Talk:Québécois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-04-05. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Quebec
Quebec Portal
This article is part of the Quebec WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (2002 – 2006)

Archive 2 (2006 – Jan 2008)

Contents

[edit] Tags added

Two points:

  • Le Québec aux Québécois is not quoted from any source, and the translation of Québécois in French by Québécois in English rather than by Quebecers is POV.
  • Opinion columns by Lysiane Gagnon are not a reliable source. Also, although the Petit Robert does give that definition, many examples of good dictionaries have been mentioned on this page that do not define Québécois in French as having an additional meaning of "francophone Quebecer". So there is a contradiction between sources here. Joeldl (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
* Added scholarly sources on "Le Quebec aux Quebecois" with full quotes. One source is from French Canada, another from English Canada. Let me know if you want more. --Soulscanner (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
* Many good dictionaries are incomplete or abridged. This article reviews all the definitions, and the important political and social context behind these definitions. --Soulscanner (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I insist that the inclusion of "Le Québec aux Québécois is not instructive as to the way the term Québécois is used. It is merely there to make a comment on Quebecers' supposed intolerance, especially with the POV translation as "Québécois" instead of "Quebecers". It is akin to "illustrating" the use of the term "English" with a sentence like "You're not really English if you support the Pakistani cricket team". Such inclusion doesn't illustrate the meaning of the word, it simply singles out a perhaps objectionable utterance in which it appears, but in which the meaning of the word itself is unremarkable. Please do not remove dispute tags until there is consensus to do so.
As for dictionary meanings, the entry for Québécois in Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui (from Les Éditions Le Robert) is lengthy, much longer than the one in Le Robert, and yet it doesn't make any mention of this meaning. I do not believe this is an oversight. It does give Québécois francophones and Québécois anglophones and refers readers to the entries for Franco-Québécois and Anglo-Québécois. Joeldl (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
* I think the expression "Le Quebec aux Quebecois" has considerable more significance and historical importance that comments on Pakistani identity and cricket. It is a well known expression that appears often in historical, philisophical political, and sociological literature. It is exactly the kind of the statement where the political and sociological nuances of this words meaning come into play, and exactly why this article is needed.
* Originally, the tag was added becasue there were no referenced sources that documented usage of the term. I provided aademic, verifiable sources and you changed your reasons. You claim bad faith on my part here. You say I'm putting this here just to make French Canadians look bad. That's not true. It's her because the statement is well know, but poorly understood, and needs to be understood in its full sociological, historical, and political context. You cannot add a tag based on the assumption of bad faith. You can question the use of the term, you can question the relevance of the term, or how the term is presented. Comment on the content of the article, not the usnsubstantiated motivations of the author. --Soulscanner (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is there an infobox here again? The responses to Question 1 above were practically unanimous. It was agreed there was consensus. Who has said they wanted the infobox back? Joeldl (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed. I'll remember to check here periodically. –Pomte 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Joeldl (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not put it there, but I do notice that the stub of French-speaking Quebecer is going neglected. Maybe it should be deleted. --Soulscanner (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Stubs are created to grow over time, so if you agree with the legitimacy of the article, it should be kept. –Pomte 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, I'm questioning the legitimacy of that page. My specific issue with the article is that it was argued that the infobox be deleted from this page and put there, as it is on English-speaking Quebecer, French Canadian, or [[Franco-Ontarian]. Hence the purpose of that page seems primarily to keep the infobox off of this page as opposed to writing an informative article on the subject. Hence the existance of that page seems more strategic than anything else. --Soulscanner (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lysiane Gagnon a credible source

Lysiane Gagnon was the editor of Quebec's largest French-Language daily newspaper. She is a perfectly credible source to comment on how language is used in the province. I can't think of a better source to comment on how language is used in daily intellectual life than a newspaper editor. If you are going to challenge a long-standing consensus on her credibility, you need to base it on facts rather than you disagreeing with her. Lets find some sources that contradict her claims rather than spouting personal opinion. --Soulscanner (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. Please do not remove the tags until there is consensus to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeldl (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing in wikipedia policies that considers opinion pieces by professional newspaper editors unreliable, especially when they are commenting on language usage. Unreliable sources come from unpublished sources, or unreliable, marginal figures. In this case, it is the facts listed in the article (not the opinions) that lend context and background that are missing from the dictionary definition. You cannot tag a source just because you'd rather not have people read it. In this case, it is particularly relevant since we have a long-time editor commenting on the way the word "quebecois" is used in Quebec in both English and French. --Soulscanner (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The source is reliable as an indication of her personal opinion. That's all. Joeldl (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It documents usage of the word from a reliable source from a newspaper editor and professor of journalism, and backs up the defintion in the dictionary that you said does not exist. You are clearly pushing your own POV becasue you simply do not like this usage; however, the sources prove that this usage exists and is common. If you cannot accept the opinion of a professor of journalism and the editor of Quebec's largest newspaper, who's documentation can you trust? --soulscanner (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to the English article any more. Maybe you can provide the quote. In any case, the title of the article is "There's no Quebec nation." According to your theory, we should just take this at face value as an incontrovertible truth since she's a respected professor of journalism. Joeldl (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that she documents a usage of the word Quebecois in French (Quebecois as neing "French Canadian"), that it is corroborated by a dictionary, and that she has the scholarly authority to make that judgement. Neither you nor I have that authority. Her opinion counts more than yours or mine. --soulscanner (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

anyone notice that the french version of this page is very clear? and the definition cause problem only to canadians who refuse the fact that we are not canadian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.54.47 (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quebecois nation

Please specify which view point is being neglected and add it to the article. I have no objection to adding other viewpoints on the Quebecois nation issue, provided that they are well documented. Otherwise, Please remove the tag. --Soulscanner (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Many commentators have disagreed with the Prime Minister's interpretation of the resolution. This section only gives his view. It is not my responsibility to add the other views. If nothing is added, the section will still be unbalanced. Also, if you do add competing views, please do not remove the tag until there is consensus to do so, since there may not be agreement that the section has become balanced. Joeldl (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It is your responsibility to act in good faith and explain which views are neccessary to include, and preferably, add them yourself. Other editors cannot guess what these are. The Prime Minister's view is relevant, of course, because he put forward the motion. However, there is the potential for 1000 different views on this. If you put on a neutrality tag in good faith, it is because you are aware of other relevant viewpoints that are not listed there. If you are editing in good faith, then it is your responsibility to enter into a dialogue and explain what those views are and explain who holds them. If you do not, then you are not editing in good faith. Please indicate which POVs are necessary to balance the section, and we will work together to add them remove the neutrality tag. I can add the view of Gilles Duceppe, as he put forward a similar motion to Harper's that in fact precipitated Harper's motion. We can add the view of Stephane Dion, who had a hand in drafting the motion. One of the sources listed in the readings is that of constitutional lawyer Julius Grey. Would these viewpoints be enough to balance the section? Or are there others that you wish to see included? Please supply references. --Soulscanner (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Ambiguous" meaning of québécois in Bloc québécois and Parti québécois

The idea that the meaning is anything other than "relating to Quebec" is extremely doubtful, and certainly unsourced. Both parties have non-French-Canadian MNAs/MPs, and profess a civic and not ethnic form of nationalism. How one could genuinely think there is any ambiguity there is beyond me. This idea is POV because it attempts to paint Quebec nationalism as essentially based on ethnicity - a theme that is exaggerated in this article. Joeldl (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The definition is ambiguous, but there is no need overemphasize it. --Soulscanner (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Le Quebec aux Quebecois

This term is included NOT to illustrate usage (this is not a dictionary page), but because it is an important term in the context Quebec history, politics, society, identity. It occurs often in the English-speaking media and academic texts,and deserves to have the context in which it is used to described so that people understand why it is significant and contraversial. The fact that it is contraversial makes it all the more noteworthy in the context of this article, as it shows how the ambiguity of the word can be interpreted differently depending on who is using and that it translates poorly and awkwardly (which is why it is rarely translated in academic, media, or popular usage). It is complex, and well worth describing. I deliberately chose sources written in English by francophone nationalists so as to avoid spurious accusation of being anti-francophone and anti-nationalist, as I know these personal insults have been hurled here before those who wish to delete the page. The tags have been put here to discredit the page, not to improve it, and could be considered vandalism. --Soulscanner (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I've restored some deletions that I did not notice before. There are now two sections on usage, one showing typical usage, and one showing special idioms that include Quebecois, and that appear in both English and French (mosly because they do not translate well). Some of these are contraversial and unpopular to some, but they do exist and I think they are defined fairly. Just because you do not like them, does not mean they are irrelvant or POV. --Soulscanner (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC).

Because the interpretation of this slogan is somewhat controversial, it is worth explaining its different possible meanings. A simple word-for-word translation does not do it. I added an extra sentence explaining its usage.

[edit] Improper archiving of the talk page

Can somebody more familiar than me correct this improper archiving of the talk page? A new page is supposed to be created and the material copied there as opposed to the entire page being renamed and a new talk page created - this in effect erases the entire modification history of the original page, and is against GFDL guidelines on top of everything. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This was a valid procedure; see Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure. The history is intact on the archive page. A problem with copy and paste moves is that it becomes harder to verify the edit history across the two pages. –Pomte 00:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I muffed up a step, but managed to fix it. I couldn't figure out the instructions at the help page. --Soulscanner (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Québécois people

Should this article maybe be moved to Québécois people to avoid the confusion that led to its AFD? This is that standard used for artiles like Catalan people and Scottish people. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles are already there: French-speaking Quebecers and also French Canadian. The ambiguity over the word "Québécois" in English leads to confusion. Some people, a minority, not including me, thought important to make an encyclopedia article on the different meanings and not just a simple wiktionary page. Others have added political material which appear of importance in the English-Canadian realm of thought. That is why the current Québécois article looks like it does. In the past, I advocated a simple disambiguation page as the best solution, based on the model of Scottish or Scots and many others. I hope common sense will ultimately prevail and this clear and simple practise be used for "Québécois". -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not only talking about Québécois people. It is talking about the Québécois culture. I don't think we should move this article. --Jimmy James Lavoie (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, shouldn't it be merged with Culture of Quebec? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is done to explain what means the word "Québécois". It's talking about the Québécois people, the Québécois culture.. so the Québécois meanings. And I think it's important to keep it here. --Jimmy James Lavoie (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


the infobox is not limited to french speaking quebecers.

[edit] Infobox

{{Infobox Ethnic group}} has been added back to this article. For past consensus on removing it, see Talk:Québécois/Archive 2#Question 1. –Pomte 23:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparing with other cultural groups as French Canadians, Irish Americans, or Bretons, without any separatism-nationalism implied, it appears totally adequate to present the Québec people with an Infobox. As you can notice, I made an effort to put people from any allegiance, and any field (including federalists, nationalists, separatists, neo-Quebecer, women, scientists, artists, anglophone, and Irish-Quebecer).

Moreover, Québec (with the accent) is the official name in both French and English. Just go on the Government website.

Do we agree here ? Any suggestion of other personnalities is welcome of course

The issue is not with the people. There are strong objections that this is not a cultural or ethnic group, or at least that is not what this article should primarily be about. The French-speaking Quebecer article was created to include a box among other things (it needs expansion). –Pomte 01:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But Quebecers are a nation/ethnic group etc. that is not restricted to francophones. French Canadians do not restrict to Québec, and Québec is not only about French-speaking Quebecers. Thus this article for representing Quebecers is very adequate as an ethnic group page, AND should also settled confusions about the name usage. I would work in the future to expand the former.

Whether Quebecers form a nation or not is a point of political disagreement. In any case, the National Assembly used the word "Quebecer" and the House of Commons -at the insistence of Harper - the word "Québécois". The Conservatives were criticized for the vagueness of the word Québécois because in English it seems to exclude many Quebecers, which was the purpose for which the Conservatives wanted that word used in English, though there is nothing in the French version suggesting that exclusion. Many people were shocked to see a word like Québécois used in a legal text. There is no reason that Wikipedia should adopt this language as its own.
There are two unambiguous notions, each with a meaning clearly delimited by their name:
  1. Quebecer. An inhabitant of Quebec. There is no reason to treat this subject separately from "Quebec", any more than there is reason to treat "Ghanaian" separately from "Ghana".
  2. French-speaking Quebecer or francophone Quebecer. For this, there is an article French-speaking Quebecer.
Québécois approximates an ethnic/cultural group only if you consider them synonymous with 2, which is not the case in French, despite what some editors have included in this article - and removed dispute tags from. There is very little to be said here that cannot be said more appropriately at one of the other locations, except what relates to the use of the word Québécois, which is what it was agreed this article should be about. Many editors expended considerable effort in reaching that consensus.
The consensus against an infobox was a very strong one, so I am removing it.
Other subjects should only be treated as they relate to the use of the word Québécois. Importantly, the fact that francophone Quebecers most frequently identify themselves as Québécois in French should not be treated extensively here, since that word simply means "Quebecer" in French. Quebec nationalism is a more appropriate home for that. Joeldl (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary. The Quebecois identity is crucial in understanding the usage of the word, especially in English. There are plenty of authoratitive sources here that document usage in French and English. --soulscanner (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of 'Quebec' over 'Québec'

This article is written in English, so we should prioritize English terms. The English form of 'Québec' is 'Quebec'. The accents in 'Québécois' remain for its linguistic significance in this article. See WP:ENGVAR. –Pomte 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


see : http://www.gouv.qc.ca/portail/quebec/pgs/commun/?lang=en which is a much more recognized and official source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorcan Alaer (talk • contribs) 00:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree on this one ?

The accent being official does not mean the use of 'Quebec' is inappropriate for English writing. You would have to change every instance of 'Québec' that appears in Wikipedia, probably beginning with the Quebec article, the first footnote of which mentions the distinction. –Pomte 01:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would if I had time now. We can at least make thus starting with this very article. It is not inappropriate, but an official name is an official name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorcan Alaer (talk • contribs) 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quebec government practice is contrary in this regard to what is customary in English. The Montreal Gazette, for example, doesn't use an accent. I think the British North America Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982, don't use an accent. Joeldl (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's rule is "name most seen in common English usage", not "official name". Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm from Quebec and I don't put an accent on Quebec when I'm writing in English. It's like "United States", it's the "official name" of the US, but in French, we translate it as "États-Unis". It's the same thing for "Québec" in English. -Jimmy James Lavoie (talk)
The point the editor is making is that Quebec has an official name for itself in English, used for example in the English versions of provincial statutes. (The United States also has the official name for itself États-Unis d'Amérique, since all members of the UN have official English and French names.) But Wikipedia has chosen Quebec anyway because: (a) that is the customary name in English; and (b) it is reflective of (most) federal practice in English. On an informal level, I think people get the sense that this Quebec government practice is essentially politically motivated. A long time ago, when Bill 101 had just been passed, there was even a government poster with a drawing of a hand putting an accent (back?) on the word QUEBEC, so there is some symbolism involved. Why the government really thinks that a 10% English minority has less of a right to an English name for the province they live in than they do to an English name for Sweden (not Sverige!) is beyond me. Joeldl (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I realize this was posted a little while ago, but I am reading it just now. The reason why the Quebec government writes "Québec" with an accent even in English is to be found in article 14 of the Charter of the French language which says: "The Government, the government departments, the other agencies of the civil administration and the services thereof shall be designated by their French names alone."[1]
The idea is not to disallow translations of "Québec" in other languages or alphabets, which happens naturally, but to promote French only everywhere it counts. You can read on the "iconography of the landscape" to get an idea of the importance it can play on the minds of people. In a closely related field, marketing, the practice of using English corporate names, or trade marks even outside English-speaking markets illustrates how powerful such a policy can become with enough money put behind it. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Especially when combined with the "ethnic vote". :-) --soulscanner (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

Regarding the addition of Category:French America, Category:French North America, and so on, "normally articles should not appear both in a category and a "parent" of that category". Category:French America is in Category:French North America. Imagine if every article in every subcategory of Category:French North America were in it. What would be the point? Similarly, Category:French North America is in Category:French Canada. People looking for general articles about America, North America, and so on are not expected to be confronted with specific articles about Quebec. –Pomte 00:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


This was more to make it more complete. It is not crucial and may be confusing you're right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorcan Alaer (talk • contribs) 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW I removed the categories.

Although I still think a simple disambiguation page is the best solution (based on the model of Scottish or Scots or even American people etc., I certainly won't oppose a move to a sensible article on Quebecers/Québécois including all my compatriots. So long as we do not deny the status of distinct nations inside the nation which Québec officially recognizes to the Amerindians and the Inuit. Making only 1% of the population, they are too often left out. -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good point about the natives. Let's make sure they have a part in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.243.241 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And regarding the individual Quebecers represented, although proportionality between francos, anglos, and allos is not practical, proportionality between men and women surely is possible. The current selection appears fine in the intent, but unfortunately, women are underrepresented (3/11). We could add one more person to have a total of 12. If this new one be a woman, then we would only need to replace two men by two women (4 + 2 = 6). Maybe Louise Arbour and La Bolduc to replace Alphonse Desjardins and Gilles Duceppe? -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Section on ethnonym constitutes original research and POV commentary on sources already cited. There is nothing other than the editors opinion to indicate that one source is more reliable than another. The definitions are all summarized neutrally in the lead. All sources are equally authorastive, and unless someone can cite a scholarly source that summarizes these discrepencies in sources it remains the unsubstantiated POV of the author.

Again, just because an editor does not like legitimately documented usage is no reason to question the authority of the cited references. --soulscanner (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, I cited three dictionaries which do not have any trace of an ethnic meaning. It stands to reason that they are not going to go out of their way to say that the word doesn't have one. Requiring otherwise puts an unfair burden on me, since no dictionary is going to expressly contradict your single source (published in France and recognizing in its preface that it describes usage in France.) However, the entry from Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui is probably five or six times longer than the one in Le Petit Robert, and it's from the same publisher. It's hard to believe that the author wouldn't have noticed the Petit Robert definition. He just disagreed with it.
It seems entirely plausible to me that Le Petit Robert would have a meaning like that because French people have said to me "Mais, vous êtes anglophone, alors vous n'êtes pas Québécois!" Confusion over what seem to foreigners like subtle nuances sometimes finds its way into a dictionary as reflective of usage, just as in Russian dictionaries the confusion between "English" and "British" is basically officially sanctioned now.
I am treating this as a disagreement of sources, because in the case of DQA, at least, any ethnic meaning would have been mentioned.
As for the translations, I think we should wait for more opinions on whether I've added enough for them to constitute original research. Joeldl (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Now you argue that the Petit Robert is not valid in Quebec; I dispute that. And those definitions are included here, and have always been included here. You are explicitly saying that documented usage here is "unreliable" strictly on the basis that you personally disagree with it. All you offer is pure speculation and personal anecdotes as to why the dictionary and a journalism professor and editor is wrong, and why other dictionaries may be excluding it; again, just because you do not like a defintion is no reason to exclude it and to call the sources unreliable. You will note that there are other sources that clearly document usage of Quebecois in paralell with Acadien and "franco-Ontarien". Your edits here border on vandalism. --soulscanner (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You're saying that adding a dispute tag "borders on vandalism." This is a good-faith dispute. Here's a quote from the Petit Robert concerning the variety of French on which it's based:
  • "Ces données ne prétendent pas remplacer les descriptions spécifiques et plus exhaustives des belgicismes [...], et encore moins se substituer à des dictionnaires du français décrivant l'usage et la norme de cette langue dans une communauté sociale donnée (le Robert vient d'en faire la tentative très sérieuse au Québec, par le Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui.)» [...] Le Nouveau Petit Robert, bien qu'il décrive fondamentalement une norme du français de France, inclut certains régionalismes de France et d'ailleurs pour souligner qu'il existe plusieurs « bons usages », définis non par un décret venu de Paris, mais par autant de réglages spontanés ou de décisions collectives qu'il existe de communautés vivant leur identité en français." (emphasis mine).
This says explicitly that it is based on French (as in "France") usage.
So why does Lysianne Gagnon explicitly document this usage in Quebec? More over, so does Churchill [2]“French speakers usually refer to their own identities with adjectives such as québécoise, acadienne, or franco-canadienne, or by some term referring to a provincial linguistic minority such as francomanitobaine, franco-ontarienne or fransaskoise.” Again, just because you do not like this usage is no reason to deny that it exists.
Moreover, flagging a legitimate reference from a legitimate source is not valid. You have indicated nothing to show that these sources are invalid. --soulscanner (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I consider the Lysiane Gagnon references to be unreliable. I'm not going to discuss what she says because there's no reason to believe that she's "documenting" anything any more than she's "documenting" that Quebec isn't a nation, a claim disputed by many people of equal stature.
The Petit Robert is generally reliable but here is contradicted by other sources, and also has limitations due to its editorial policy of reflecting usage in France. Joeldl (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be anything contradictory in what Churchill says and what I'm saying. Say you say, "Anglophone Quebecers refer to their own identity as 'Canadian,'" you don't mean that they consider nobody else to be Canadian; they are choosing to identify with a Canadian whole. Similarly, in saying that francophone Quebecers "refer to their own identity as Quebecers," that does not mean that they consider non-francophones to be non-Quebecers. There is nothing there to indicate that they are not identifying with a Quebec whole. Joeldl (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, she documents the usage of the word Quebecois Read the quote: "“C'est que dans la langue populaire, le mot "Québécois" en est venu à désigner les Canadiens français, ce vieux peuple qui a perdu son nom quelque part durant les années 70.”". It is documenting the same usage as in the Petit Robert documenting the usage in Quebec. Do you have a reference that contradicts this documentation? On what basis do you deny the existence of this usage? Please stay on topic: the article explains the ambiguous usage in a way that dictionaries cannot. It explains the social, political, and identity issues around the usage of the word, and ighly relevant to the article.
On what basis is this quote unreliable? Is the author, an editor and journalism professor, not qualified to comment on language usage? Who is? What referenced commentary from a qualified academic source contradicts Gagnon other than your personal opinion and theory as to why this defintion is excluded from some dictionaries? --soulscanner (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already answered these questions. Joeldl (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two quotes on the fundamentally territorial nature of Québécois

The Dictionnaire du français Plus has what it calls a développement encyclopédique on the word québécois, which I quote here practically in its entirety (but omitting the part about Quebec City, a meaning we might add to this article.)

  • "Mis à part quelques emplois sporadiques antérieurs, le gentilé Québécois au sens d'«habitants du Québec» ne s'implanta véritablement dans l'usage qu'à compter des années 1960; avant cette époque, les Québécois se désignaient eux-mêmes par le nom de Canadiens français, à valeur ethnologique plutôt que territoriale (v. Canadien). Ce phénomène s'explique pour une bonne part par l'émergence d'un fort sentiment d'identité par rapport aux autres habitants du Canada et par la montée du nationalisme. Cette situation a, par ailleurs, suscité diverses autres dénominations comme Boréalien, Franconien, Laurentien, fondées sur la notion d'un authentique et pur Québec renommé Boréalie, Franconie ou Laurentie. Ces dénominations n'ont guère dépassé le cercle restreint de quelques groupements nationalistes et ont connu un succès plutôt éphémère."(Emphasis mine.)

In the italicized part they are contrasting the ethnological Canadien français and the territorial Québécois. Here's a quote from Landmark essays on rhetorical criticism by Thomas W. Benson:

  • "French-Canadians in Quebec had to live the contradiction of not being exclusively subjects of the state they collectively controlled. "Québécois" resolves this difficulty at the discursive level, by identifying the populace with a territory and a francophone state, rather than with an ethnic group.

Both of these quotes emphasize the essential feature of the word Québécois - a non-ethnic, territorial one. DFP, as mentioned previously, gives only a territorial definition of Québécois. Are you seriously contending that it was an oversight to exclude an ethnic meaning? Joeldl (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is notorious that one of the reasons why the ethnonym Canadien français was abandoned was because "French Canada" did not exist as a clearly defined territory, although obviously many people thought that Québec had to be the "mainland" of it. For the generation that made the change, being Québécois meant that they identified with the territory of Québec and considered Quebecers living beyond those borders as being expatriated and bound to melt away in the not so distant future. Bernard Landry, of the Quiet Revolution generation, tried to summarize it in a conference for young folks at UQAM where he said (going from memory here, but the conference is on video):
1. My grand-father was a Canayen. All the other British Americans were les Anglais. But this became problematic eventually since as 1867 "Canada" designated a union of all British American colonies, so the old Canadiens, the inhabitants of a non-existing country found themselves in a strange position. (My opinion: technically, they could have renamed themselves to "Quebecers" as of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, but how often do you see a people renaming themselves just to match the arbitrary renaming of their homeland by a conquering power? "Vous êtes nés Français, vous n'avez pu cesser de l'être: une guerre qui ne nous avait été annoncée que par l'enlèvement de presque tous nos matelots, et dont nos ennemis communs n'ont dû les principaux succès qu'au courage, au talent, et au nombre des braves Américains qui les combattent aujourd'hui, vous a arraché, ce qui est le plus cher à tous les hommes, jusqu'au nom de votre patrie;" - Charles Hector, comte d'Estaing, October 1778
2. Since the Canadiens had no intention of becoming members of a new British North American nation forced upon them while they were already members of an existing nation founded in 1608, the word Canadien français came to be used to distinguish the two Canadian nations. This transition did not happen overnight, but eventually, francophones started to mean "citizens of BNA" when they said Canadiens. (My opinion: Hence all this talk about bilingualism, binationalism, biculturalism etc from day 1 of the Dominion up until the rupture with the rise of contemporary Quebec nationalism.)
3. Then, Michel Librovich, a Polish Jew arrived at UQAM in 1960s, became good friends with Bernard Landry and found it quite silly when he discovered he was supposed to be a Canadien-français-juif-polonais . "We ran out of hyphens." said Landry jokingly.
So being Québécois solved an old problem made obvious by the composition of Québec's population, rapidly changing because of the diversification in immigration. It made more sense to refer to everyone as Québécois and when needing to refer to specific subgroups to speak of Italo-Québécois, Judéo-Québécois etc. There was nothing revolutionary there, except maybe doing it while Ottawa continued to say "there is nothing specific about the old French province of Quebec. We are all Canadians subjects of the Queen of Canada in a single united nation with two languages and everlasting constitutional problems."
I do not know how many times was expressed, in various forms, the general idea that "French Canadians" of Quebec no longer wanting to be a minority in a State they could never control (Canada) became "Quebecers" to be a majority in a State they could democratically govern. I do not understand how, after even a superficial review of the main historical facts, one could fail to see that a people has renamed themselves from a name designating a territory no longer existing but in the dream to a name designating a territory that existed in the real world and even had a Parliament just for it. In the history of Quebec nationalism, the transition is marked by the abandoning of the survivalist discourse (characteristic of ethnic minorities) to territorial nationalism (characteristic of national majorities). One has to be home somewhere before one can say: "Bienvenue chez nous!" -- Mathieugp (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There is also this for those who will not pay attention to what Bernard Landry says because he was leader of the PQ:
"Il y a au Canada un seul problème : l’autonomie des Québécois. La réalité de l’autonomie empoigne toute la vie politique. L’état d’esprit des Canadiens français est celui d’une minorité qui veut cesser de l’être. La colère est si grande qu’ils ont maintenant la volonté d’être autre chose que des hommes en colère." - André Malraux (1963)
Joel: Feel free to summarize these POV's in the article. Take care to clearly indicate that they represent the personal POV's of the authors. These points are already explained in the section on Quebecois identity. Keep in mind, though, that this article is about how the word in used in English and also in French. None contradict the documentation here that the word is also used in an ethnic context. It only indicates that the authors in question use other definitions as well.
Can you explain to me that an aside in an obscure literary work is more relevant to the subject on a commentary by a well known journalist and editor who documents how the word is used in mainstream culture, politics, and everyday life on an important item in the news? Why do you consider this source reliable, and the source that contradicts you questionable?

--soulscanner (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner,it does strike me that this interpretation is the opinion of a single political columnist and editor, and shouldn't be considered as being authoritative, linguistically speaking. However, I'll concede that Lysianne Gagnon is a person of some notability in political matters, and this is also in part a political definition. I would then suggest that this definition be left in the article, but properly attributed to a single, (politically) notable person, as WP dictates. Currently, it comes across quite a bit more strongly.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about political matters. I'm talking about language usage. Does she have authority to document and comment on language usage in the press and aong the general population? --soulscanner (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
She's a a political columnist and a journalist AFAIK, not a linguist. So, to answer your qestion, not she doesn't have the necessary qualifications to authoritatively document and discuss language usage in the population (although, I might concede her opinion may be considered notable for other reasons — just not authoritative). Leave that to linguists.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
She is most notable as an editor. An editor does not have the authority to document and comment on how language is used? That's interesting, considering it is what they are paid to do everyday. --soulscanner (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, she is most notable as an editor. Still, as an editor, her job is to review how stories are told (to oversimplify things), not to gauge the evolution of a language. She isn't academically trained to do that. This should be left to linguists, and she isn't one.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
One of her main job as an editor (any editor) is to proof read, and to assure the quality of French in her newspaper. She is trained and hired as an editor based on her knowledge of acceptable French. She is academically and practically trained to know how French is used in Quebec, as is any editor. An editor has as much practical knowledge of how language is used as a linguist, probably even more. Moreover, documentation of how language is used in reputable journals is as authoratitive as what one might find among linguists. Linguists do not focus on usage; they focus on syntax in the context of linguistic theory. Dictionary publishers are more likely to be experienced editors than linguists. --soulscanner (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Still, she is not trained in linguistics (or the specific relevant discipline of linguistics in this case, etymology). While her knowledge of French is certainly above average, she still isn't academically authoritative on matters of language (she would be like a chemist giving an opinion on a matter of biology: trained in the sciences, admittedly, but not in the proper field). Also, her opinion in an editorial column remains that: an editorial opinion. It's not meant to be taken as a treatise on the correct use of language or on etymology, and you would be misguided to think so. Linguists focus on all the different aspects of linguistics, whether theoretical (etymology is one such field) or applied, not just syntactics as you seem to imply. And yes, dictionary publishers usually are editors, but backed by a number of linguists on their staff. The same cannot be said of newspaper editors, as newspapers aren't expected to be authorities on language (although they are expected to use it properly), and neither should they be construed as such.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, linguists work for editors. If you accept dictionary definitions, you are accepting the authority of an editor over that of the linguists they employ. Editors have the final authority. You do not need to be trained in lingustics to be an authority on language usage, and training in linguistics does not make you an authority on language usage. Editors are expected to do more than use language properly. They are expected to make sound judgements on its current usage, and hence to be even more informed than linguists in terms of the various modern contexts in which certain words are used. That is why editors, and not linguists, are the final authorities on how language is used and on what gets into dictionaries, newspapers, and electronic media. Linguists, on the other hand, have very specialized knowledge in their field of expertise; here, we are talking about how language is used in the media and in popular usage; editors are much closer to understanding the political, social, and identity issues involved in terms like this. Moreover, the subject of the editorial makes reference to facts that are not opinion, but that represent the documentation of how "Quebecois" is used. That is why it is generally newspapers publishers, and not linguists, that compile dictionaries. Linguists are theoreticians, editors are involved in application. The correct analogy would be that of a theoretical and applied physicist. You would not want a linguist having authority on how language is used in the media and daily usage anymore than you would want a theoretical physicist giving advice on how to apply nuclear physics at a power station. --soulscanner (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I accept the authority of dictionary editors about language, because their opinions are supported by linguists. I'm not aware that Lysiane Gagnon's work as a neswpaper editor is supported by even a single linguist on the newspaper's staff. What you are doing is mixing up the work of a newspaper editor with that of a dictionary editor, which is akin to mixing up a "train engineer" with an "engineer". It is disingenuous at best, and tells of downright ignorance at worst. Linguists, not editors, are the final authority on language, contrary to what you might think (ask a linguist, and see their reaction). It is becoming clearer and clearer that you are willing to grasp at any argument to try to make your point.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind everybody that the first quote above is taken from a dictionary of the French language published in Canada. It is recognized as being one of the best two general dictionaries of the French language produced in Canada. The dictionary was headed by three linguists from Laval University, assisted by a team of several dozen writers. On Lysiane Gagnon, any article with that title raises questions on its acceptability as a source on linguistic issues. Joeldl (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that your such an expert on dictionaries. Clearly, there are other academic studies and the Canadian census that identify Quebecois as an ethnonym (i.e. an ethnic group). If the dictionaries miss this obvious defintions, then they are obviously overlooking common and academic usage and deeply flawed. --soulscanner (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Academic? If one year enough people wrote they were "Klingon", then that would be put on the next census questionnaire as a choice. Then these "academic studies" are forced to rely on the Census data. When they do, they're always a bit upset because they can't find out what people's real ethnicities were. You erased a fact tag asking for confirmation that Québécois is used in academics as an ethnic designation when not forced to by the census data. Please provide that information. Joeldl (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ethnonym was your word. You are correct that it is not included I've changed the wording to ethnic group, wording that is used in the two related studies on Canadian ethnic groups. The Quebecois are clearly identified as etnic groups in the two studies quoted. As these are legitimate academic sources that address the academic usage of Quebecois in demographic studies, it is acceptable in Wikipedia. Your personal criticism of these constitutes original research, and while you are free to express this here, cannot be included in the article. If you find critiques of these studies in other academic or recognized mainstream media, please provide them. It will improve the article and elucidate the many meanings of Quebecois. --soulscanner (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition from the DFP

Explicitly, the DFP gives the following definition (for an adjective - it's the same basically for the noun):

  • 1. adj. De la ville ou de la province de Québec. La chanson québécoise. Le Grand Nord québécois.

I don't see any difference between this example and Le Petit Robert's cinéma québécois. Except that here, it's not interpreted in an ethnic light. I think that casts doubt on the idea that cinéma québécois is intrinsically ethnic. Joeldl (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This definition is already in the article. Feel free to add the reference. I am not saying that the other definitions do not exist or predominate. Both definitions exist, and the word is often ambiguous in this context. All definitions are included discussed in the text based on references to legitimate sources. You cannot exclude a documented definition and discuss it based on personal anecdotes or becasue you do not like the definition.
This isn't a dictionary page anyways. This page is here to explain the complex political, social, cultural and identity issues that surround the usage of the word. --soulscanner (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point, Soulscanner. The absence of the meaning you're pushing from numerous other dictionaries, some of which have much longer entries on the word than Le Petit Robert, is an indication that those dictionaries did not feel it appropriate to include an ethnic sense, not that they "forgot". Also, Le Petit Robert admits in its preface that its aim is primarily to reflect usage in France. It's used in Canada because for aspects of the language on which Canada and France agree, it's a great dictionary.Joeldl (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The why do 38% of Quebecers identify their ethnicity as Quebecois according to the 2001 census? Lysiane Gagnon explicitly documents this in her article. The Petit Robert corroborates this. It is part of common usage in the Quebec vernacular. It's possible that many editors omit this definition in order to be politically correct; language is a highly politicized issue in Quebec, especially in academia and government. --soulscanner (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That's in part because it's suggested as a possible choice by the census, legtimizing it. Why do so many Canadians give their ethnicity as "Canadian"? Joeldl (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Are you suggesting dictionary editors are not giving "Canadian" as an ethnic denomination because they're trying to hide something? Joeldl (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No, becasue like you, some find it offensive, politically incorrect, or simply do not like this definition . Editors have their own prejudices, and many feel that their job is to prescribe as opposed to describe usage; the prescriptive use of language has a much stronger tradition in francophone academia. They have their own philisophical baises.
In any case, demographers, statistics Canada, and over 1 million Quebecois use it as an ethnonym. That clearly establishes it's usage as such in both English and French. Why some dictionaries ignore a documented academic use is merely speculative on both our parts. --soulscanner (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
"Statistics Canada" also allows "Canadian". That's because people have used it and "Québécois" in the past, so it gets put on later census questionnaires as a possible choice. Demographers are then stuck with whatever ends up in the census data. The "POV" dictionaries you're talking about (including both major Canadian ones) likely feel that "Québécois" means "francophone" in the same sort of circumstances in which "American literature" is thought of as referring to literature in English.
I don't see an ethnic definition of "American" in any dictionaries. Yet you might hear some people in the U.S. claim Barack Obama isn't American enough for them. Does that mean we should amend the definition of "American" to be an ethnic term? Joeldl (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Your opinions are interesting, but we're not here to discuss these. Are you doubting and the quoted academic definitions as legitimate sources? They clearly identify Quebecois as an ethnonym. --soulscanner (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What you seem to be talking about are Le Petit Robert, which I've addressed, and papers on ethnicity forced to deal with census data that include "Canadian" and "Québécois" as ethnic identifications. Your contention is contradicted by other academic sources which I've named: three dictionaries, a "développement encyclopédique" in one of those dictionaries, and the quote from Benson. Dictionaries and linguists are the most authoritative sources on word meanings, and the value of Benson's quote is at least as probative as that of your Lysiane Gagnon, who was clearly writing polemically. (The title of her piece was "Nation? Quelle nation?".)
The dictionaries you have named do not include this definition. You interpret this as meaning that the usage of Quebecois to refer to an ethnic group is illegitimate. This interpretation is your personal speculation, and not based on referenced commentary. I could offer an opinion that this only means that the dictionaries are incomplete (not all dictionaries include all definitions), possibly out of a conscious attempt to deligitimize the usage, and back it up with referenced sources that use Quebecois to describe an ethnic group (the quoted census studies, the Petit Robert definition, and the Lysiane Gagnon articles). This too, of course, would be original research, which is why I avoid criticizing or commenting on the dictionary definitions, and let the definitions speak for themselves. As I said, if you find a referenced commentary from an academic source that comments on this omission in dictionaries, please include it in the article. If all you have to offer is personal anecdotes from France and political conspiracy theories, kindly bring them to a political forum. --soulscanner (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have not suggested putting in the article anything like "Such or such dictionaries say there is no such meaning" (although one dictionary does in a développement encyclopédique explicitly contrast the "ethnological" Canadien français and the "territorial" Québécois). However, we mention that that sense is absent from the two Canadian dictionaries. You claim that this is because they are simply incomplete - I have offered arguments as to why this is not credible. At no point have I suggested putting anything about this in the article. But it is you who has insisted that the article treat the ethnic sense as a fact (for example in unqualified sentences like Québécois may also mean...) without any qualifying language. And this approach assumes that your contention is correct that the other dictionaries are simply incomplete. So you are not simply saying that the article should not pass judgment on the issue of whether these dictionaries are incomplete; you are saying that it should pass judgment implicitly by accepting that Le Petit Robert is correct, and the others are incomplete. I reject your allegation that I want to have original research in the article. Joeldl (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section on House of Commons resolution

I added a tag a long time ago saying that this section, which at the time contained only Harper's view on the meaning of "Québécois", did not reflect all significant viewpoints. Since then, much has been added about opposition to the resolution, which is beside the point of this article, since this article, it was agreed, is about the use of the word Québécois.

Nothing has been added, as far as I can tell, about viewpoints opposing Harper's interpretation of the resolution concerning the meaning of Québécois, or criticism of the choice of the word "Québécois" over "Quebecer". These subjects are completely relevant to the topic of the article.

As it reads at present, it seems almost as if because he proposed the motion, he gets to decide what it means. This is not the case: the entire House voted on the wording before them, which was a compromise with a previous motion by the Bloc; it did not vote on statements Harper made about his motion.

I don't have time to fix this, but I want to make my objections clear lest anybody should later claim that the reason for the "significant viewpoints" tag hasn't been clarified. Joeldl (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please specify what these "significant" viewpoints are, as there are literally hundreds. The Quebecois nation motion represents an important use for the word that has dominated the news for a certain time. In fact, some consider this resolution so important that they insisted on putting it in the lead of the Quebec article, something I objected to. This issue clearly illustrates a significant event in which the multiple meanings of the word came into play; the meaning of "Quebcois nation" clearly pertains to a notable and significant usage of the word. Please tell me which viewpoints you wish added, and I'll add them. If you are acting in good faith, then you will wish that this section is fixed up, and tell editors specifically whose viewpoints you wish expressed if you are unwilling to add them yourself. Would you like the opinion of Gilles Duceppe? Daniel Turp? Jean Charest? Pauline Marois? Jean Charest? Charles Taylor? Stephane Dion? Or do you simply want me to guess at what you consider a significant opinion? --soulscanner (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Just putting the tag there serves the important function of warning readers that it is felt by some there is a lack of balance. It's an improvement over the previous state of affairs. Having gone that far doesn't mean that if I fail to improve it further, that entitles you to remove the tag. The tag needs to be there to warn readers.Joeldl (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The most significant opposing view is that of the Bloc that it includes all Quebecers. Joeldl (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Gilles Duceppe, or Daniel Turp, or will anybody do? Is that enough? Yu are also wrong about the purpose of the tags. They are there so that editors f good faith work towards improving the article, not to push the POV of editors. These tags should indicate a willingness to contibute to improving the article. --soulscanner (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
They serve both purposes. Warning the reader that there is disagreement is an important function of dispute tags. "Good faith" does not mean willingness to engage in editing a section when it seems like an uphill struggle to squeeze a comma in.Joeldl (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

--soulscanner (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)== Quebecois as ethnonym ==

Section should start by saying whether or not Quebecois is used as ethnonym and the relevant statistics. This si the topic of the section, not how other terms are used as ethnonyms. Appropriate edits can be made later on. --soulscanner (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's important because you're using this as an argument that Québécois is an ethnic designation. If your reasoning is correct, it would also show that "Canadian" is. People may also think that people are just volunteering "Québécois". In actual fact, it's suggested as a choice. (And you can't use that as evidence of anything because "Canadian" is a choice as well.) Joeldl (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's shown in the last sentence of the first paragraph. No need to repeat it. You should discuss it here first. --soulscanner (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Article clearly shows that Canadian is ethnonym as well. It's not a question of my reasoning or argument; it's a question of presenting the definitions, methodologies and data classifications provided in the source. I added statistics for other regional ethnic identities (Acadian, Canadian, Newfoundlander), which was added here by Mathieu. This further balances article. Article needs to state clearly at start that Quebecois is used as ethnonym, as this is the topic of section. Other identities are clearly identified as such as well. This is neccessary context, but not the main topic of the article. Lets keep the topic focussed on how Quebecois is used as an ethnonym, with any neccessary context added in the appropriate section. --soulscanner (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, "Canadian" is not an ethnonym, and nor is "Québécois". The people who answer this way are likely doing it in part because the possibility is suggested to them by the questionnaire, and partly because they don't see what else to answer. As the reports note, allowing "Canadian" and "Québécois" is sometimes criticized on this basis. In any case, giving your identity as "Canadian" doesn't mean you think Japanese Canadians aren't Canadian, and identifying yourself as Québécois doesn't mean you think an Italo-Québécois isn't Québécois. These are default ethnic identities one uses when forced to choose, not true ethnonyms. "Newfoundlander" is not an ethnonym either.
You say that the facts about "Canadian" are not very relevant. It's important to mention them prominently because it puts the argument you're making (and yes, you are making one) about self-identification as Québécois in proper context, easily understood for people not familiar with census ethnic data in general. They cannot be expected to have to refer to an article on "Canadians" to be provided with the appropriate context.Joeldl (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This is all your own personal POV. The demographersthat create the Census and perrfom the studies are more authoratative than your personal theories POV on the matter. Feel free to include scholarly sources that criticize it as opposed to adding your own editorial comments that contradict the study and simply writing long, usubstantiated essays to justify your POV edits. The studies cited clearly identifies that Quebecois is used as an ethnic group, as do over 1 million Quebecers. The reasons for this can be as varied as the individuals, and my speculation is as good as yours on this. Lets stick to facts. --soulscanner (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the political use of the census

1. First, the census question is:

What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person’s ancestors?

An ancestor is usually more distant than a grandparent. For example, Canadian, English, French, Chinese, Italian, German, Scottish, East Indian, Irish, Cree, Mi’kmaq (Micmac), Métis, Inuit (Eskimo), Ukrainian, Dutch, Filipino, Polish, Portuguese, Jewish, Greek, Jamaican, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chilean, Salvadorean, Somali, etc.

Inferring that a person who picks "Greek" as ethnic or cultural origin of one of his ancestors thinks he/she belongs to that ethnic or cultural group is not logical. It makes no sense is reality (since there is no guaranty that ethnicity made it all the way to him or her) and it is to presume what people think when they answer the census question. So the whole premise of the paragraph which Soulscanner no longer objects to because he discovered he may now make use of it is entirely flawed. It is not accurate to write: "report their ethnic identity as "Québécois"". They report that of their ancestors. They may even be thinking of their cultural origins if they read the census question correctly.

On a side note, it is interesting to observe that statistics Canada did not list Québécois as an example, but listed Canadian (controversially, since 2001). Does that mean that Canadian is an ethnic origin but not Québécois? If we were in bad faith like Soulscanner, we would push this door wide open, and conclude to the ethnic nature of the word "Canadian", and therefore, infallibly that of Canadian nationalism. We would have great proof, something even better than the unfounded assertions of a mercenary columnist like Lysiane Gagnon. We would have the proof of it in the vocabulary of the brilliant scientists of Statistics Canada, surely the best scientists in the whole world.

2. I had already warned of the lack of seriousness of an entire article on the uses of the word Québécois in English. How wrong such an article can turn has now been exemplified beyond what I had imagined possible. We were many to see it as nothing but a pretext to push a political agenda in which denying the territorial nature of contemporary Québécois identity (which does not mean it is deprived of specific cultural elements otherwise it would not be human but machine identity) is so important.

3. Even the poorest subject can be lengthily written about. An entire and similarly uninformative article, lacking in scientific rigour, could be written about virtually every other ethnic/cultural/national identity. Why only for my national identity is such a piece of crap to be found inside Wikipedia? I demand justice! I want to see one for all the other peoples on Earth! ;-)

Seriously though, I objected to it initially, preferring a simple redirect to Quebec, but now in light of the "evolution" of the current content, I believe it would be more relevant to have an article on the Quebecer/Québécois people as Lorcan Alaer had started doing. It is rather strange indeed that we have articles on English-speaking Quebecers, French-speaking Quebecers, Irish Quebecers, Scots-Quebecers but nothing on all of us. Such an article would most likely be vandalized by bigots once in a while, but at least it would contain the kind of info people seem to expect when they type a people's name in Wikipedia. I have already started a more serious French-language article on the ethnic origins of Quebecers in my draft section. It is far from being complete, but with the help of a few others, we might be able to bring it up to shape, translate it, and debunk a boatload of myths with solid evidence. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Soulscanner says elsewhere on this page that the census is incontrovertible evidence of a Canadian ethnicity, following a number of Reform Party thinkers in that regard. (The Reform Party organized a campaign to get people to say they were "Canadian" on the census.) However, he does not want any parallels to be made on this page between the response "Canadian" to the EDS, and "Québécois", because he says this page is supposed to be about "Québécois". This despite the fact that the survey report refers to "Canadian, provincial and regional ethnic identities" and discusses all of the responses "Canadian", "Québécois", "Acadian" and "Newfoundlander" in the same place. (p. 14 of the report [3])
I agree entirely with your assessment of Soulscanner's use of the EDS. He refers to Jantzen (2005) as "ethnographic studies" (note the plural - it's the only one mentioned), and treats the fact that Jantzen (of the Heritage Department) is forced to deal with the response "Québécois" on the survey as an indication that the use of "Québécois" as an ethnic designator is officially and academically sanctioned.
I agree entirely that with your views on the nature of this article. I feel this is a single-purpose article "owned" by a single editor and directed at making a linguistic case (though it goes beyond linguistic usage now) that Quebec nationalism is ethnic and exclusionary in character.
I believe this page should be renamed Use of the word Québécois. Joeldl (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph of "Ethnic identity" section

Soulscanner and I clearly have a disagreement about how this should be written. Here are our respective versions. He reverted attempts to rewrite it more or less as in my proposed version. Joeldl (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soulscanner's version

[edit] Ethnic identity

Québécois is used as an ethnonym in both the English and French versions of the Canadian census and in demographic studies of ethnicity in Canada. According to the Ethnic Diversity Survey of the 2001 census, over 1 million Canadians identify their ethnicity as Québécois, making this the 8th largest ethnic group in Canada[1] [2]. The survey report notes that 80% of Canadians whose families had been in Canada for three or more generations reported "Canadian and provincial or regional ethnic identities", including "Canadian" (55% of Canada), "Acadian" (6% of Atlantic provinces) and "Newfoundlander" (38% of Newfoundland and Labrador)[3].

[edit] Joeldl's proposed version

[edit] Ethnic Diversity Survey

Quebecers, like other Canadians, often use "New World" ethnic identities in responding to census surveys. According to the Ethnic Diversity Survey of the 2001 census, 37% of Quebecers, and in all over 1 million Canadians, report their ethnic identity as "Québécois", making this the 8th largest ethnic group in Canada[1] [2]. Likewise, 55% of Canadians identified their ethnic identity as "Canadian". The survey report notes that 80% of Canadians whose families had been in Canada for three or more generations reported "Canadian and provincial or regional ethnic identities", including "Canadian", "Québécois", "Acadian" and "Newfoundlander". ([4].

[edit] Comments

As Mathieugp points out above, it is factually inaccurate that Québécois appears as an example ethnic origin in the Canadian census. Only Canadian does.

I am also not certain if the 6% and 38% numbers apply to 3rd+ generation Canadians. I know the 55% figure doesn't.

Soulscanner attempts to avoid any treatment of "Canadian" and "Québécois" as analogous responses, even though the report discusses them in the same section and groups them under the name "Canadian and provincial or regional ethnic identities". Note that he removes "Québécois" from the list of four names (which appear together in the report), so it will not be seen side-by-side with "Canadian". Joeldl (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a specious accusation. Canadian is mentioned in the article as a choice for ethnicity. The fact that many Quebecers wrote in Quebecois as their ethnicity is also mentioned. This is mentioned first because it addresses the topic of the article, which is how the word Quebecois is used in census and demographic studies, a perfectly legitimate use. It is also a fact that the more detailed and focussed EDS study included Quebecois, Acadian and Newfoundlander with over 1 000 000 Quebecers identifying Quebecois as their ethnicity. That is the fact. You speculate as to the reasons for this, but your personal theories are not as legitimate as the two census studies. The context is fully explained in the article and backed up with explicit referenced quotes. I encourage you to follow the example with referenced quotes from other studies instead of introducing caveats to push your personal POV. Personal ctitiques of the methodology of the quoted studies certainly are not valid in the article. --soulscanner (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I am saying that the survey report treats the four ("Canadian", "Québécois", "Acadian", "Newfoundlander") together, and you are editing in ways to avoid having "Canadian" and "Québécois" compared in the article. You say "used" in ethnographic studies. I would say they are simply reflecting whatever responses were given, not adopting the terminology as their own. Otherwise, they would have to adopt "Canadian" as an ethnic term. Again, you have restored information I had corrected: the 55% figure does not pertain to 3rd+ generation Canadians. Joeldl (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that a census is by no means an ethnographic study.--Ramdrake (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rest of section

I believe the remaining paragraphs are off-topic, as the consensus is this article deals with the use of the word Québécois, not general considerations on the sense of ethnic belonging of French Canadians unrelated to the word Québécois.

I think you need to review the deciding rationales for keeping the article:
  • The first explains that Quebecois is a loaded term with cultural and historical contexts that other terms do not have. The need to explain these contexts is specifically identified as a key element in the decision to keep this article. [[4]]
  • Another clearly identifies that controversies surrounding this term are intrinsically noteworthy, and should be documented in an encyclopedia. [5] The use of Quebecois as an ethnonym is precisely such a contoversy. if it is controversial, it is precisely because some people, academics, demographers, and ordinary people, use the term and others do not. I encourage you to add other sources that elucidate the various arguements for and against the use of Quebecois as an ethnonym, and to clearly indicate their political, ideological and cultural POV. --soulscanner (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This post clearly states that the term has its own history, making the historical evolution of the term in politics, culture, and identity a legitimate topic. [6].
Essentially, you are attempting to stifle new additions by limiting the scope of the article to a summary of dictionary entries, an argument that was explicitly rejected in the discussion above that decided to keep this article. You are perfectly within your rights to question the balance here, but you must show good faith by accepting the consensus by adding your own referenced content to balance what you find to have a slanted POV. Please accept the consensus and help by adding and summarizing other studies that if you feel other historical, cultural, and political perspectives are missing. The referenced sources you have provided are useful and legitimate, and many of the edits you have made have been useful as well. --soulscanner (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The things you have added discuss the sense of ethnic belonging of all people with "French New World" ethnic identities. This may be belonging to the group "French Canadian", "Canadian", "French" or "Québécois". These are characteristics of the people and the relation to the word Québécois. Joeldl (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That is mentioned in the article as a needed context, but it is not the main topic of the section (the use of Quebcois in studies of ethnicity is the topic). I don't see your point. Are you saying that discussion of the usage of Quebecois as an ethnonym or ethnic group does not belong in the article? If so, why did you introduce it (see link [7])? --soulscanner (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary section

[edit] Soulscanner's version

The dictionary Le Petit Robert, published in France, defines Québécois as an ethnonym and adjective in addition to its territorial meaning, referring to francophone or French Canadian culture in Quebec[5]. The dictionary gives as examples cinéma québécois and littérature québécoise.

The ethnic or linguistic sense is absent from Le Petit Larousse, also published in France,[6][Quotation needed from source] as well as from French dictionaries published in Canada such as Le Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui[7][Quotation needed from source] and Le Dictionnaire du français Plus, which indicate instead Québécois francophone "francophone Quebecer" in the linguistic sense. These dictionaries also include phrases like cinéma québécois "Quebec cinema", but do not classify them as relating to language or ethnicity.[original research?]

[edit] Joeldl's version of first two paragraphs

The dictionary Le Petit Robert, published in France, states that the adjective québécois, in addition to its territorial meaning, may refer specifically to francophone or French Canadian culture in Quebec[8]. The dictionary gives as examples cinéma québécois and littérature québécoise.

However, an ethnic or linguistic sense is absent from Le Petit Larousse, also published in France,[9][Quotation needed from source] as well as from French dictionaries published in Canada such as Le Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui[10][Quotation needed from source] and Le Dictionnaire du français Plus, which indicate instead Québécois francophone "francophone Quebecer" in the linguistic sense. These dictionaries also include phrases like cinéma québécois "Quebec cinema", but do not classify them as relating to language or ethnicity.[original research?]

[edit] Joeldl's comments

Soulscanner wishes to make it seem that the acceptability of an ethnic meaning of Québécois in French can be taken for granted. Obviously, sources disagree on this, as the many discussions above attest. In fact, Le Petit Robert seems to take a minority view. and as I mention above, it is published in France and attempts to reflect usage in France.

Soulscanner has made the argument that the omission of any ethnic meaning from other dictionaries is not in contradiction with le Petit Robert. This is not credible, because dictionaries published in Canada would not overlook such an important issue.

  • Le Petit Larousse (France) does not give an ethnic meaning.
  • The Dictionnaire québécois d'aujourd'hui is from the same publishers as Le Petit Robert, so the authors would have been well aware of the Petit Robert definition. It is not credible that the omission of an ethnic meaning from it was an oversight. In fact, the entry on québécois in it is quite lengthy (compared to a dozen lines in Le Petit Robert).
  • The Dictionnaire du français Plus, written by a team of linguists from Laval University, includes a développement encyclopédique (quoted above at Talk:Québécois#Two quotes on the fundamentally territorial nature of Québécois) after its entry for québécois, in which it explicitly compares the ethnic Canadien français and the territorial Québécois. It is not credible that the omission of an ethnic meaning from its entry for québécois was an oversight.

These dictionaries do not feel it appropriate (Soulscanner would say on political grounds, but we must assume on linguistic grounds) to include an ethnic meaning. The only examples given by Le Petit Robert, "littérature québécoise", etc., are covered under the (non-ethnic) senses in DFP and DQA. They can easily be interpreted in a non-ethnic light, as being analogous to "American literature". (And yet no dictionaries claim American is an ethnic designation.)

[edit] Soulscanner's comments

See below--soulscanner (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question: How should the claimed ethnic meaning in French be treated?

Here are some choices:

  1. As an incontovertible fact, and on par in importance with the territorial meaning.
  2. As an incontrovertible fact, but with its use in that meaning considered incorrect or marginal by most sources.
  3. As a fact in dispute.
  4. As a fact in dispute, and held as a minority view.
  5. As false. Joeldl (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

As a fact in dispute, held as a minority view. Joeldl (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
As a fact in dispute (held by an unknown proportion of people in English, but held by a definite minority in French)--Ramdrake (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Lysiane Gagnon

Newspaper editor Lysiane Gagnon has identified Québécois as an ethnonym for French Canadian.[11][Quotation needed from source][12]

I believe this overstates what she says. The English source is inaccessible, and in the French source [8], it seems this is what Soulscanner is referring to:

Pour être exact, il faudrait parler des "Québécois francophones de vieille souche". C'est trop long. Donc on dit "Québécois", dans le sens ethnique du mot.

First it should be noted that this is an opinion column. I think a fairer reflection of the facts would be this: "Journalist Lysiane Gagnon has referred to an "ethnic sense" of the word Québécois."

I think it's in better taste if we don't attach to Gagnon the attribute "federalist", but I understand that some people here might like us to be consistent with what tends to be done on the English Wikipedia for "sovereigntist". Joeldl (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed this part of the column:

Même chez les francophones de vieille souche, le mot "Québécois" est devenu, dans la langue populaire, synonyme de "Canadien français".

I think a fairer reflection of this would be:

  • Lysiane Gagnon has stated that Québécois has become, in vernacular language, a synonym for "French Canadian".

I'll briefly address why this claim shouldn't be considered as more than her opinion. She bases it on the existence of utterances like these:

  • "Dans ma classe, il y a autant d'Arabes et de Haïtiens que de Québécois." "In my class, there are as many Haitians and Arabs as Québécois."

But one could easily imagine Americans saying something like "there are as many Mexicans in my class as there are Americans." People would react to a sentence like that as insulting and as an incorrect use of language. It is absolutely the same thing in Gagnon's example, and she makes the concession "in vernacular labguage". In any case, this shows that one of the very sources introduced by Soulscanner to justify his claim of the existence an ethnic sense concedes that the purported ethnic sense is not on par in terms of acceptability with the territorial meaning. Joeldl (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Lysiane Gagnon is not suggesting in her opinion piece that Quebecois is an ethnonym in the correct language, that is obvious.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I've also tried to say why it would be a mistake to rely on her authority, even with respect to vernacular language, rather than that of dictionaries. On her arguments, if the purported ethnic meaning exists, then it should also exist for "American", and editors with a reasonably sympathetic view of English-speaking Americans (I'm straining to avoid saying "without a grudge against") would never allow an "ethnic meaning" of American to be presented as an unqualified fact. Joeldl (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is not about Americans. Paralells can more appropriately be made to Acadian, Metis, Cajuns, Canadien, Newfoundlander or French Canadian, as they are in the study. Quebec government dictionaries have a strong nationalist bias; they are generally based on a prescriptive ideology, and unless one knows the bias of their editors, one cannot say they are neutral. These ideological POV's need to be discussed int he article to make the section on dictionaries more balanced.
Also, implicit in the above critiques is this prescriptive philosophy about what "correct" language is; "correct language" is based not on what people think is politically correct or "proper", but on how people actually use the language. If over 1 million Quebecers identify Quebecois as their ethnicity in an official census study, and if it is documented in a study on ethnicity, I think that makes it worthy to include in an article that describes the usage of the word; as a matter of fact, it speaks to the very heart or the matter, and actually clarifies the reasons behind the words ambiguity. If there are notable critiques of this study, and there undoubtedly are, then these should be summarized and referenced here. Unfortunately, that is not being done. We are just given personal commentaries that are clearly original research. It has been repeatedly pointed out to the same editors that this is about how language IS used, not about how we would like it used. We don't delete articles, deny usages just because we do not like what is documented in them. We've been through this before. --soulscanner (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You are making essentially the following argument, and I will paraphrase: "The dictionaries are biased. They are mistaken in omitting an ethnic sense. Lysiane Gagnon proves it by giving examples." I am saying why there are weaknesses in this argument, not proposing that our discussion on this talk page be imported into the article. Joeldl (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This arguement about why certain definitions are excluded in dictionaries is hypothetical; it doesn't reflect my real POV. The point is, I cannot back it up with references; that is why I do not put it in the article. It is based on speculation, as is your theory for why it appears in some disctionaries and not in others; you do not back up your with referenced commentary, only your own original research. My argument and yours merely speculate about why some dictionaries and some authors document these usages. You speculate that the French usage is different than that used in Quebec, and conclude that the Petit Robert is not valid valid in Quebec for this definition. The point is, any claims about this need to backed up by direct references that explain why the definition is used in some sources, and not in others. Lysiane gagnon is a legitimate source, and she makes concrete observation of how language is used in the vernacular in Quebec. it illucidates why the term is controversial and ambiguous in Quebec. If there are commentators who counter that this usage is not "proper", by all means lets include those. However, you cannot deny that many Quebecers hear it used that way everyday, whether they think it is right or wrong, or wheter or not they are misinterpreting it. The fact is, over 1 million identify their ancestry as Quebecois. That tells you about how the word is used and perceived in Quebec, and how strongly it is perceived as such, and perfectly relevant here. If there are Quebecers that object to this in published sources, or better yet, demographic and ethnic studies that explicitly reject this definition, please add these to the section. It might illucidate why the word is omitted as "imroper" in some dictionaries,and allow people to draw their their own conclusions. --soulscanner (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, you are drawing your own conclusions about what the census and EDS data mean. Then you're saying that those conclusions should be accepted as fact, by Wikipedia saying "Québécois is an ethnonym." I am saying that the fact that most dictionaries, including all those published in Canada that we've consulted, do not include an ethnic meaning, and that one dictionary explicitly contrasted the "ethnological" Canadien français and the "territorial" Québécois, with Benson making a similar distinction, is enough for us to adopt caution and avoid making unequivocal statements like "Québécois is an ethnonym", which is what you would like to do. Even Gagnon, in her opinion column, qualifies her statement by saying "dans la langue populaire". Joeldl (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate sections on ethnographic studies and French usage added

Seperate section added on census and ethnographic studies. These studies clearly refer to Canadians, Canadiens, French Canadians, French as ethnic gropus, and to Acadians, Newfoundlanders, and the Quebecois as regionoal ethnic groups. They do not discuss identity; there is another section on identity with studies that do.

Discussion of dictionary definitions pertain exclusively to French usage; this is added to section on French usage of word. More needsto be said of the linguistic and ideological biases inherent to French and Quebec dictionaries, as they are considerable. This would balance what is a slanted POV in this section.--soulscanner (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this new sectioning appears to be to give prominence to the disputed uses Soulscanner claims, displacing the very ordinary and unremarkable use as a territorial term elsewhere. How can you seriously claim that several sections should be occupied by a sense whose existence is disputed, and that they should come first? In addition to POV statements made by Soulscanner throughout the article, we now have the issue of prominence-related POV to contend with. Joeldl (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead on ethnographic studies

Two editors here have expressed an objection to including the main findings of a study that clearly identifies the Quebecois as an ethnic group. They do this based on personal commentary criticizing the methodology of these studies without providing any sourced references. Clearly such POV pushing is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Moreover, it is one of these editors introduced the topic of "Quebecois as an ethnonym", yet reject legitimate referenced sources that discuss the topic in ways that run contrary to their personal POV.--soulscanner (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a section on "Québécois as a possible ethnonym" because previously the article stated this as a blunt fact. I am not pushing POV, and I do not object to the methodology of the EDS. My objections centre on your characterization of the findings and the conclusions you draw. The most egregious conclusion is that Québécois is an ethnonym, when by the same reasoning Canadian would have to be one too, which is clearly problematic. Joeldl (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Becasue it is a fact. Some dictionaries include as an ethnonym in addition to the territorial definition; the territorialdefiniation is identified first, and clearly identified as the most common one. That is fair. You simply want the definition removed because you do not like it. Why is it legitmate when you want to talk about it, but not when other people offer sources that clearly use it as such? If we'regoing to discuss Quebecois as ethnonym or ethnic, lets include all sources. Just because these sources contradict your POV is no reson to delete them or change their findingswhen they speak directly to the topic of how Quebecois is used in an academic context. --soulscanner (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rejection of Consensus

Two editors have suggested that the name of the article be changed, reiterating and revisiting the same arguments that have already been clearly rejected [9]. Here's a review of the deciding rationales for keeping the page and setting it's scope:

  • The first explains that Quebecois is a loaded term with cultural and historical contexts that other terms do not have. The need to explain these contexts is specifically identified as a key element in the decision to keep this article. [[10]]
  • Another clearly identifies that controversies surrounding this term are intrinsically noteworthy, and should be documented in an encyclopedia. [11] The use of Quebecois as an ethnonym is precisely such a contoversy. if it is controversial, it is precisely because some people, academics, demographers, and ordinary people, use the term and others do not. I encourage you to add other sources that elucidate the various arguements for and against the use of Quebecois as an ethnonym, and to clearly indicate their political, ideological and cultural POV.
  • This post clearly states that the term has its own history, making the historical evolution of the term in politics, culture, and identity a legitimate topic. [12].

The editors are attempting to stifle new additions by limiting the scope of the article to a summary of dictionary entries, an argument that was explicitly rejected in the discussion above that decided to keep this article. Everone is perfectly within their rights to question the balance here, but also must show good faith by accepting the consensus and adding thier own referenced content to balance what may indeed be a slanted POV. Please accept the consensus and help by adding and summarizing other studies that include other historical, cultural, and political perspectives that may be missing. The referenced sources that the editors have provided are both useful and legitimate, as have some of their edits. I do submit, though, that continued discussion of deleting or moving this page shows a contempt for a clear consensus, particularly since this page has continued to evolve and grow since this consensus was established. If editors wish to balance this article with other referenced sources, I welcome them to do so and discuss these sources here. This article does need improving, and I invite them to take part as they obviously know of other sources that could help in understanding the varied nuances of the term Quebecois. I also ask that they desist from making specious claims of pushing POV. Any POV's mentioned here are not by own as they are not relevant on Wikipedia, but referenced POV's summarizing the views of wel-known public figures and academic researchers. --soulscanner (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, you cannot base yourself on a past AfD to define what consensus is. As you must know, consensus can change, as you've demonstrated on the Quebec article. I believe this change has just happened. I would suggest that the other editors have some valid points (about the ethnonym being the contention of a few, and not an established fact), and that you try to forge a wording that is acceptable to both camps, rather than digging your heels on your own position, as this is exactly what you now come across as doing.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes you can. It represents a strong consensus for keeping the page as is. To get it reversed, you have to fromally go through that procedurre again. Ask for a reference. Try moving this page. See what happens. Ask mathieugp. He tried it with a couple of other editors who thought that consensus had changed without consulting other editors first. --soulscanner (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, NO. It represents a past consensus for not deleting the page, and as with any consensus, it can change with time. You will also note that several editors expressed an opinion on the AfD that the article needed some extensive rewriting. I'm not saying it should be deleted. I'm saying that, as is, it misrepresents the use of Quebecois as an ethnonym, as it presents it as a blunt fact, rather than as a collection of scattered references, none of which are authoritative in my opinion.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that consensus has changed. You cannot change consensus on your own. --soulscanner (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The consensus is about not deleting the article. I'm not challenging that one. I'm challenging points of the content of the article, not its existence. And I'm not alone. So, no there isn't a consensus here, and nobody's in breach of anything by challenging the content of the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would welcome well-sourced information about any such debate on the meaning of Québécois, but at the moment the only debate is the one on this talk page about whether an ethnic meaning exists and what its status is if it does exist. What we have is: 1) the various dictionary entries; 2) the développement encyclopédique from the DFP; 3) the quote from Benson above; 4) the opinion columns by Lysiane Gagnon. None of these refer to an actual debate, but simply state positions on the matter without any reference to opposing points of view, except implicitly Gagnon by qualifying her statement with "dans la langue populaire". Joeldl (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Then add them. Find references that offer points of view.I fully invide them.
I'll point out that we also have a census and study of of ethnicity in Quebec that uses this definition. That is legitimate academic source. Do you doubt this? --soulscanner (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
100,000 people said they were of Québécois ancestry in the census. 250,000 said "American (USA)". 10,000,000 or so said "Canadian". That does not make these ethnonyms. As for the EDS, many people said they had a "Canadian", "Québécois", "Acadian" or "Newfoundlander" ethnic or cultural identity. That does not make these ethnonyms. The studies you're referring to, and I think this is the 50th time I've said this, are merely acknowledging the responses given, not stating themselves that there is such a thing as a "Newfoundlander" or "Canadian" ethnic group.
I don't know why you're telling me' to find anything. My primary interest here is to prevent inaccurate information from being included, such as the unqualified statement that Québécois is an ethnonym. I have indicated many times the reasons I believe the totality of sources presented, taken together, do not support this in the unqualified way you claim.
I will not be contributing for the next little while, but I would like to express the hope that this article will in future be edited according to consensus. Joeldl (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I don't have time or the inclination to engage in any edit wars, but I'd like to point out the kind of information Soulscanner is removing. This edit [13] takes the cake. I don't have time to deal with this, but I view this as a completely illegitimate action for an editor. Please somebody watch over this page. Joeldl (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Building mountains out of molehills

I believe the possible use of Quebecois as an ethnonym needs to be addressed more carefully. One cannot base oneself on the opinion of a lone newspaper editor and on a single census-derived survey to affirm "Quebecois is an ethnonym". At most, if one is to respect WP:NPOV, these opinions should be attributed, and one should refrain from original research, i.e. drawing conclusions not expressly drawn by the studies one is referring to. The contention that Canadian isn't an ethnonym while Quebecois is, is to say the least, a self-contradiction. Why these shouldn't be treated side by side, the logic escapes me. But I know that for neutrality and encyclopaedicity's sake, we need to attribute these opinions, and not present them as blunt facts; as they aren't.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up of Census Ethnographic studies section

  • Added correct questions for Ethnic Diversity Survey. Please link to given reference for confirmation.
  • Removed disputed claims.

--soulscanner (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)