Talk:National Order of Quebec/Archive 1

Jacques Villeneuve
Jacques Villeneuve's article claims he is an officer of the NOQ, but the NOQ's page doesn't list him - either of the articles is mistaken.

The Wikipedia NOQ page was mistaken. The Order's own website lists him. http://www.ordre-national.gouv.qc.ca/recherche_details.asp?id=144 Dommar 14:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to 'Order of Quebec'
I have moved this article from 'National Order of Quebec' to 'Order of Quebec' based on two key points: (1) the commendation is noted as the 'Order of Quebec' in English at the Governor General's website regarding provincial orders (2) there appears to be no apparent legitimate English translation on the provincial website -- though, as a normative translation, it's correct. Also: (3) there are some 70K instances of 'Order of Quebec' online, compared to just 13K for 'National Order of Quebec'. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a valid point and the official references would agree. I therefore support this change. JMesh (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I find this change is most absurd for many reasons:
 * It is most certainly not absurd, for a number of reasons: Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reason 1: As per motive (3) 'National Order of Quebec' should become 'Order of Quebec' because "there are some 70K instances of 'Order of Quebec' online, compared to just 13K for 'National Order of Quebec'." Isn't it obvious that the number is higher because Order of Quebec is part of National Order of Quebec? The same could be done for any phrase being searched in Google. Not only that, it can be observed that for a great number of the Google hits returned by the "Order of Quebec" query, the word "National" actually appears in front of the "Order of Quebec" phrase. Not to mention that 13K is a significant figure for a "thing" whose only official name is in French.
 * Reply: This is not among one of my major motives, as Google counts are not necessarily a gauge of notability. Nonetheless, I purposely provided those counts.  Within the search, 'Order of Quebec' is subsumed into 'National Order of Quebec', but by inference the great many more instances of the former (more than twice) legitimises the current location of this article.  Even a more restrictive search of 'National Order of Quebec' or 'Order of Quebec' with either, say, 'medal' or 'honour' reveals a similar prevalence in favour of the simpler name.  The opponent's rationale also assumes that the current title is somehow incorrect, despite the many references (e.g., below) to the contrary. Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Counter-Reply I agree that this was your point three, which was not very strong and not really part of why you thought the change was "in order", no pun intended. ;-) I cannot agree as you wrote that this "legitimises the current location of this article". There are many reasons why, even in formal communication, one might want to say "order of Quebec" rather than "national order of Quebec", other than the obvious clash between Quebec nationalism and Canadian nationalism. For example, while "Secretary of State of such" is often an official title, one will often see only "Secretary of such" or "Such Secretary" even in public documents. Concision is rather normal in language. And I am only adding this because I think of it now, because I believe my argument made it clear that since "within the search, 'Order of Quebec' is subsumed into 'National Order of Quebec'", the higher count is thus explained. -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reason 2: As per motive (2) there would be "no legitimate English translation on the provincial website". I honestly do not understand how this becomes an argument in favour of not giving the accurate English translation to what is by law the Ordre national du Québec.
 * Reply: by law in French, it is Ordre national du Québec: there may even by grounds to move this article to that. Despite what may at first seem obvious, a comparable or legal translation in English is not provided by the province.  Also note that other entities named as such in French (e.g., with 'nation' in the title) are often translated more simply as such in English (e.g., ; compare with Premier ministre du Québec in French, yet Premier of Quebec in English), or not at all (e.g., Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec). And, note, both translations are given in the lead; the article title is simply reflective of the simpler name.  Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Counter-Reply I am fully aware of what you wrote in your reply. I agree 100% with everything in it. Yet, I see no ground for the renaming based on these assertions. I do not see where you are going with that. What is the argument against using the correct translation, knowing (as made obvious by the many sources I provided) that it is in common usage in English? That is the main reason why I object.
 * Reason 3: As per motive (1) the Web site of the Governor General of Canada did not properly translate the name the order officially has in Quebec's official language. These other sources did however properly translate it:


 * Russell Bingham. "National Order of Québec", in The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Foundation of Canada.
 * McGill University General Information. "Nicolas Mateesco Matte, Knight of the National Order of Quebec", McGill University, Jul. 3, 2008
 * Socan. "Cohen, Charlebois appointed to the National Order of Quebec", Socan.ca, June 6, 2008
 * Government of Canada. "Table of Precedence for Quebec", in the Canadian Heritage Website, 2008-11-17
 * Canadian Press. "Hiller, Kielburger named to Order of Canada", in CTV.ca, Feb. 21 2007
 * NAC. "Black & White and funny all over!...", in National Arts Centre, October 30, 2008
 * * Supreme Court of Canada. "Supreme Court of Canada press release", in Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada, January 28, 2008


 * Reply This is a strawman argument.  It is merely opinion that the translation on the Governor General's website (by golly) is improper or incorrect, the simpler rendition may not be fulsome but is no less legitimate; besides, 'Order of Quebec' also appears in the order of precedence produced by the same office.  This is, after all, the English Wikipedia, where commonality generally prevails.  Apropos, as for other sources:
 * "Order of Quebec given to many of our own". McGill Reporter. 20 April 2000.
 * "Campaign Leadership" -- rendered as 'Order of Québec'. McGill University Health Centre.
 * "Quebec judicial appointments announced" Justice Canada.  11 May 2007.
 * Rendered as 'Order of Quebec' in listing of other orders in Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Ontario.  4 May 2007.
 * Links: "The Alberta Order of Excellence" -- same rendition as above. Lieutenant Governor of Alberta.
 * "Former Quebec City mayor Jean Pelletier dies of cancer". CBC.  10 January 2009.
 * Statement by Michael Ignatieff, re Jean Pelletier Liberal Party of Canada. 10 January 2009.
 * "From new emerging talent to a Juno Award nominee". Quebec Scene.  24 April 2007.
 * "Chronology of Quebec Nationalism 1960-1991" Marianopolis College (in Westmount).  23 August 2000.


 * Etc. Verifiability, anyone?
 * Counter-Reply A strawman argument? A straw man argument is "an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position". How did I misrepresent your position? Your argument was simply exposing the fact that "commendation is noted as the 'Order of Quebec' in English at the Governor General's website regarding provincial orders". I acknowledged it, and presented a wealth of other equally valid sources where the proper rending of the order's name in English is used. Is your position not that according to this source, this is the name of it in English? I do not see how I "misrepresented" that. It is of course my opinion that it constitutes a "mistranslation", or rather now that I think of it an incomplete translation. That was obviously my opinion and not yours. I was not putting in your mouth words you had never pronounced, which is how the straw man argument usually takes form. If I had said or implied in any way that this was your position that is was a mistranslation (which it isn't) and found a counter-arguments against specifically that, it would have been a straw man argument. But that straw man argument could have only pertained to the question of the translation, which I did not address at all in my argument. My argument was only "yes, I see that on the GG's site, but there are also all these other sources as well".


 * Considering how many of these sources are connected to or sponsored by the federal State of Canada, I think we can say that "National Order of Quebec" is more than just accepted as a possible translation. -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be the case, but the basic question here is: which is more prominent? With the common naming convention in mind and considering the number of sources connected to or sponsored by Canada and not, I believe the current article title is both correct and justified. I'm fairly easy regarding this, though.  Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I believe I demonstrated the flaw in the Google count argument, I think it is fair to consider that both names are prominent, both returning hits in the 10k. Do you not agree that both are prominent? Do you not agree that in many of the hits returned by the query "order of Quebec", we can see that the word "national" appears right in front? Do you not agree that "the order of Quebec" might be used as a short form of "the national order of Quebec" in written communication?
 * From my POV, the question is rather, having two prominent names, one being an exact translation, the other being inexact, one being full, the order incomplete, one being, if formality were ever to weigh in, the only possible choice, which should we choose? There are these reasons, plus the fact that the article stood at "National Order of Quebec" from July 10 2004 to January 18 2009, without ever being opposed. I feel a much stronger case should be put forward to justify this renaming. -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses. In summary, I don't think you have demonstrated the flaw in the Google count argument.  Yes, both 'National Order of Quebec' and 'Order of Quebec' are prominent, though I maintain that the latter is more so in English, and one can't deny that the simpler form is also apparent and common in a basic Google search.  As well, I don't fully agree that OoQ is a short-form, or an incorrect form at that: arguably, it is as valid a translation as the NOoQ -- the GG documents clearly have enough room, and the office a duty to render titles correctly, and it also renders the official name in French.  In addition, the hosting of a Wikipedia article at a location for some time is not necessarily a sanction of its propriety, for any number of reasons.
 * To foster amity, however, I would support moving the article back to its prior home, with both forms in the lead. However, one other editor has yet supported the move, so there is in the least a minor consensus in support of it.  It may be wise to open up the pool of commentators for added input.  Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was asked, presumably because I'm a basically disinterested party, to comment on this. (I'm not an administrator; I don't work on articles to do with modern Quebec; I'm not from there, have no particular opinions about Quebec nationalism, and my relationship to Canada is that of a friendly neighbor.)  My opinions:
 * the Google count is a red herring, and not really relevant (I think of it as one of those silly online newspaper polls)
 * the reference to the GG site is a single government reference. This is weak; if numerous official, quasi-official, or other arguably government-sponsored sources used it, there would be merit.
 * the move probably should not have happened without discussion
 * I don't think Bosonic's original justification holds up. The article should not have been renamed; at least not without prior gathering of consensus, which (as mathieugp points out) was apparently satisfied with the old name for 5 years.


 * As to what the name ought to be:
 * in the absence of an official government-of-Quebec English designation, and in the absence of a significant preference of one English translation over another, it seems to me that a normative translation (National Order of Quebec) should be preferred.
 * everyone here seems to agree that there is no official translation
 * opinion is presently divided on any preferred English translation
 * evidence presented so far does not really indicate a strong preference for either translation
 * Based on the above -- the article should be named for the normative translation.


 * --  Magic ♪piano 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now because I believe there was no consensus for this move. Potentially controversial moves should be requested at WP:RM or through another process to gain consensus. (BD, to the extent possible, you should avoid breaking up other editors' posts.)

Also:


 * The Google count argument is inconclusive not only because "Order of Quebec" appears within "National Order of Quebec," but also because it can appear in many other phrases. For example, a Google Scholar search gives instances of "a true colony on the order of Quebec," "the Order of Quebec Nurses," "the established order of Quebec society," "social order of Quebec society" and other similar results. Work would have to be done to sort out which responses actually pertain to the Order of Quebec. The results can be made a bit more accurate by using "the order of quebec" -"the national order of quebec," but even this is not enough because of "the Order of Quebec Optometrists," etc., and other types of phrases. The following searches yield 534 hits and 580 hits, respectively.


 * There is also something to be said for the fact that the official name is Ordre national du Québec, either as an argument for retaining the official French name or using a translation of it. (Nobody should refer to Order of Quebec as a "translation" of Ordre national du Québec. It is a translation of Ordre du Québec.)


 * If Bosonic Dressing is correct and the name without "national" in English is more widely used than the one with it, but this is not the case in French, there might still be some question as to whether this is the result of lack of familiarity with the Order on the part of some writers and a consequent incorrect generalization of the name "Order of Canada." Joeldl (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone else for commentary. In response: Anyhow, as indicated, I would support moving this article back to its prior home with the simpler English rendition as well in the lead. Also, though perhaps tortuous, a move to its official French name should be considered (given the lack of an official English form; see, e.g., its entry at the Canadian Honours Chart at the English DND website): that would also forestall any potential clamour about whether the article may or may not be residing in the right spot in English. Anyhow, apologies and thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) I didn't think this move to be wholly contentious, and was (technically) able to do so and boldly did just that. Hindsight is 20-20.
 * (2) While Google counts can be dicey, and this was acknowledged upfront, they are informative as to prevalence for a particular term: much of our editing and referencing is based on it. Anyhow, even if the initial search subsumed other instances including 'Order of Quebec', even more specific, restrictive searches (e.g., "Order of Quebec" or "National Order of Quebec" plus, say, "medal") reveal similar proportions in favour of the former.
 * (3) The reference to the GG site is but one reference, but a significant one since that office has the responsibility of issuing national honours and determining precedent. Nonetheless, other official and semi-official ones exist and were since provided.
 * (4) I cannot authoritatively opine about the motives as to why the title is more simply translated or rendered in English, though generally concur with Joeldl -- it just is.
 * Actually, if you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I question whether similar proportions are maintained if more careful searches are conducted. (For example, the ones that are 580 vs. 534, in which in addition some of the hits for "the order of quebec" are unrelated.) The lieutenant governor is the representative of the crown in Quebec, independently of the governor general. I don't think the goveror general is connected with the Order. Finally, I didn't say that "Order of Quebec" was more common in English; I said that if it was, there still might be some question as to whether it was the most appropriate name for use by us, in the sense that we might need to distinguish those sources that were most authoritative. A bit of research seems to show that, if anything, the federal government favours the French form, and of the two English forms, seems to have a slight preference for the form with "National."
 * I would suggest that we request that an administrator perform a move back to the original location, and then if you feel it is likely you can obtain consensus for a move, we can list the article at WP:RM. Joeldl (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. FWIW, if you append 'medal' (a hallmark of the order) to each of your searches, thereby being a bit more specific, the form without 'National' prevails somewhat.  And, without real authority as to which form in English may be more common or legitimate, this further strengthens the position of having this article live at a home with its French title as are many other topics in the English Wikipedia without formal translation, e.g., Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec.
 * Anyhow, sure: let's invite an administrator to move the article back; I'll deliberate whether to request a move. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot say I have any strong argument against using the French name Ordre national du Québec (which is about as official as it could ever get) other than Wikipedia's convention (WP:NC) being clear that we should favour English words for the sake of the English-speaking readers of Wikipedia ("Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article,"). It would seem odd to follow Québec's Charter of the French language precisely, when there is already a widely used translation. I am pretty certain Wikipedia does not fall within provincial jurisdictions (or federal for that matter!) ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support - I am wholly for the change of name on this page. Wikipedia conventions state to use the English common use name. While I agree that the name "National Order of Quebec" is likely used to an equal or potentially greater state, the website of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, the national body legally responsible for the administration of the Canadian Honours System, calls it "Order of Quebec (Ordre national du Québec". As this is the site of the national regulating body, I believe this is a veritable and proper source, given that we are dealing with a Canadian honour on an English site. If we were dealing with a foreign honour, I believe the usual transliteration/translation would be appropriate. Furthermore, I have yet to see an official site (one which has authority over the Canadian Honours System as a whole or the "Ordre national du Québec" specifically) which calls it the "National Order of Quebec". Every one I have seen has been "Order of Quebec". I believe the title should be moved back to "Order of Quebec". -JMesh (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the Google searches I mentioned above showed roughly equal use of the two in English. A Google search of federal webpages actually shows a slight preponderance of the form with "national": . (I added "the" to eliminate a number of extraneous matches. Also, I'm doubtful that the federal government has any relation to the granting of provincial honours. It should be remembered that lieutenant governors are the direct representatives of the queen in their respective provinces; the governor general has no institutional role in relation to the provinces. I don't think that the governor general's way of referring to Quebec honours carries more weight than that of the lieutenant governor of Ontario, say Joeldl (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Joeldl is right when he writes that "the lieutenant governor is the representative of the crown in Quebec, independently of the governor general". What is certain is that the Ordre national du Québec was established by An Act respecting the Ordre national du Québec in 1984. The only regulations that legally apply to the Ordre national du Québec are those enabled by the Act respecting the Ordre national du Québec. You'll notice also that the page pertaining to the Provincial Orders on the GG's site provide nothing but external links to the official sites dealing with these orders, which are listed separately from the orders designated as the National Orders. I am pretty certain that the only authority for the name of the order is the legislature of Quebec. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While the Lieutenant Governors are representatives of the Crown, regardless of relation to the Governor General. the Governor General is the authority on the Canadian Honours System as a unit, but not necessarily over any specific award. I note that naming does indeed emanate from the provincial legislature and the lieutenant governor, but the overall system is under the GG's authority and they are the only official site with bearing on the Canadian Honours System that contains an English name. Furthermore, if you look at the order of precedence, it calls the order, "Order of Quebec (Ordre national du Québec)". This is not from the page called "Provincial Orders", but rather from the page "Order of Precedence". --JMesh (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What I read on the site is this:
 * Although Provincial Orders are not part of the Canadian Honours System, the following have their place in the Canadian Order of Precedence of Orders, Decorations and Medals.
 * Your argument has some merit, but I don't know if it's strong enough to be conclusive. Overall, the federal government seems to favour "National Order of Quebec" slightly. Doing a Google search of the domain gouv.qc.ca gives a handful of results for "national order of quebec", but no relevant results for "order of quebec" without "national."   Which of the arguments is strongest is open to debate. I agree this is close. If you wish, you can propose a move and see what happens. Joeldl (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Knight"
Other Provincial orders avoid the rank of Knight.

Can somebody more knowledgeable than me add a section on this anomaly? Jnmjnmjnm (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)