Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 08:44Z

Québécois

[edit]
Québécois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that's all this article is. Before I suggested a merge into Quebec, but the fact is that Wiktionary exists and handles this business perfectly. There is no need for a separate article, especially one has been used to push controversial ideas. Again, Wiktionary has an entry for this term - whatever information here that doesn't exist there can be "transwikied" which I believe is the appropriate term. Thus, the article should be deleted, or at the very least, redirected to Quebec.

The socalled "dictionary" aspect of the article is only in the introduction. It establishes with links to referenced sources what the various definitions of Quebecois are. This is necessary because the existence of certain definitions (i.e. that of Quebecois being referred to as French Canadians living in Quebec) have been denied and requires documentation. --Soulscanner 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a WP:DICDEF. The other section is pure WP:OR and unnecessary. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox platform. 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that we don't have articles for Ontarian (redirect), Albertan (redirect), New Yorker (disambig), Californian (disambig), etc. Singling out Quebec is clearly POV. Laval 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder of the article is clearly not a soapbox. The opinions given on the issue of the Parliamentary motion (which formally recognized the Quebecois nation are those of the Prime Minister, and not my own. They are referenced as such from primary sources. --Soulscanner 23:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these have been or seek to be recognized as cultural nations. You will note that almost all cultural nations like the Quebecois to have separate entries for their homeland and the people (Catalonia/Catalan people, Irish people/Ireland, Germans/Germany, Scotland/Scottish People,Bavaria/Bavarians, Serbs/Serbia, etc.). It is normal for cultural nations to distinguish between the people and their homeland. --Soulscanner 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop promoting WP:OR. Grab a French dictionary and look up the term "Québécois." French Canadian (like Serbs, Bavarians, Scottish, etc) refers to an ethnic group, which includes French-speaking peoples outside Québec (including in the United States), and who thus are not part of Québec culture and national identity. In case you didn't know, there are Serbs outside Serbia - in Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia. In case you didn't know, there are Scottish outside of Scotland - in England, Ireland, Canada, United States. In case you didn't know, there are Irish outside of Ireland - in the UK, United States, Canada, Australia. In case you didn't know, there are Germans outside of Germany - in Belgium, Poland, Russia, South America, United States, Canada. Promoting WP:OR is against Wikipedia policy. Please read them carefully and cease and desist from these partisan campaign. Cheers, Laval 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:OR to state that the Quebecois are a cultural nation like the Catalans or Scots. There is a consensus on this in Quebec and now in much of Canada. The cultural and ethnic definition of Quebecois refers to French Canadians living in Quebec. This is because during the Quiet Revolution, nationalistic French Canadians living in Quebec began to refer to themselves as Quebecois. This means that the word Quebcois is ambiguous in French. You will also note that Mathieugp refers to French Canadians living outside Quebec as the Quebec diaspora and the French spoken by French Canadians outside Quebec as Quebec French, indicating that the relationship here is similar to that of Scots, Serbs, Bavarians, etc. living outside their homeland. So, yes, the term is ambiguous, which is why a page is necessary to disambiguate this; moreover, another page is required to describe the complexities of the Quebecois identity. Perhaps the page needs to be renamed Quebecois identity. --Soulscanner 23:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting everything from A to Z on Quebec. The first sentence of Catalans reads : "The Catalans are an ethnic group or nation whose homeland is Catalonia...". There is of course a link between the territorial identity and the cultural one. The Scots article is a disambiguation article like the Canadian (disambiguation) page. We could have the same disambiguation at the top of the Quebec article. The French Canadians of Quebec began to refer to themselves as Québécois, the people of Quebec, which in English gives "Quebecers". The transformation was from A) an ethno-linguistic (and even religious) minority without any State to B) the majority of the citizens of Quebec, Quebec as a strong State inside a loose confederation for some or as a separate State for others. This is what Claude Belanger accurately describes on his site. After the fact, after the Quiet Revolution, some anglophone Canadians began to refer to the French Canadians of Quebec as the "Quebecois" in English, either out of respect for the name they themselves used to refer to themselves (much like we went from Eskimos to Inuit, Montagnais to Innu, Huron to Wendat) or out of a complete and utter misunderstanding of the political reasons for the renaming. The old definition of "French Canadian" was thus cut & pasted to "Quebecois", masking the nature and reasons of the transformation impossible to grasp. This is specific to the English language, and native francophones from Quebec discover with great surprise and disbelief, when, after learning English as a second language, they land on individuals who say "I am Quebecer, but I am not Quebecois" and even actively fight identification to Quebec by all its citizens, including non-francophones. Canadians who speaking English do not always refer to themselves as Anglo-Canadians, which is perfectly normal. Franco-Quebecers do the same. They simply say we are Québécois and they invite (and use political means to get) people within the community of Quebec citizens to identify with Quebec first or solely (which is already the case for the strong advocates of independence). When there is a need to distinguish the Francophone majority (~83% of Quebecers) and from any of the various ethnic minorities for whatever reason, then they say Québécois francophones'. In English, this would be "Francophone Quebecers". When referring to those Quebecers who have French Canadian origins (~74% of Quebecers), they say Québécois d'origine canadienne-française. -- Mathieugp 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is true only in exceptional cases. Refering to yourself as French Canadian is only done among older generations. As you rightly say, French Canadians in the Quiet Revolution went from refering themselves as French Canadian to Quebecois. We agree on that. But as the Petit Robert states, it is not anglophones that gave Quebecois it's ethnic sense. You are obviously eager to demonize anglophones in misrepresenting this. It was done by francophones during the Quiet Revolution, which is why you can find this definition (among the others) in most authoratitive distionaries. That is why anglophones and allophones, while understanding that they are Quebecois in that they are residents of Quebec (the civic sense), are reluctant to do so in the cultural sense. This is quite obvious to anyone in Quebec. Now, many are working to change this and I laud that because it shows that Quebec nationalism is progressing into a more civic sense, but I think most would recognize that we are not quite there yet. but simply denying the facts doesn't help the situation. --Soulscanner 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exceptional cases? No we do not agree. You say "the Quiet Revolution went from refering themselves as French Canadian to Quebecois." I say "During the Quiet revolution, those who called themselves Canadiens français began to call themselves Québécois meaning Quebecer. The fact that the English-Speaking majority of Canada, which is only a minority in Quebec and does not think of itself as a minority at all did no join in the boat is not the result, as you imply, that Francophone Quebecers excluded them. It is obviously because they already considered themselves as the majority of Canada. The fact that only a minority of allophones self identify as Québécois can be explained by the state of competition between two host societies in Montreal, one being tremendously more powerful than the other. If the federal State had been driven out of Quebec in 1980, today Quebec allophones would be francized in much greater proportion than they are anglicized. That is pure common sense mathematically and sociolinguistically. Your belief that Quebec nationalism is progressing implies that it was not civic from the start. That is simply incorrect. Quebec nationalism exist BECAUSE of the abandoning of ethnic survivalism inside Canada as made obvious by the rejection of the "French" Canadian name and the adoption of Quebecer instead. You have still to produce the full definition found in your 1984 Petit Robert by the way. -- Mathieugp 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Quebec. Nothing here that can't be included there or in Culture of Quebec and the idea of having an article for people from every conceivable place makes me want to kill myself. Recury 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete. Clearly a WP:POV from a Quebec editor. 142.58.101.27 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary as a dicdef referring to the dialect - move everything else that's not already there to Quebec. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per RecuryRaveenS 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice - article is pretty much a dicdef as nom points out but a good article on this topic could certainly be written. No opinion if redirected which is the best target. Otto4711 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Quebec to be consistent with others. The subject of the identity of Quebecers, especially in the context of the strong nationalist and secessionist movement, the French language of the overwhelming majority of its citizens, is of course of interest for an encyclopedia. But it should really be covered either an article along the lines of the current Canadian identity or by expanding Culture of Quebec. (Note that for example American identity actually redirects to Culture of the United States at the moment). Such articles are likely to be subject to constant POV and edit wars if all parties do not agree on a conscious effort to strictly adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. As for the Culture of Quebec, a while ago I started a portal for that purpose here. If this draft ever matures into a real portal, then we will have the materials for an English translation of it. -- Mathieugp 14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I pointed out earlier, the normal course in the case of cultural nations like the Quebecois is to distinguish between the people and the territorial homeland (e.g. Irish people/Ireland. This is perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia practice. I also agree that we should adhere to Wiki guidelines. This means that we need to use language that is commonly understood to describe nations and cultures like the Quebecois. This article attempts to do that, but it is difficult to develop it if documented usage is consistently denied for political purposes of imposing preffered definitions. --Soulscanner 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to be consistent with Franco-Albertan, Franco-Ontarian, and all the other provincial sub-divisions of French Canadian. Kevlar67 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't make much sense. We already have an article on French Canadians. "Québécois" is the French term for "Quebecers", as I've already explained. See Ontarian, Manitoban, Nova Scotian, Albertan, etc. All redirects. No double standards here on Wikipedia, and fair is fair. Quebecer itself redirects to Québécois. As Mathieu has also explained, a general article on the French-speaking population (regardless of ethnic origin) belongs to another article such as Culture of Quebec or French-speaking Quebecers or Francophone Quebecers. But this article is pure WP:DICDEF. Laval 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, Quebecois should redirect to French Canadian. --Soulscanner 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please stop promoting WP:OR. Grab a French dictionary and look up the term "Québécois." French Canadian refers to an ethnic group, which includes French-speaking peoples outside Québec (including in the United States), and who thus are not part of Québec culture and national identity. Laval 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You will note that, as requested, I added a French dictionary definition that identifies the usage of Quebecois as referring to French Canadian culture and language in Quebec. I apologize for not including it earlier. I'll also point out that the ambiguity of the term is part of what this article tries to sort out. Unfortunately, we have been stuck at this point for quite a while because you will not acknowledge that this definition exists in English or in French, even though it is common usage in Quebec (as evidenced by the reference in the Petit Robert). This has prevented us from progressing in this article as I consider it important to reach a consensus on this before proceeding. Despite the fact that you've obstructed this progress by denying common definitions, I acknowledge the importance of references in backing up statements that others may disagree with for political or ideological reasons. After much scouring of the internet and literature, I have found authoritative references that firmly establish these defintions. I've always pointed out that the other definitions do apply (they are also found in most dictionaries as I have readily documented), but that the ethno-cultural definition applies as well in many cases (especially in culture). The fact is, French Canadians in Quebec constitute an ethno-linguistic majority. It is also a fact that the majority of French Canadians in public and in private life will self-identify as Quebecois. Hence, even though French Canadians outside Quebec do not refer to themselves as Quebecois, they in fact speak the same language, share the same ancestry, share the same culture, and share the same ethnicity with the Quebecois. Hence, the semantics of it can be confusing. It makes it especially important to carefully distinguish between Quebecois (the people; nation; culture; etc.) and Quebec (the territory).--Soulscanner 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be consistent with Franco-Albertan, Franco-Ontarian, shouldn't we have Franco-Quebecer? But is it a good comparison? Aren't Franco-Quebecers more comparable to Anglo-Ontarians, Anglo-Albertans etc. in terms of majority-minority or Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Canadians etc. in terms of global host cultures? -- Mathieugp 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly, Franco-Quebecers do not refer to themselves as such. The refer to themselves as Quebecois. Second of all, Albertans and Ontarians do not seek status as nations, and hence are not recognized as such. The Quebecois (i.e. French Canadians living in Quebec) do, and are now recognized as such. Again, this about how words are commonly used, not how some people wish them to be used. --Soulscanner 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now, for reasons cited above. The dictionary definition is only there to document the common usage of the word, which has been challenged. To be succinct, the use of Quebecois here is consistent with cultural nations that have separate entries for their homeland and the people (Catalonia/Catalan people, Irish people/Ireland, Germans/Germany, Scotland/Scottish People,Bavaria/Bavarians, Serbs/Serbia, etc.). I've gone through considerable pains to document this and much of the article. Probably, Quebecois should be on a disambiguation page, in a manner consistent with Irish or Scottish, and the documented information here shifted to a separate article that can be used to describe the ambiguity and usage of the term. There is clearly more information on this page than can be put in a dictionary definition. Until this can be sorted out, the article should be kept. --Soulscanner 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop promoting WP:OR. Grab a French dictionary and look up the term "Québécois." Laval 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The habit many English-Speaking Canadians have of using Quebecois to refer to Franco-Quebecers (or even "French Canadians living in Quebec") is unfortunate, but indisputably it is there. However, this should not be used as a pretext to promote the particular POV which SoulScanner tried to present as objective in the article. No particular POV on Canadian identity is being discussed at Canadian or Anglo-Canadian. Canadian redirect to Canada and at the top of Canada there is a link to a disambiguation page named Canadian (disambiguation). Isn't it just common sense? I believe this common sense should also apply when dealing with Quebec and Quebecers. -- Mathieugp 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the reference to the Petit Robert points out, this began around 1965 among French Canadians in Quebec who adopted a Quebecois identity and broke with the pan-Canadian identity of French Canadian. If anglophones do it, it is because they respect this shift in identity among the Quebecois. Again, this is not POV. It is documented in any review of Quebec political history. --Soulscanner 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I challenge you to type the whole definition of your 1984 dictionary so we can all see what the Petit Robert says and not just the interpretation you try to give it. -- Mathieugp 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I typed out the whole definition. I'll patiently restate the obvious. I'm not denying that the definition you are promoting. I'm agreeing with it. There is not need to provide 1 000 000 links to websites (most of which are not authoritative) to confirm something I readily acknowledge. I'm just asking you to acknowledge that often Quebecois is used in French and in English to refer to French Canadians living in Quebec, as described in thr Petit Robert. If you cannot accept a dictionary definition from a French dictionary, then I do not know what to do to convince you. --Soulscanner 01:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article covers the fact that Québécois are a nation, a nation which is notable indeed and which deserves information, I believe.Dread Specter 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it deserves information, but that is not the reason for the suggested deletion or redirection. A partisan user, SoulScanner tries to transpose the definition of "Quebecois" (exclusively Francophone Quebecers according to many) to the definition of Québécois in the French language, which the numerous dictionary definitions I have provided above prove to be just wrong. From there he promotes a particular POV on everything that related to Quebec politics and culture. A redirect of Quebecois to Quebec would be consistent with the present redirect of Canadian to Canada. At the top of Canada, there is a link to Canadian (disambiguation). We could likewize have a Quebecois (disambiguation) to deal with the usage of Quebecois in English. SoulScanner almost agrees with this, only he continues to try to teach Quebec francophones how they use their own language which is not only very disrespectful but even in this case factually incorrect as shown by the many dictionary definitions. -- Mathieugp 20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will propose that a redirect of Quebecois to Quebec is not appropriate. Quebecois identity (what is meant by the Quebecois nation or people) is more complex and hence more ambiguous than "Ontarian" or "Albertan"), and needs its own article. In fact, Quebec's role as the homeland of French Canadians (or the Quebec diaspora, as Mathieugp refers to them) and the center of the francophone linguage community in Canada really has no paralell in the other provinces, and is more akin the the role of Catalonia, Bavarians, Scottish People, and Irish People in Europe. It is not POV to suggest that this is generally common knowledge in Quebec. --Soulscanner 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvements and Scope of article Acknowledging that the article reads too much like a dictionary article, I've added some improvements. The aim here is to briefly summarize the cultural and political currents that have run through the French-Canadian/francophone/franco-Quebecois (simply refered to as Quebecois in Quebec) community since the Quiet Revolution. --Soulscanner 08:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please close the redirect discussion I propose this discussion be closed. Personally, I've had enough. I've repeated myself too many times and I don't think there is more to add.
I'll summarize here (at the risk of more repetition) that Quebecois identity since the 1960's (what is meant by the Quebecois culture, nation or people) is more complex and more diverse in its various meanings than "Ontarian" or "Albertan". In fact, Quebec's role as the homeland of French Canadians (or the Quebec diaspora, as Mathieugp refers to them) and as the center of the francophone language community in Canada really has no parallel in the other provinces (or North America!) , and is more akin the the role of other cultural homelands such as Catalans, Bavarians, Germans, and Hungarians. The discussion of this is too long for a subsection in an introductory article on Quebec, and interesting enough to go beyond a dry disambiguation page.
To me, it's obvious that the request to redirect was malicious and WP:POV motivated. I believe that Mathieugp and Laval simple refusal to accept an authoritative referenced source as an indication that they are deliberately hindering the development of the article in order to advance their own political agenda. It has been frustrating to say the least. I suggest that future requests for redirects and deletions be considered malicious.
On the other hand, I'll acknowledge that it has forced me to be more thorough and encyclopedic in my referencing, so I guess it's not all bad. :-) --Soulscanner 02:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Quebec per other editors and WP:NOR + WP:DICDEF. The article, as the nom indicates, is ultimately a dictionary definition and we already have an entry at Wiktionary. Considering the examples that he and others have cited, it would be terribly POV to single out Quebec, and we must take into account the sensitivity of this issue. By associating the term "Quebecois" (a provincial or national identity, depending upon one's perspective) solely with a single ethnic group is chauvinistic at worst, and ignorant at best. I think sufficient consensus has been achieved to redirect. To the closing admin, I have moved Soulscanner's comments to the talk page here, as they made it awkward to leave my own say here. metaspheres 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I've restored my text that you deleted, but in a way that will not interrupt your "flow". Please do not delete my text again. This article does not single out Quebec anymore that Catalans singles out their cultural group. Quebec is different from other provinces precisely because many consider Quebecois to be their national identity. The fact is that for many ethnicity enters into the equation. Many do not like that, but that is no reason to deny it in others. The intent of this article is to survey the complexities of the Quebecois identity. This is not appropriate on an introductory article that describes the geography, economics, and population of a province as it will take up too much space and eventually consume the entire discussion page. --Soulscanner 05:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're being a bit overzealous here. It's usually a good idea to be willing to compromise and accept what the dictionaries and standard reference texts state. In this case, the consensus is clear: redirect to Quebec. It's really not that complicated. As the other editors have made clear, Wikipedia does not entertain original ideas and concepts, and it is not a dictionary. The definition of the term, as I've looked it up as well, is that it refers to the inhabitants ot Quebec. This is no different than the examples the nominator cites. Clearly it makes more sense to redirect to the article on the province, rather than use the current article here as a springboard for political purposes. metaspheres 10:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It would appear, after some investigation, that the problem user in question, User:Soulscanner (also User:Soul scanner), is responsible for a great number of POV edits and has used the Quebec articles to push a particular anti-French POV. In this case, with this specific article, the user, based on the discussions and edit history, is the only one who used the article to (falsely) promote the claim that the term is ethnically motivated and used only in connection with French-speakers. First rule of Wikipedia: We are not a battleground of nationalities, ethnicities, ideologies, peoples. Second rule of Wikipedia: Do not under any circumstances use Wikipedia as a springboard for your cause. Users like Soulscanner attempt to use Wikipedia to promote their own political agendas, and their edit histories clearly reveal what they are up to. My suggestion to the closing admin is to completely disregard this user and focus on the facts and Wikipedia policy. Such problem users are inherently hopelessly POV and are never willing to compromise and work towards consensus. In fact, they almost always reject consensus. Let us reject them instead and send their POVs packing in the face of WP:NPOV. metaspheres 11:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If you feel I've made anti-French entries, please back up this very grave assertion with facts rather than personal attacks and character assassination. I take this personally. Please point out which entries are POV?. If I have been bigoted in anyway, I will apologize. If you cannot back it up, I expect an apology. They are all maticulously referenced and I took large amounts of time to document everything that I've posted here as I do in all of the pages I edit. I have responded to good-faith challenges to unreferenced claims by producing reference, and I've responded to requests to make the article less dictionary-like by adding referenced, encyclopedic material that is consistent with Wiki fromatting at other pages. You are showing bad faith by deleting documented and referenced material that I have placed in this article. You have also deleted commentaries of mine on this in an attempt to suppress my defence of the article. You have reverted and edited the page to make it less encyclopedic and more of a dictionary entry. this clearly constitutes vandalism (see WP:Vandalism Blanking ). Now you are telling editors that you should ignore me. Interesting reasoning.
    • As for simply ignoring complex issues of national identity among the Quebecois (and the significant political events that surround them), that does not help anything. Quebec nationalism needs to be explained to understand the various facets of Quebecois identity. This is best handled by documenting various points of view from important political or intellectual figures, some of which any one of us may or may not agree with. If you feel I am not adequately representing these, you can remedy this by taking the time to find one or two authorative sources, summarizing them, and providing a footnote so that we can verify them. I invite you to add constructively to the article rather than indulging in Blanking WP:Vanadlism. --Soulscanner 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The User:Soulscanner has behaved in a way that reminded me of a certain hardbanned user (User:DW, who came back under User:Angelique, User:JillandJack and others. I have hesitated to report this to admins because some of his initial contributions (ie on English-speaking Quebecer) seemed mostly OK. Unfortunately, this community seems to be the only human community which he knows something about. His edits seem to focus on editorial changes to articles related to the French-Speaking minority of Canada. He has misrepresented the contents of various references to try to support his POV, for example in the Quebecois article case in claiming to cite an "academic" article by David Young. By reading the article, we can see that it is an opinion on a media controversy originating from Don MacPherson, columnist at The Montreal Gazette who in 1990 misinterpreted the actions of Celine Dion when she refused the Félix Award for Anglophone Artist of the Year given by the ADISQ. She was quotes by him as saying: "I am not an anglophone artist and the public understands that. Everywhere I go in the world, I say that I'm proud to be Québécoise". Don MacPherson insinuated that this was yet another proof that for Quebec francophones, (get that) the non-francophones were not Quebecers too. Of course. The ADISQ gives an award for best Anglophone artist, but Quebecers reject non-francophones, it goes without saying. That is perfectly consistent from a logical standpoint. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of Quebecers understood Celine's action as she herself understood it: "No, I am not a sell-out singing in English for the big US market as people have been gossiping about since I started singing in English. Give the award to real English-speaking artists from Quebec who better deserve it than me." And this is the reference SoulScanner uses to support his POV that Quebec nationalists (like Celine Dion who said she supported independence like most artists in Quebec) want to built a country to persecute non-francophones, which is the core ideology behind most of his edits. -- Mathieugp 19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure of deletion discussion Would the closing editor please close this deletion discussion. It's apparent that this page is turning to a forum for personal attacks on my integrity. Editors who wish to check my major contributions contributions can see them at [[English-speaking Quebecer] which I more or less wrote myself, and Canada#History which I condensed and added more wiki references. You will note by the clogged nature of the discussion on English-speaking Quebecer that Mathieugp attacks here are strictly ideological and personal in nature, and does not a reflect my editing. --Soulscanner 20:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personal? I do not believe we know each other. If it turns out that you are a sockpuppet, you should be banned indeed. The English-speaking Quebecer article was written mostly by myself as can be seen in the history of edits. You have added nice images, some useful additional information to it, but you have refused to correct the factual errors I have pointed out. All this is available for anyone to read in Talk:English-speaking Quebecer. Your removing of information in Canada#History is certainly not a tribute to your work here. Usually, people tend to be proud when they add material, not when they remove it or rewrite it to better reflect one's own particular perspective. -- Mathieugp 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Accusing me of being a sock puppet is personal. Also, accusing me of bigotry is personal. The fact that we do not know each other makes it worse. As for my work on that section, I actually did add material while at the same time condensing the article without removing any referenced material; the only thing I suggested is that a reference to American draft dodgers be removed, which I left to the community to decide. I suggest you take a good look at the Canada article (which has been a featured article) and offers a concise history suitable in an introductory article, and you will note that most of the edits have stuck for several months; it would be a good model for cleaning up the long, ponderous, and incoherent rambling on the Quebec page. I'd work on that too, but I know I would be vandalized so I don't waste my time. --Soulscanner 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I sincerely hope I am wrong that you are the sockpuppet I suspect you are based on your behaviour because I won't have the patience to undo all your edits and most likely you would come back under a different name anyway. -- Mathieugp 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The controversy over this term (just look at this page) should be documented in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Discussions on improving the article with sources and POV issues belong on the talk page. –Pomte 02:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then wouldn't it make so much more sense to treat the subject in let's say Controversy over the usage of the term Quebecois in the English language, or Representation of French-Speaking Quebecers in English-Speaking Canada? To write on this particular issue (how Quebecois in English is used compared to Québécois in French), which I have stated quite clearly cannot be written in any NPOV way at all since it is a POV to start with, would be like writing in Feminist that in certain situations or certain social milieus (in a certain language), the term has become synonymous with "promoters of a sexist society ruled by women". After saying this (which after all is possibly a phenomenon that can be documented as any other) some people, those who pushed for this content in this article, tried to insinuate with bad references that since some Feminists also seem to agree with (or by their actions attest the validity of) this defamatting definition of their movement, its motivations and goals, it was therefore true and encyclopedic and not basically a misunderstanding of feminism. Do I need to explain why an encyclopedic article on such an issue would not belong in Feminist? We can demonstrate quite easily that the transition from Canadien français to Québécois was politically motivated. That the intent of the intellectuals who promoted it and mostly succeeded at this extraordinary psychological revolution in the collective self-representation of a people was intended to have the French Canadians in Quebec stop thinking of themselves as a national minority inside Canada but as the people of Québec. French Quebecers thus becoming a national majority inside Quebec. These intellectuals were either favourable to the ultimate secession of Quebec (the radicals I guess) or the reform of the federal system of Canada to formalize the nature of it as bi-national. There are HUNDREDS of academic references to this in French. This ultimately makes the standard definition of Québécois, in French, the equivalent of Canadien or Américain. Therefore, a Québécois is a person from Quebec as state every French dictionary. In addition, far less commonly and certainly not conventionally, it can mean, as a noun, the language of the Québécois (as in "I speak "American", meaning I speak the English that is characteristic of the English-speakers who constitute 80% of the American people. French-speaking people also constitute ~80% of the Quebec people by the way.) As an adjective, it means "of Quebec" which is quite vast as is "of America" and also can take a cultural connotation. This politically motivated social change was the practical separation of Quebec from Canada even though it had not happened at the political level yet. My generation was brought up thinking that we are either Quebecers alone (sovereignist leanings) and more than ready for independence or Quebecers first (nationalist but federalist) and being Canadians pretty much has the sense of as "citizens of Europe" in this case. But Canada is not Europe and those nationalist-federalist want to change the constitution of Canada and have English-Speaking Canadian nationalists give up their project. The radical change in Quebec, radical in the sense that it seemingly happened overnight for a lot of intellectual Canadians, that is an understatement, was taken as a threat to the continued existence of the Canadian federation as a nation-state with 10 equal provinces in it. All this history is very much encyclopedic, but it is recent, heavily charged politically and writing on this in a NPOV way will very difficult. It belongs to a special article either in Quebec nationalism or Quebec identity. -- Mathieugp 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term has its own history, independent of Quebec. CJCurrie 02:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are definitely POV problems to watch for in this article, but as I've always said, the reason this has a separate article, where other Canadian provincial demonyms don't, is that the term has a complex, loaded and highly controversial political and cultural context that words such as Ontarian and Albertan don't have. It means different things to different speakers, and that inconsistency gives rise to conflict. Whether that's as it should be is not for Wikipedia to dictate. Our role is to reflect how things are, not how we think they should be — and how things are is that "Québécois" is a politically loaded term which does deserve a neutral, properly referenced encyclopedia article about how and why it's so politically loaded. Keep, with whatever POV cleanup is necessary. And, for the record, Soulscanner's obsession with a distorted and biased view of Quebec politics and history is seeming very awfully familiar to me somehow. Bearcat 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand and respect your desire to see this topic, the how and the why it is politically loaded, be covered in Wikipedia. But I cannot agree that Quebecois is the place for it, nor can I remove from my head that we cannot achieve this when History of Quebec, Quebec nationalism, Culture of Quebec are still so poor in terms of both contents and quality. Why not Quebec identity with poll results and all like there is Canadian identity? Isn't it more the place for it? And can't you see by reading Canadian identity that if someone like me did not respect how English-Speaking Canadians tend to see themselves and see Canada, if I decided to interve and insert with good documented references how French-Speaking Quebecers think of the ROC and Canada without saying it is just a POV, we would never get out of it because these POVs are simply irreconcilable? -- Mathieugp 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CJCurrie and Bearcat. semper fictilis 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Québécois&oldid=1138270682"