out the factual confusion -- I just don't want to see anyone get blocked.
By the way, it's a great help to everyone if you sign your posts with a link to your userpage and the datestamp. All you have to do is type ~~~~ at the end of your message, and the wikicode takes care of the rest. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 01:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Copying what I said on Che Nuevara's talk page, I would like to point out the problem with Tearfree's external link to her blog: Wikipedia:External_links, Links to normally avoid, Line 12: Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.
Tearfree's blog entry is a personal story, so I don't think it qualifies as an exception, hence it should be removed. I also think it fuels the stereotype of Quebecers as rude and racist (where the guy says "get out of my country"). I don't dispute that it did happen to her, but I can't help but feel linking to such a personal story in an entry on the Saint-Jean-Baptiste gives that impression.
Note that this has been edited before by Mathieugp, although I am sure he had some bias in there because his profile declares him to be a Quebec sovereigntists.
Disclaimer: I am not a Quebecer, I'm Acadian. TheJF 01:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Even federalists are nationalists. They just think that being in Canad serve us beter. And nobody like to see his people branded as 'x'.

[edit] Nationalist Bias

Referring to la Fete nationale as Quebec's "national" holiday implies that Quebec is a nation (this is impossible, it is a province in Canada), and runs afoul of NPOV standards here on wikipedia. I believe it should be referred to indirectly as a holiday of the province of Quebec, not as Quebec's national holiday. Obviously its proper name should remain the same, but in the editoral context here on Wikipedia, it should be referred to with the former and not the latter title. In the meantime, I've put "quotations" around the word national when used in the wikipedia 'this is a fact' context in the article. 66.130.181.233 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Quebec can be considered a nation even if it is not a sovereign one, and even if there was not a movement for it to be an independent nation.

Dictionary. 1. 3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

To use the Dictionary example, Ukraine could still be referred to as a nation even during the USSR. The holiday is considered a National Holiday by the government, and thus, it should be referred as so.
It is good to note that although I am Quebecois, I am not supportive of the nationalist movement. --A Sunshade Lust 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be considered a nation, but my point is that this is not for us to decide nor proclaim. 66.130.181.233 05:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide whether Quebec is a nation or not, but it is a fact that A) it is called La fête nationale du Québec which translates to "Quebec National holiday" B) that is what the governement of Quebec calls it too even under a federalist Premier (see http://www.cnt.gouv.qc.ca/en/normes/fete_nationale.asp) C) if we are to question whether Quebec is a nation, we should also question whether Canada is one which we don't. (That is called being neutral). D) one does not need to be nationalist to recognize Quebec as a nation, one only needs to know the meaning of the word nation. Nation can be synonymous with sovereign state but that is not the only meaning of the word an certainly not the first. -- Mathieugp 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
A is not in dispute. B is irrelevant, it doesn't matter who calls it what, only that we cannot proclaim it to be something it is not generally accepted to be. Quebec may claim to be a nation, but the rest of Canada does not necessarily think so. Again, it's not for us to decide. C is gratuitous and irrelevant; Canada is recognized as a nation in the broader international context and there is no real debate on the issue. D may perhaps be true, but again, this is a controversial issue and we should not be taking sides.
To affirm the positive and describe Quebec as a nation is to take a side. To affirm the negative and describe it as 'not a nation' is to take a side. To simply state that Quebec has claimed itself to be a nation and that this fact is in dispute is the proper NPOV we should be taking. In all places in the article, the word 'nation' when mentioned in the wikipedia editorial voice should maintain this NPOV no matter what. 66.130.181.233 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
What specific sentence(s) do you have a problem with? Maybe this would help me understand your thinking.
So far, I think that doing what you suggested would be pushing the NPOV policy to an extreme. Following your reasoning, most Wikipedia articles dealing with science would currently be written in a NPOV manner, and should be fixed because they say something contrary to some Christian fundamentalist beliefs. The NPOV policy is not there to go around the main purpose of an encyclopedia: to inform with facts.
It can be demonstrated easily that Quebec fits the description of a nation, unless we are using the word as a synonym for "independent state". If this article asserted that Quebec was a "sovereign nation" or an "independent state" or whatever, it would simply be untrue and would be removed in 10 sec., but I see no such claim in this article. At the present, Canada does not recognize Quebec as a nation officially for reasons that are primarily political. The main reason why the federal government does not affirm that Quebec is "not a nation" is also political.
Ultimately, to block "any description of Quebec as a nation" because the federal state of Canada has not yet taken a side on this is censorship. The federal state of Canada's opinion on Quebec does not allow us to claim, as you claimed, that Quebec is not "generally" accepted to be a nation.
I understand that it is your perception that Quebec is not generally accepted to be a nation. From where I come from, Quebec, Quebec is generally accepted to be a nation that is not sovereign and not recognized by Ottawa. Also, both our individual perceptions cannot allow us to know what is "generally" accepted to be or not. It depends in which social milieu you evolve in.
If I entered a room full of random people gave them a description of the word nation, a description of Quebec, how many people would assert that Quebec is not a non-sovereign nation? Following such an experient, we could maybe talk about what people generally think. Quebec compares to other non-sovereign nations like Scotland or Catalonia and one would have to deny much evidence to claim the opposite. -- Mathieugp 21:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/%C3%AA/t/Talk%7EF%C3%AAte_nationale_du_Qu%C3%A9bec_9445.html"