Talk:Poutine/Archive 4

RfC about cuisine classification
Should poutine be described as a Canadian dish, a Québécois dish, or something else? dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 16:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: A new RfC has opened to help us choose a new lead for the article based on the feedback given here. This RfC will close by the end of this week, to allow conversations to run their course. dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 19:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey
''Please indicate whether you Support or Oppose each of the following descriptions of poutine. You may wish to add a new subheading in this section for any other proposed descriptions.''

Canadian dish
Describe poutine as belonging to Canadian cuisine (and originating from the province of Quebec).


 * Support -- People outside Canada who have no knowledge of Canada's political geography may be wrongly misled into thinking Quebec is its own country and not part of Canada. Besides, Quebec is not a country, Quebec is part of Canada, and the Quebecois are Canadians. Also, whether to identify as "Quebecois" is officially a personal choice, and as such many people who eat poutine in Quebec and possibly even the inventor of poutine itself may not consider themselves Quebecois. So, generally "from the province of Quebec" is a better idea. -- EzekielT   Talk   16:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support -- Jith12 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Distant second choice - based on the resulting phrasing, but not the rationale; the identity of Quebec is a sensitive issue that we won't resolve here. Besides, I don't personally think we should be directing our definitions of culture here based on the declarations of one leader who also used "old stock Canadians" as an anti-immigrant slur.


 * Oppose -- This is cultural appropriation as referenced in a peer-reviewed article and other credible and up-to-date sources. Quebec has a distinct culture. The government of Canada has even voted and recognized Quebec as a distinct nation (YEAS: 265, NAYS: 16). Distinct nation = distinct culture = distinct cuisine. Regardless of political arrangements with other groups, Quebec culture remains distinct. The argument of “Quebecois is meaningless to those outside Canada” suggests that we should entirely stop talking about a Quebecois culture. This is wrong in every imaginable way. The cultural distinction of Quebec is just like the cultural distinct for Scotish. Haggis is a Scotish dish (not British), poutine is Quebecois (not Canadian). By the way, Quebec (although referred to as a province in the political sense) has more political power than Scotland (although referred to as a country part of the UK), but again this has no incidence, as we are talking about national/cultural distinctions, which are recognized. Being in favor of this option would mean that all the cultural aspects of First Nation and Inuit should be now labelled as Canadian culture. Again this would be wrong as First Nation and Inuit identify culturally to their nation, see the case of Mohawk. Overall, this denies the multinational aspect of the Canadian geography. (will add my references shortly, most are found in the discussion above).Axolotlxl (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support -- after reading through a whole bunch of other articles like our french meat pie article I see this is the norm. not sure how this article became the focus of a political ideology.--Moxy (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Canadian dish of Québécois origin
Describe poutine as belonging to Canadian cuisine and attribute the Quebecois as the Canadian subculture/subcuisine poutine originates from.


 * Support -- represents a compromise, as it recognizes that the Quebecois were the first to invent poutine, but also that the Quebecois are Canadians, Quebec is a province of Canada and is not a country, and that Quebec culture forms part of Canadian culture. --  EzekielT  '' Talk  22:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose strictly because culinary dishes of this sort are not inventions per se. Otherwise this is a duplicate of the section above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Same reason than what I wrote in the option: “Canadian dish”. Axolotlxl (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

French Canadian or Canadien
Describe poutine as being a French Canadian or Canadien dish.
 * Oppose -- per my comments on Acadian cuisine in another section. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - ...  French Canadian..... .as per the food sources in the above section. We don't have sources that state that quebecois has a  culinary tradition....but we do for French Canadians    Moxy (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Ivanvector; "French Canadians" is problematic because it's too broad. Acadians are also "French Canadians", but "poutine" means something completely different for them. dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 21:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- In the 1950s the term Quebecois replaced the term French-Canadian. Outside Quebec, French-Canadians became referred to as Franco-Ontarian, fransaskois, etc. Using this term show clear lack of understanding of the contemporary cultural contexts that are in play.Axolotlxl (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes a basic understanding of culinary as a topic and the wording used would be great...... .--Moxy (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - I guess it's better than acting like Quebec cuisine is separate from Canadian cuisine when it isn't, or removing all mention of Canada. Besides, it's verified by multiple sources, like what User:Moxy said. As Moxy also said, "Quebecois is meaningless to those outside Canada.". Poutine is commonly associated with Canada by foreign nations. Also, whether to self-identify as "Quebecois" is officially a personal choice, and as such many people who eat poutine in Quebec and possibly even the inventor of poutine itself may not consider themselves Quebecois. However, it's almost certain that poutine was invented by a French Canadian or Canadien. I'd prefer "Canadien" instead of "French Canadian", as some may actually misinterpret poutine as being created by French-Canadians (those with both Canadian and French citizenship). -- EzekielT  '' Talk  23:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Québécois dish with mention of Canada
Describe poutine as being a Québécois dish, originating from the Canadian province of Quebec.


 * Support - but not "with no mention of Canada", that's silly. The dish clearly originated in Québec and has a long history of association with Québec specifically. More recently it has become popular in other regions of Canada, and internationally it might be seen as "Canadian food", but other than a subculture of Toronto hipsters trying to claim it as their own it's a Québecois dish that's also served in other regions. It's similar to how nachos or pierogi or spaghetti are ubiquitous but nonetheless associated with their originating culture. It's notably absent from Acadian cuisine, for a different example of a closely-related French-language subgroup in Canada (Acadian poutine râpée is an entirely different dish). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - per comments in this view. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - per Ivanvector. dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 20:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - poutine is commonly found in most of Canada's largest cities. Many have even called it Canada's "national dish", and like User:Moxy said, "Quebecois is meaningless to those outside Canada.". Poutine is commonly associated with Canada by foreign nations. Also, whether to identify as "Quebecois" is officially a personal choice, and as such many people who eat poutine in Quebec and possibly even the inventor of poutine itself may not consider themselves Quebecois. Also, so far no valid reason has been given as to why it would need to be changed from "Canadian dish" to "Quebecois dish" when the first sentence already denotes that poutine originated from Quebec. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  22:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose-- This is tautological, Quebecois implies that the dish is from Quebec. You don't say: haggis is a Scotish dish, from Scotland, a country part of the UK.Axolotlxl (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please stop comparing Scotland, a country with a heavily devolved government, to Quebec, a province. It is not a country, and is of equal status to all 9 other provinces. If Quebec is of equal status to Scotland, then Ontario, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, and the other provinces would also be of equal status to Scotland, which would obviously not be politically correct. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  05:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Quebecois dish popular in Canadian cuisine, while situating Quebec within Canada
Support - Hello, this discussion is a hell of a maudite poutine! Let's focus on the topic of the article: poutine, and its history from the 1950s until today.

Reading the content of the article and the sources it cites, we can establish that:
 * poutine is a typical Quebecois dish, in the sense that it originated from various locations in Quebec, has a quebecois name, and has been associated with its Quebecois origins at least since the 1950s; as of today, most towns and restaurants mentioned in the article are still located in Quebec;
 * for a significant part of its existence, poutine was stigmatized as junk food and used to mock Quebecois people (it was seen as a symbol of their culinary "bad taste"; see this caricature);
 * in the last decades, poutine has be reappropriated by young quebecois as a source of cultural pride (ie it became "cool");
 * in the mid-2000s, poutine also became cool across Canada, and internationally; famous chefs included fancy versions of poutine in their menus; poutine also became a topic of (positive) jokes in Canadian diplomacy and was served in a White House State diner; poutine is now celebrated as a highlight of Canadian cuisine;
 * on the one side, many people accros Canada now proudly celebrate poutine as Canada's national dish; on the other side, many quebecois people would feel dispossessed if they can't call it a quebecois dish anymore.

Let's have a look at how other wikipedia deal with the matter (google translate): => conclusion: it makes sense for most other languages and cultures to refer to a specific Quebecois cuisine, while situating Quebec within Canada.
 * French: "Poutine is a Quebec cuisine dish composed of three elements in its classic form (La poutine est un mets de cuisine québécoise composé de trois éléments dans sa forme classique)"
 * German: "The Poutine (French pronunciation [putiːn], in Quebec French: [pʊtsɪn]) is a popular Canadian fast food specialty. (Die Poutine (französische Aussprache [putiːn], im Quebecer Französisch: [pʊtsɪn]) ist eine in Kanada populäre Fast-Food-Spezialität. )"
 * Spanish: "La poutine (AFI / puʦɪn / in French Quebecois, / putin / in European French) is a dish of Quebec Gastronomy. (La poutine (AFI /puʦɪn/ en francés quebequense, /putin/ en francés europeo) es un plato de la Gastronomía de Quebec.)"
 * Italian: "Poutine is a typical Québec dish consisting of fried potatoes, cheese and poutine sauce [1]. (La poutine è un piatto tipico del Québec composto da patate fritte, formaggio e salsa per poutine[1].)"
 * Russian: "Putin (Fr. Poutine) is a national Quebecian fast food dish consisting of French fries sprinkled with young cheese pickers and sprinkled with lightly sweetened garnish sauce (Пути́н (фр. Poutine) — национальное квебекское блюдо быстрого питания, состоящее из картофеля фри, посыпанного молодым рассольным сыром (cheese curds) и политого слегка подслащённой гарнирной подливкой"."
 * Bahasa Indonesia: "Poutine was first created in the 1950s in the province of Quebec, Canada. (Poutine diciptakan pertama kali pada tahun 1950-an di Provinsi Quebec, Kanada.)"
 * Chinese: "Poutine, / puːtiːn /; Québec pronunciation in French: [put͡sɪn] Listen) is a fast food specialty in Quebec, Canada by adding pieces of cheese to the fries and then gravy or stewed meat." (肉汁奶酪薯条（Poutine，/puːˈtiːn/; 魁北克法语发音：[put͡sɪn] 聆聽）是加拿大魁北克的特色快餐料理，做法是在炸薯条条上加乾酪块，然后浇上肉汁或肉卤. )

Here is a proposition: "Poutine is a Quebecois dish popular in Canadian cuisine".

Bon appétit. Seeris (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - this makes it sound like Quebecois cuisine isn't part of Canadian cuisine when it is. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  15:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi EzekielT, I get that your point concerns the relationship between Quebecois cuisine and Canadian cuisine. This point is already clearly established in the Quebecois cuisine article: see how the infobox states that it is "Part of a series on Canadian cuisine". Our discussion should not concern the relationship between Quebecois cuisine and Canadian cuisine in general, because it belongs to another article. It should focus on what's specific about poutine. Seeris (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Québécois dish with no mention of Canada
Describe poutine as being a Québécois dish, with no mention of Canada.


 * Oppose - this is obviously a no go. First of all, Quebec is not its own country. Secondly, Quebec is a province of Canada, equal in status to other Canadian provinces such as Ontario and New Brunswick, so treating Quebec as it being somehow "special", mislabeling Quebec culture as a "distinct culture from Canada", and treating Quebec as not part of Canada would be rather unfair to the other provinces and territories. Thirdly, this would be completely wrong by all standards, and excluding Quebec from Canada would actually be very nonfactual and may be even considered "Quebec sovereigntist vandalism". Quebec is a part of Canada, equal to the other 9 provinces, including Ontario. Let's stay with facts. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  22:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support -- This is accurate as the associated national cuisine (which is the term that should be used in the info box) of poutine is Quebecois cuisine. This is what the up-to-date and credible sources advocate for. This is about culture, not geography or political arrangements. The cultural distinction of Quebec is just like the cultural distinct for Scotish. Haggis is a Scotish dish (not British), poutine is Quebecois (not Canadian). By the way, Quebec (although referred to as a province in the political sense) has more political power than Scotland (although referred to as a country part of the UK), but again this political status has no incidence, as we are talking about national/cultural distinctions, which are recognized. (will add my references shortly, most are found in the discussion above). Axolotlxl (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've asked you previously to define what you mean by "Canadian". When you suggest that "Québécois" and "Canadian" are mutually exclusive terms, you inherently imply that the term "Canadian" is somehow not inclusive of "Québécois" — but when I asked you to state what the term "Canadian" means to you, you never answered. Definition, please. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, what I am bringing forward is the multinational aspect of the Canadian territory, and that in many ways (culturally being one) minority nations do not identify themselves as Canadian, but by their national identity. That's why we talk about the Quebecois literature as being something distinct from the Canadian literature (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litt%C3%A9rature_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9coise). The burden of defining what it means to be Canadian rest on the shoulders of people who identify as such (I am not arguing against the existence of a Canadian culture) but they can't just appropriate other nations' culture and claim it as their own. That would be rather colonialist. Go talk with the Mohawk to see if they identify with the Canadian culture, here is an article that strongly suggests that, no they don't: http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ottawa-in-explosive-situation-over-rejected-iroquois-passport.Axolotlxl (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're still not telling us what you keep defining as "Canadian". --  EzekielT  '' Talk  02:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "The burden of defining what it means to be Canadian rest on the shoulders of people who identify as such (I am not arguing against the existence of a Canadian culture) but they can't just appropriate other nations' culture and claim it as their own."
 * Canadian culture includes all of us, that is, anyone with Canadian citizenship living anywhere in Canada (including Quebec). We identify ourselves as being part of Canadian culture by choosing to identify as a Canadian subculture (in this case, Québécois subculture). Practically all Canadian ethnic groups are "minorities", even Anglo-Canadians (literally, Canadians of English heritage) had a percentage of only 18.7% in the 2016 Census (that's including mixed responses, single response Anglo-Canadians are even less) out of Canada's total population. It's not appropriation, rather, Canadian culture is a "combined" culture influenced by all of us, with Quebecois, Inuit, Anglo-Canadians, Métis, Black Canadians, etc. all playing major roles. From the Canadian culture page:


 * "The culture of Canada is a term that embodies the artistic, culinary, literary, humour, musical, political and social elements that are representative of Canada and Canadians. Throughout Canada's history, its culture has been influenced by European culture and traditions, especially British and French, and by its own indigenous cultures. Over time, elements of the cultures of Canada's immigrant populations have become incorporated into mainstream Canadian culture." -- EzekielT  '' Talk  04:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - my position is that whether or not there's a mention of Canada doesn't matter in the end: Quebec implies Canada, regardless of official pronouncements and/or what we decide here. But I'm opposed specifically from expunging all mention of Canada from the article, for the same reason. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Do not mention any particular cuisine
Do not describe poutine as belonging to any particular cuisine; simply state where it originated.
 * Support only as a last resort if no other option would settle the dispute. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support only after "Canadian dish" and "Canadian dish of Quebecois origin". -- EzekielT  '' Talk  16:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Is "belonging to Canadian cuisine (originating from Quebec)" different from "belonging to Canadian cuisine (invented in Quebec)"? Do we need two survey subsections for those? (I also have qualms from a different discussion over calling something like this an "invention") Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Not really, they look nearly the same to me :). Except that "originating" sounds more like the dish has spread across the country, which it has. -- EzekielT   Talk   16:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Do note that "Québécois dish" doesn't necessarily mean it's not a Canadian dish, because the Québécois are Canadians themselves & Quebec is a province of Canada (obvious facts). They're not mutually exclusive terms, and it is impossible to use "Canadian" in a way that excludes the Quebecois, therefore the dish is technically Canadian. So might as well keep the country "Canada" in the infobox and keep the Canadian cuisine template, because at the end of the day, Quebec is still a province of equal status to other provinces such as Manitoba and Nova Scotia. And obviously, if we're going to call poutine Quebecois, dishes from other provinces would need to be identified by their province, too (example: schmoo torte would need to be called "Manitoban"), in order to be fair. -- EzekielT   Talk   16:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I just came up with another survey subsection that appears to suit your proposition :). -- EzekielT   Talk   17:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to move your vote to "Quebecois dish with mention of being from Canada afterwards"? -- EzekielT   Talk   17:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that. Your pings aren't working, do you know you have to put the template and your signature in the same edit for it to work? Or maybe they're just down again, it happens. You don't need to ping me, anyway, I'm watching the discussion. I think your new section and the "Quebecois but not Canada" section should just be combined into a common "Quebecois" section, for convenience. It's not necessary to be overly specific in the survey subsections, the idea of a request for comments is for editors to discuss their opinions, not necessarily to straw poll every possible variation, and if there are too many subsections it will just get confusing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (after ec) Your last ping worked. But again, you don't have to ping me every time you leave a new comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

But the problem is, you would mention Canada, while the user Axolotlxl wouldn't. Axolotlxl would actually remove the Canadian cuisine template and "Canada" from the infobox, and even single out Quebec from Canada, while you're less likely to do that. -- EzekielT   Talk   17:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

For example (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poutine&diff=811491719&oldid=811491478):

Revision before Axolotlxl:

"Today, poutine is celebrated both within Quebec and throughout the rest of Canada. It has also gained popularity in the United States.".

Revision after Axolotlxl:

"Today, poutine is celebrated throughout Quebec. The dish has also gained popularity in Canada and the United States.".

So that's the difference between "Quebecois dish with mention of being from Canada afterwards" and "Québécois dish". The first one sounds more reasonable. -- EzekielT   Talk   17:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find Axolotlxl is the only editor to hold that opinion with respect to Wikipedia articles and categorization. And that would come out through discussion, and sort of has through the initial back-and-forth. Quebec's official designation as a "distinct culture" (or whatever the official wording is) is irrelevant to this discussion, unless there really are many people who think that Quebec is actually the only subregion of Canada with a unique culture, while the entire rest of the world's second-largest country is just one homogeneous cultural blob.
 * To your point about schmoo torte, I would support dishes being categorized by regional origin if they're clearly associated with that region. My wife and I were trying to think of a uniquely Maritime dish to use as an example yesterday but the best we came up with was rappie pie (also Acadian), which we currently have under "Canadian cuisine" and "Acadian cuisine", which I think is wrong (it should be one or the other, also Acadian should be a subcategory of Canadian). But like I said outside this section, a discussion about categorization of Canadian regional dishes is probably best had elsewhere; let's settle the more specific issue here first. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Should I add User:Bearcat to the "Canadian dish" survey section? He was a major participant in the conversation (in fact, he was the first user to comment in Axolotlxl's "Poutine as a Quebecois dish" section), and he made it clear he's for "Poutine is a Canadian dish originating from Quebec". He's absent from Wikipedia today so far, so... -- EzekielT  '' Talk  20:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let each user add their own contributions to an RfC. There's no time limit here, so no rush. dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 20:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought I saw a time limit of 24 hours, but obviously I didn't read it properly. Thanks for the great news! --  EzekielT  '' Talk  20:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you really shouldn't ever try to speak for someone in a discussion like this. RfCs typically stay open for 30 days, or until the matter is settled. Some go on for months, though I doubt this one will. Also, it helps maintain the flow of the discussion if you add an indent level when you are replying to a comment, by adding a colon to the start of your reply. For example your "should I add..." comment had no indent, then Dragfyre added a colon for one indent when they replied. I added two colons to indent your reply one more level, then my reply starts with three colons, and so on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I fixed the "Canadian dish of Quebecois origin" survey section:


 * Removed "Describe poutine as belonging to Canadian cuisine and attribute its invention to the Québécois.".


 * Replaced with: "Describe poutine as belonging to Canadian cuisine and attribute the Quebecois as the Canadian subculture/subcuisine poutine originates from.". -- EzekielT  '' Talk  23:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, now you've made it so that the two sections are literally the same. I suggest not making any more edits to the subheaders, though, you risk offending people who have already commented by possibly changing the meanings of their comments. Don't worry, Wikipedians are an intelligent bunch, we'll figure it out. Nice indents, btw ;) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * generally you don't need to add references on a talk page, we can find the links where you posted them originally. I only did because we have a policy (WP:MINREF) that requires that any contentious statement about a living person must have a citation wherever it appears, or else it must be removed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I actually did that for you, since you believed "invent" was the wrong word. -- EzekielT  '' Talk


 * There are multiple errors and wrong statements Axolotlxl made in the comment (sorry, just stating the truth). Axolotlxl actually voted to remove all mention of Canada in the article!!!!!!!!


 * In response to Axolotlxl's comment, Quebec is not a nation, the Quebecois are (as I've already explained multiple times). See https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Harper_to_recognize_Quebec_as_nation_within_Canada. Harper said that he is using the "cultural" and "sociological" sence of the word "nation", and that it relies on personal decisions to self-identify as Québécois, and therefore is a personal choice. Therefore, not all people in Quebec are Quebecois. Also, just because there's such a thing as Quebec culture doesn't mean it's not part of Canadian culture. There is such a thing as a subculture, and Quebec culture fits that case. Canadian culture refers to a grouping of subcultures originating within Canada (including Quebec culture). Secondly, Quebec actually has less political power than Scotland does, not more. Scotland is has a very devolved legislature and is officially a "country", while Quebec is a province (not a country). If Quebec did have more political power than Scotland, then all the other 9 provinces, even including Prince Edward Island, would have more political power than Scotland, and obviously that's not the case. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  00:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Does "Quebecois with no mention of Canada" mean Quebec would actually be excluded from Canada in the article? I hope not, because that wouldn't correspond with current facts. Then again, Axolotlxl has actually singled out Quebec from Canada multiple times, as if Quebec is a sovereign state, on the page already. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  00:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All I can say about Quebec vs. Scotland is that it's similar but different. The United Kingdom is a union of distinct nations within a central monarchy; that's about the limit of my knowledge of the UK constitution. Canada is a federal republic of mostly independent provinces with constitutionally-defined division of powers. Quebec does tend to preserve more powers for itself than other provinces and has made much greater use of the notwithstanding clause, and for example it's the only one of the provinces which self-administers the GST, but constitutionally it is no different from the other provinces. It's my opinion that none of this really matters with respect to this debate, though.
 * As for the First Nations, it's best not to compare provincial divisions of powers with any cultural relationship with indigenous peoples. Every one of us who descend from people who arrived after Columbus and Cartier are occupying unceded indigenous territory. That includes Quebec. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess what we can take from the Scotland comment is this: haggis is seen as a Scottish dish, not a British dish that originated in Scotland (using British in the sense of the entire United Kingdom). If poutine is seen as a Quebecois dish as opposed to a Canadian dish originating in Quebec, then that is how Wikipedia should describe it. Cultural and constitutional relationships are irrelevant to that determination. And assuming that however we describe it will include a wikilink to Quebec, and that article defines Quebec as a Canadian province (because it is) then the situation resolves itself. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Axolotlxl, you keep saying poutine is Quebecois but not Canadian, but this is impossible, as anything Quebecois is Canadian, by all definitions on planet Earth. This does not mean poutine is not Quebecois, it likely is (especially if the inventor of the dish self-identified as Quebecois), however, that does not mean it isn't Canadian, as the word Canadian refers to all of Canada, including Quebec, by definition. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In User:Bearcat's words, which I completely agree with, state true facts:


 * "The word "Canadian" most certainly does not mean "from all other parts of Canada except Quebec", such that something from Quebec is not Canadian — Canadian means "from any part of Canada including Quebec", so it is by definition impossible for something to be Québécois but not Canadian at the same time. There is no "consensus" that poutine is Québécois but somehow not Canadian — you have one academic paper which argues that calling it Canadian is cultural appropriation, and no evidence of any "consensus" around calling that an objective truth. For something that is Québécois to not be Canadian at the same time, you have to be defining "Canadian" in some very non-neutral way that doesn't correspond to the fact of what the word means.". -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We could say "Poutine is a dish originating from the Canadian province of Quebec", that sounds like a good compromise. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We definitely should not exclude Quebec from Canada and/or singling out Quebec from Canada like what Axolotlxl was doing before the poutine article's protection got changed to only admin access by User:Bearcat yesterday. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, Axolotlxl kept removing the Canadian cuisine template (even though the template itself includes poutine), and kept removing "country = Canada" from the infobox, as well. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Which one is your vote?
 * You should probably extend protection for the poutine page until the RfC ends (in about 30 days), just in case someone decides to edit the page to their own voting preference before the RfC voting finishes.


 * Not sure how political ideology came into an argument on this page but is there any sources claiming that the people who invented this fod self identify as quebecois... French Canadian......or just Canadian?--Moxy (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No one can know, because exactly who the inventor of poutine was/is is disputed. Anyways, they are or were definitely Canadien or French Canadian, possibly not Quebecois, and for sure they were/are Canadians. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  17:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I do enjoy this debate, do not get me wrong, and thanks everyone for contributing. However, there are some irritating factors on the way this debate (and vote) is conducted (beside the spamming that has occurred). First, Quebecois people should be included in here, this question cannot be discussed only by non-Quebecois. Also, people need to read what was written in Quebec on the topic in order to be able to give their opinion (most of it is in French, although I did provide many sources written in English). I also feel we need outside expertise from people who study this question from the literature, food, politics, anthropology, sociology domains. In other words, and with all due respect, this debate cannot be legitimate if it is settled by people who are using the term French-Canadian to describe the Quebecois, or who claim that Quebecois culture is not a distinct culture.Axolotlxl (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree Quebecois culture is distinct - from the other Canadian subcultures, that is. Quebecois culture exists as a Canadian subculture, not distinct from Canadian culture as a whole, which includes Quebecois culture. In other words, Quebec culture is a subculture of Canadian culture. Quebec culture is the Canadian culture in Quebec. Just like how Nunavut culture is the Canadian culture in Nunavut, Manitoban culture is the Canadian culture in Manitoba, etc. Because all 13 provinces (including Quebec) and territories are all part of Canada, in fact, they make up the entirety of Canada. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  18:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Canadian culture refers to all culture practised anywhere in Canada, therefore including Quebec. The 2006 motion established Quebecois as a culture, but within a united Canada and a united Canadian culture. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  19:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Canada without Quebec isn't Canada. It's just 12 provinces and 3 territories. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  19:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion break
As protection will be taken off the poutine page in just 49 minutes, it makes sense to wrap up this RfC. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  16:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: "Canadian dish" wins. Thanks everyone for contributing your opinion to this RfC! -- EzekielT  '' Talk  16:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: User:Ivanvector's vote was transferred to Canadian dish (since "Québécois dish with mention of Canada" had gartnered less support, and he said "Canadian dish" was a second choice).


 * Canadian dish: 4 support, 1 oppose = 3
 * Canadian dish of Québécois origin: 1 support, 2 oppose = -1
 * French Canadian or Canadien: 1 support, 3 oppose = -2
 * Québécois dish with mention of Canada: 2 support, 2 oppose = 0
 * Quebecois dish popular in Canadian cuisine, while situating Quebec within Canada: 1 support, 1 oppose = 0
 * Québécois dish with no mention of Canada: 1 support, 2 oppose = -1
 * Do not mention any particular cuisine: 0 support, 0 oppose = 0


 * That's not how this works. With regard to protection, I'm speaking for here but it's clear that protection is in place because of the edit warring between  and  (in particular, I am not in favour of the notion that this be described so prominently as a "Canadian" dish, and I don't think that my comments support that). Wikipedia does not operate by a flat-out head count, it operates on consensus, and personally I'm not seeing that a consensus has emerged here. I'm reconsidering based on some off-wiki stuff I've been up to, and Seeris' very recent comment adds some interesting things to think about. The protection will expire, and if at that time anyone edits the article to reflect their interpretation of this ongoing discussion, I will recommend they be blocked from editing for perpetuating the edit war. Yes, this is a warning. Just don't do it.
 * I'll have more comments shortly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So should I start up the RfC again? How long should this last? The discussion and commentary got less active in the past 24 hours, though. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  16:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I was just going to restore the rfc header, but you did it already. I restored this section as a natural next step, though. Wikipedia has editors all around the world and there are natural dips depending on where people live and what topics are likely to attract editors from different geographic regions. This one is probably mostly of interest to editors in the western hemisphere, where people tend to do other things on the weekend so it's natural for there to be less activity. I respect your enthusiasm but just be patient. Wikipedia has no deadline. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation :). I restored the RfC template, but do you want to add the RfC countdown template? -- EzekielT  '' Talk  16:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Protection just got lifted from the poutine page, should I add a notice (maybe an ambox) to notify there's an RfC in place? -- EzekielT  '' Talk  16:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, don't do that, just leave it be for now. We don't really have a notification method for this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Off-wiki reading
Here are descriptions from my first page of google.ca results for "poutine". I just picked what came up, it includes a number of commercial pages that we wouldn't consider as reliable sources, but gives a good picture of the real-world view of the situation. I skipped one which was just a Youtube video of someone making their own version of it.
 * 1) History of Poutine, La Banquise: "French-Canadian dish traditionally made of French fries and fresh cheese curds, covered with gravy."
 * 2) home page, Smoke's Poutinerie: "The goal of Smoke’s Poutinerie is to bring the authentic Quebec classic to the rest of the World."
 * 3) The best poutine in Toronto, blogTO: "Whether it’s presented in its traditional form or embellished with other additional toppings, this quintessential Quebecois-Canadian dish is the ultimate comfort food."
 * 4) Authentic Canadian poutine recipe, seasonsandsuppers.ca: "Poutine is a wonderful and delicious concoction of fries, gravy and cheese curds and is one of the most quintessential Canadian dishes!"
 * 5) Poutine, McDonalds: undefined. McDonalds just describes it as fast food.
 * 6) The dark side of poutine: Canada taking credit for Quebec dish amounts to cultural appropriation, academic says, National Post: I'm going to address this one separately.
 * 7) home page, lapoutine.com: "La Poutine is a cozy & unique poutinerie with 20+ varieties of Canada's National Dish!" But also, "Poutine is a dish created in Quebec in the 1950's consisting of fries, cheese curds and piping hot gravy."
 * 8) home page, Poutini's House of Poutine: undefined. This restaurant only describes it as "traditional".
 * 9) 10 things you probably didn't know about poutine, Cottage Life: not really defined, but "It’s safe to say, though, that poutine has its origins mid-century somewhere in rural Quebec."
 * Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The National Post article above (give it time to load, it spent 5 minutes chewing on ads on my computer) is the one which seems to be the inspiration for this debate: a summary of one researcher's opinion that defining poutine as Canadian is an appropriation of Quebec culture. It's not Wikipedia's job to cater to this opinion or solve that debate; it's specifically one of the things that we don't do. What Wikipedia does is present all of the relevant information from a neutral point of view, and we do that by considering opinions from all sources and giving them due weight with respect to their prominence in the real world. If the sources support it, poutine can be simultaneously defined as a Quebecois food while also being described as a Canadian national food, and at the same time noting the view that defining poutine as Canadian is an appropriation of Quebec culture. I'm not sure that's where this is going, I'm just putting this out there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Quebec implies Canada. As Quebec cuisine is part of Canadian cuisine, just like Acadian cuisine, etc., technically the researcher's opinion isn't exactly correct, as "Canadian" cannot be used in a way that would exclude Quebec from Canada. Canadian implies anything from the country of Canada as a whole, therefore Quebec and Manitoban and Nova Scotian, etc. cuisines are "Canadian". -- EzekielT   Talk  17:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What you need to recognize is that that's your opinion. There is also a prominent opinion that all aspects of Quebecois culture are to some degree distinct from Canadian identity, as well as other prominent opinions that there isn't one homogeneous Canadian culture. This debate has been going on for hundreds of years; if you think we're going to solve it here you're delusional. What we do is balance all of these views in our presentation of the article; we can't just discard things that we don't agree with. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If inclusion of poutine inside Canadian cuisine is "cultural appropriation" (which it can't be, as Quebec culture is part of Canadian culture), then technically inclusion of schmoo torte, a dish from Manitoba, inside Canadian cuisine would equally be "cultural appropriation" (which it can't be, as Manitoba culture, just like Quebec culture, is part of Canadian culture), as Quebec is of the same status as Manitoba, so this wouldn't be proper because both Manitoba and Quebec form part of Canada. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  19:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There are also facts, separate from opinions:


 * Fact: "Canadian" cannot be used in a way that would exclude Quebec from Canada. Canadian implies anything from the country of Canada as a whole. Canadian culture is a term that embodies all culture inside Canada, therefore representative of all Canadians. Canadian culture is further divided into distinct subcultures, which include Quebec culture, Inuit culture, Chinese Canadian culture, Acadian culture, First Nations culture, etc. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  19:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Fact: poutine is part of Quebec cuisine, which is further part of Canadian cuisine. As such, poutine is a Quebec dish, and all Quebec dishes are Canadian dishes, therefore poutine is a Canadian dish. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  21:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Some people's opinion: poutine is a Quebecois dish, not a Quebec dish. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  21:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Some people's opinion: poutine is part of both Quebecois and Canadian cuisine. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  19:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Some people's opinion: poutine is Quebecois, not Canadian. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  19:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * From the Canadian culture article:


 * "The culture of Canada is a term that embodies the artistic, culinary, literary, humour, musical, political and social elements that are representative of Canada and Canadians.


 * But I'm in support of offering different opinions in a section of the poutine article, just not the lead :). -- EzekielT  '' Talk  19:49, 26 November 2017 (UT)


 * Source number six was a great read and explains the current position on the food item as Canadian while as the same time showing the desire of the newlevolving   Quebecois culture to express its self. Let's see how the paper is revived.--Moxy (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A suggestion
Based on consideration of everything that's been said here, the various off-wiki sources, the presentation in other-language wikis that is listed above, and considering that the lede is supposed to summarize the information in the article, I offer this suggestion:

I removed all references because the material appears referenced in the article body, and I removed all links to external websites per WP:ELNO. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Ivanvector Not sure if we have to vote here, but I support your proposition. Thanks for putting that up, I feel this is an accurate summary of the up-to-date sources on the topic.Axolotlxl (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

How about this? Just another option :):

Makes it clear Quebec is part of Canada, and that Quebec cuisine is part of Canadian cuisine. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for typing this out! I think we're making progress. I do have a couple of issues with this edit, though:
 * "a dish originating from Quebec, Canada" - fine, but this would more formally be constructed like "from the Canadian province of Quebec". This is good to put here, though, it helps with really hitting the high points of the topic in the first couple of sentences.
 * "provincial cuisine of Quebec, which is further part of Canadian cuisine" - this feels forced, like we're shoehorning Quebec into a role of inferiority to all things Canadian (I mean inferior in a purely hierarchical sense, that there's Canada at the top and then the provinces beneath, which isn't really how Canadian Confederation works). If we've already explained (first point) that Quebec is a Canadian province, then we don't need to beat readers over the head with it by repeating it every time we mention Quebec, and it follows that Quebec cuisine has a role within Canadian cuisine. That, and Canadian cuisine is already linked (at "quintessential Canadian food").
 * "outside the province of Quebec" - again, we already defined Quebec as a province, but in this instance it feels less, um, pushy. It's probably fine.
 * Yeah, I realize that I only picked on things that you changed from my edit, but those are my thoughts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh! I meant to say, I constructed my edit so as to be mostly chronological: poutine started out as a Quebec food, it was made fun of, later folks in Quebec started to embrace it and made it something to celebrate, then it became popular and spread outside Quebec and became known as a Canadian food. So all of the mention of poutine as Canadian food is towards the end. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The "cultural appropriation" opinion is already documented extensively in the "Social mobility and Canadization" section of the article, so I removed it. I think we're making good progress, too, and it looks pretty good now :)! How about you? -- EzekielT  '' Talk  23:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, looks like we are getting closer to a solution! Couple of suggestions. I agree with Ivanvector's point that the bit saying "the provincial cuisine of Québec, which is further part of Canadian cuisine" is problematic. It looks like what it is: an awkward redundancy that signals a dispute. I think it's wiser to remove the bit that says "which is further part of Canadian cuisine" for 3 reasons: 1) because the relationship between Quebecois cuisine and Canadian cuisine is already clearly established in the Quebecois cuisine article. Its infobox states that it is "Part of a series on Canadian cuisine". This statement does not belong to the article about poutine, making it weird to insist on this point when talking about poutine; 2) because the proposed text already situates Quebec within Canada ("originating from Quebec, Canada"), making the statement redundant; and 3) because the text already mentions that poutine is "often identified as quintessential Canadian food", also making it redundant. This redundancy and awkwardness raise a flag about an existing dispute, and might reopen the matter later if someone argues about it or removes it. From a more general standpoint, statements about what is quebecois cuisine and how it relates to Canadian cuisine (or what is Quebec and how it relates to Canada) do not belong to the specific article about poutine, or any other dish. That's why between "originating from Quebec, Canada" vs "originating from the Canadian province of Quebec" I would favor the first one which is more concise, especially if we keep the bit that says "outside the province of Quebec". I would also stick to chronological order in the history of poutine, again for clarity purpose and reduction of sources of conflicts. I'm ok not to mention cultural appropriation in the introduction as long as the topic is discussed in the article. Here's a proposition going back to EzekielT's first proposition that also includes Ivanvector's propositions and mine. Cheers Seeris (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Small edit for concision. Last proposition below. Seeris (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I only support the original proposition made by User:Ivanvector so far. The geographical location of Quebec implies Canada, this is tautological. The second sentence is dealing with the origin of the dish just fine. There should be a mention of the debate and issue of cultural appropriation regarding labeling poutine as a Canadian dish in the first paragraph. By the way, the section about the cultural appropriation of the dish should come sooner in the article (just after the origin section of the dish, in my opinion). Axolotlxl (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But so far, from what I can find, only one academic (Nicolas Fabien-Ouellet) has given the opinion that labeling poutine as a Canadian dish is cultural appropriation. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As User:Bearcat already said to you, "There is no "consensus" that poutine is Québécois but somehow not Canadian — you have one academic paper which argues that calling it Canadian is cultural appropriation, and no evidence of any "consensus" around calling that an objective truth.". -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As you said, the geographical location of Quebec implies Canada. Since Quebec is part of Canada, and Quebec culture is part of Canadian culture, and by country of origin, poutine is Canadian, this doesn't amount to "cultural appropriation". -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I provided many references on the topic (both in French and in English). If you do not look up articles written in French that I provided or that are available you can only have a bias view of the topic. Besides, this is not about what you think of the cultural appropriation question, it is about informing people about an issue that is widely documented, and for which a public debate took place.Axolotlxl (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Poutine being described as a Canadian dish isn't cultural appropriation, by definition, because Quebec culture is not separate from Canadian culture. Quebec culture is part of Canadian culture. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"Cultural appropriation", according to the Wikipedia article, refers to "the adoption of the elements of one culture by members of another culture". As explained by the Canadian culture page:

"The culture of Canada is a term that embodies the artistic, culinary, literary, humour, musical, political and social elements that are representative of Canada and Canadians.

As all Quebecois, by being Canadians, are part of Canadian culture, Quebec culture cannot be described as "another culture" from Canadian culture as a whole, therefore, describing poutine as a Canadian dish isn't cultural appropriation, by definition. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

For poutine being described as a Canadian dish to be cultural appropriation, all Quebecois would have to somehow not be Canadians, because by being Canadians, they're part of Canadian culture, and for this reason, it doesn't amount to cultural appropriation. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, then are we ready for a formal vote? If no more versions are proposed, we could have 3 options: Ivanvector's original proposition, EzekielT's last proposition, and my last proposition. I guess we should allow a few days (if not a week) for people to express themselves. Seeris (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

How about instead of "Canadian province of Quebec", simply "province of Quebec"? And "outside of Quebec" instead of "outside of the province of Quebec"? -- EzekielT  '' Talk  02:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your last proposition EzekielT. I am proposing to put our propositions to the vote in the section below. Seeris (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Vote?
Unless someone wishes to propose another version of the introduction, we could vote on the following 3 options. (Not sure why subsection titles don't show up properly before each proposition, please fix if you have a clue). Seeris (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, Moxy probably would have a different proposition, since he voted to call poutine a French Canadian or Canadien dish. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  04:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * would you like to bring forth another proposition :)? -- EzekielT  '' Talk  04:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector's original proposition (updated by Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC))

EzekielT 's first proposition

EzekielT 's second proposition

EzekielT 's third proposition

EzekielT 's fourth and latest proposition

Seeris' last proposition

Well, I gathered that there is a proper way of doing this by using the RFC template and calling it a survey rather than a vote :) since you set up the previous poll and are not among the proposers, would you like to set up a a second RfC with these propositions? Seeris (talk)    —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to set up a new RfC to choose from the different proposed leads. However, I think it's best to leave a little more time to make sure that everyone who has a desire to propose a lead can do so. As Ivanvector noted, this may also allow us to come closer to a consensus. If no one objects (and if no consensus emerges in the meantime), I'll create a new RfC with the various options around this time tomorrow. dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 17:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My preference would be to discuss each of our observations about each other's suggestions and see if we can come up with a compromise solution that works for everyone, but if everyone's intent on doing this as a straight vote then I've just made some revisions to my own text.


 * Actually, I prefer to "discuss each of our observations about each other's suggestions and see if we can come up with a compromise solution that works for everyone", it sounds more fair :). Or maybe once we've finished creating a compromise solution, we can start a straight vote between the current poutine lead and the compromised version :). We could also set up a time limit to come up with a compromise solution that would work for all of us. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  15:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * @EzekielT: I'm assuming that if we are going to do a straight vote then you only intend to put forward one preferred edit and so I hid the other three inside a collapse box; if you disagree with that you can remove the cot and cob codes surrounding those edits. Also, your link to Quebecois is a link to a disambiguation page, I think you mean for it to be Quebecois so that it points to the Quebecois people article.
 * I prefer to leave the small cultural appropriation mention in the lede. It's a minor view but still significant: we only have one source on it in the article but that paper was picked up and discussed by a lot of major media outlets: Radio-Canada, Huffington Post, Global, Vice, National Post, Toronto Star, Le Soleil, Montreal Gazette, l'Actualité, La Presse, La Voix du Nord for examples in English and French. It's worth a mention in the lead.


 * But it appears only one academic (Nicolas Fabien-Ouellet) has given the opinion that labeling poutine as a Canadian dish is cultural appropriation. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  15:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As User:Bearcat said to Axolotlxl, "There is no "consensus" that poutine is Québécois but somehow not Canadian — you have one academic paper which argues that calling it Canadian is cultural appropriation, and no evidence of any "consensus" around calling that an objective truth.". It is already well documented in the "Social mobility and Canadization" section of the article, even though only one academic, Nicolas Fabien-Ouellet, has identified labeling poutine Canadian is cultural appropriation. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  15:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, @EzekielT, I think your signature has an unclosed in it that's making the font change on the page. I think I fixed it on the page but you might want to check in your preferences (I can't change your signature for you). Or maybe it's just something to do with cutting and pasting your signature, if you were doing that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * (replying to EzekielT, whose comments are interjected out of order) I'm not saying that on the basis of one paper we should describe poutine as Quebecois and not Canadian, that's plainly not the majority view. That's also not what the paper says: the paper itself acknowledges the dish's popularity outside the province and international association with Canada. What it objects to as appropriation is describing it as an exclusively Canadian dish with no mention of Quebec, which we're also not doing here in any of these proposals. I'm being careful in my edit not to state the appropriation view as a fact in Wikipedia's "voice" but to indicate that it's an academic opinion that exists. But I do think it's prominent enough to be mentioned. The paper is one opinion, but that opinion is peer-reviewed which gives it some legitimacy, and it's been picked up by multiple news outlets and publications which have also given it critical analysis. I think that hiding it from the lede fails to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (from MOS:LEAD). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ok for leaving it to discussion for now. Ivanvector, I had included your first proposition because it seems that it's the only one that Axolotlxl supports. What about also including it in the list of propositions as Axolotlxl's proposition (if that's what you want Axolotlxl)?
 * Considering the multiple sources you just brought up showing that the controversy around cultural appropriation has been widely discussed in the media, I agree with your proposition to include a mention about in in the introduction.
 * Please do not insert your comments in between someone else's paragraphs. It makes it confusing to understand who's talking, and in what order the ideas were brought up. Wait until the end of someone's post and then post yours. It's important to respect the integrity of other people's posts. Seeris (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * How do you think of "though some have commented that this labeling represents Canada's other provinces getting credit for a dish that was originally exclusive to Quebec" instead of "though some have commented that this labelling represents misappropriation of Québécois culture"? Should I add the sentence to my fourth proposition, or create a new fifth proposition including the same sentence? Or maybe "though some have commented that this labeling represents the rest of Canada getting credit for a dish that was originally exclusive to the province of Quebec" instead? -- EzekielT  '' Talk  19:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I prefer the wording I used. Your first suggestion puts a spin on the paper that isn't there: it's not about other provinces taking credit, or about "credit" at all really. Cultural appropriation isn't as simple as "credit where credit's due", it's a more complicated social concept with roots in cultural oppression; it's best not to try to explain it but just link to the article. I also don't like "the rest of Canada" because I find it's not really accurate, and the wording is shoehorning Quebec into a nonexistent subservient role again. What I wrote is just simple and straightforward: a plain summary, without trying to ascribe meaning to a debate that isn't there. The details of all that are best left to the section in the article where it's discussed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought about what you said, and I agree with you that it's not about other provinces taking credit. So I've decided this wording is better: "though some have commented that this labeling actually represents misappropriation of Québécois culture by the rest of Canadian culture". I think this sounds more fair and factual, do you agree? -- EzekielT  '' Talk  20:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Or maybe "though some have commented that this labeling actually represents misappropriation of Québécois culture by Canadian culture as a whole"? -- EzekielT  '' Talk  20:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll have to take another look at the paper and I don't have time at the moment, but at first glance I don't think that "by the rest of Canadian culture" is accurate. It's not my area of expertise but I think you're describing cultural assimilation (one culture subsumes another, usually in its entirety) which isn't quite the same as cultural appropriation (an individual or group lay claim to elements of a culture that they are not a part of). You could be right, I'd just like to have a look at how it's described in the sources before commenting any further. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * On re-reading the relevant bits of the paper, actually I think you nailed it. Fabien-Ouellet speaks out against the "Canadization" of poutine, by my interpretation meaning the erasure of its past of stigmatization against the Quebecois as it is presently rebranded as a much-loved Canadian food, and he does argue that a solution is to brand poutine as exclusively Quebecois and not Canadian. So your last suggestion, "misappropriation of Quebecois culture by Canadian culture as a whole" is probably the most accurate, although I think it needs copyediting, I'm not sure a culture can as a whole appropriate another culture. How about, "misappropriation of Quebecois culture by Canadians"? I can't type accents at the moment, assume they're there ;)
 * As for Fabien-Ouellet's argument about branding, that's not for us to decide here. Wikipedia presents things as they are, not how they would be in one idealized view, and it's clear from abundant sourcing that poutine has an image as Canadian food. I think with the edit we're working on we'll be presenting it exactly how we should. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

But Quebecois are Canadians. Anyways, I thought more about it, and I think I've reached a conclusion :)!:

Technically, it's not "assimilation" nor "cultural appropriation". For it to be any of those two, like you said, Quebec would have to be the only subregion of Canada with a unique culture, while the rest of Canada would have to be "just one homogeneous cultural blob". It's more like this:


 * "Cultural appropriation", according to the Wikipedia article, refers to "the adoption of the elements of one culture by members of another culture". As explained by the Canadian culture page:


 * "The culture of Canada is a term that embodies the artistic, culinary, literary, humour, musical, political and social elements that are representative of Canada and Canadians. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  22:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As all Quebecois, by being Canadians, are part of Canadian culture, Quebec culture is part of Canadian culture, and cannot be described as "another culture" from Canadian culture as a whole, therefore, describing poutine as a Canadian dish isn't cultural appropriation, by definition. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  22:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * For poutine being described as a Canadian dish to be cultural appropriation, all Quebecois would have to somehow not be Canadians, because by being Canadians, they're part of Canadian culture, and for this reason, it doesn't amount to cultural appropriation (as cultural appropriation means absorption of elements of one culture by members of another culture, but Quebec culture cannot be defined as another culture from Canadian culture as a whole because Quebec culture is part of Canadian culture). -- EzekielT  '' Talk  22:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So, technically, this is not assimilation nor cultural appropriation. Instead, it's actually sharing and adoption of elements from Quebec culture to other Canadian subcultures. In other words, some sort of cross-adoption between the Canadian subcultures (including Quebec culture), all within a united Canadian culture. What would the terminology for that be? -- EzekielT  '' Talk  22:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe these two sentences from the Canadian culture page give an insight:


 * "Throughout Canada's history, its culture has been influenced by European culture and traditions, especially British and French, and by its own indigenous cultures. Over time, elements of the cultures of Canada's immigrant populations have become incorporated into mainstream Canadian culture.". -- EzekielT  '' Talk  00:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Your view on this discards a lot of history. What the Quebecois have in common with other Canadian minorities (for example Acadians, First Nations, Metis, Black Canadians, etc.) is that all of them have been oppressed at one time or another (or still are) by a largely English-speaking European majority trying to impose its culture over them. Over a long period of time in the 18th century, French-speaking residents of Acadia were forcibly kicked off their land and expelled from what are now Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. When the British conquered Quebec in 1763 they nominally let the French keep their own laws and culture as part of the treaty to end the war, but also put many restrictions in place to ensure French Roman Catholics couldn't serve as judges or other high civil positions, and permitted return to France but made it prohibitively expensive to do so. Some of that was reversed with the Quebec Act in 1774, which happened to come from the same legislative session as laws punishing the Americans for the Boston Tea Party. It's not a huge coincidence that when those laws inspired the American Revolution, the former province of Quebec was partitioned to accommodate fleeing British Loyalists: the land given to the English settlers was called "Upper Canada" while the part maintained for the French was called "Lower Canada", and that situation persisted for 100 years. In 1982, talks to repatriate the Constitution from Britain were breaking down over the issue of language rights, and one night while the Quebec delegation was asleep the prime minister and premiers from the English provinces signed a deal behind Quebec's back. To this day Quebec refuses to recognize the document that is the basis for the Canadian Constitution, and things like the Meech Lake Accord, Charlottetown Accord, and the 1995 separation referendum are all efforts to resolve that situation one way or the other.
 * What's important to take away from all that is that, since 1763, Quebec has mostly been permitted to maintain its religious and civil laws and institutions inherited from Roman Catholic France, with varying levels of British oversight, while the entire rest of the country (including other French-speaking parts) has a society based on Protestant English tradition and law. Quebec is unique in that respect, within the broader Canadian situation and amongst Canadian minorities who largely have simply been stripped of their culture and forced to live amongst English society or on reservations, or made to be English slaves.
 * It's not wrong to say Quebec is part of Canada or to say that Quebec people are Canadians. But it is wrong to say Quebec and its people are the same as the rest of Canada. And saying things like "but Quebecois are Canadians", insisting that the Quebecois people are just part of the Canadian whole and have no right to an identity of their own, does an extreme disservice to history and absolutely does not reflect how things are in reality.
 * Which brings us back to poutine: a dish with its origins in rural post-war Quebec seen as a garbage junk food for most of its history and used as a symbol of stigma against Quebeckers by English Canadians, suddenly becomes a thing that English Canadians claim as a point of Canadian national pride once it becomes popular, erasing its history. I can see the point about cultural appropriation. I don't necessarily agree with the suggested solution, but Wikipedia presents things as they are, not how they should be. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't mean that! You misunderstood me. Quebec is definitely not the same as the rest of Canada, just like Nunavut, etc. I meant Quebec culture is distinct from the other Canadian subcultures (Métis culture, Black Canadian culture, Anglo-Canadian culture, First Nations culture, Indo-Canadian culture, etc.), but not Canadian culture as a whole, which includes all cultures within Canada (including Quebec culture, Indo-Canadian culture, First Nations culture, Chinese Canadian culture, etc.). -- EzekielT  '' Talk  00:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We all have our own identities within Canadian culture, indeed. Saying Quebec culture is the only unique culture in Canada would mean, in your own words, "the entire rest of the world's second-largest country is just one homogeneous cultural blob". -- EzekielT  '' Talk  00:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

convenience break

 * @Ivanvector: "insisting that the Quebecois people are just part of the Canadian whole":


 * It wouldn't be fair to Acadians, First Nations, Metis, Black Canadians, etc. to insist that the Quebecois are the only distinct people in Canada, somehow deserving of not being part of Canadian culture while we're not, and that we're part of "just one homogeneous cultural blob". -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As User:Bearcat said:


 * "Quebec culture is not distinct from Canadian culture: Quebec culture is part of Canadian culture. It's distinct from English Canadian culture, yes, but English Canadian culture is not the sum total of all Canadian culture. Quebec culture and Canadian culture are not different things: Canadian culture is a thing that includes English Canadian culture and Quebec culture and immigrant cultures and indigenous cultures. Again, the article says "from Quebec" right in its very first sentence, and you have yet to provide any credible reason why that somehow fails to communicate its particular connection to Quebec.". -- EzekielT  '' Talk  00:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * But we're supposed to cite the opinion of Nicolas Fabien-Ouellet, anyways, not straight out definitions or consensus. I believe my original "though some have commented that this labeling actually represents misappropriation of Québécois culture by the rest of Canadian culture" sounds most accurate. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  01:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right with this last point, and we both are putting too much thought and emotion into this. Fabien-Ouellet describes the phenomenon as appropriation of Quebecois culture, that's the view that was picked up in mainstream media, and that's all we need to say about it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes I would appreciate if the vote includes User:Ivanvector original proposition. I would also appreciate that only one proposition be made per user (there are currently 3 propositions from User:EzekielT, and although this is representative of the place that user has taken in this discussion trend, I feel this is both unfair and cumbersome).

Regarding the view that the cultural appropriation element is only from one source: as I keep saying since the beginning, there are multiple sources on the topic, as I provided above (written before the publication of Fabien-Ouellet article):

Pountine pundit (which is a reference in the world of poutine) wrote this: Q: Is poutine Canada’s national dish? A: No, though English Canada has tried to appropriate it. https://poutinepundit.wordpress.com/faq/

Mathieu Charlebois from L'actualité wrote this: "La poutine, mets canadien? Tout comme l’idée de mettre une peltée de sauce brune avec une poignée de fromage sur des frites en se disant que ça va être bon, c’est pas mal n’importe quoi."(Which translates to: Just like the idea of mixing fries, cheese curds and gravy, it would be nonsense to call poutine a Canadian dish. http://lactualite.com/politique/2016/02/03/la-poutine-un-plat-pour-les-quebecois-de-sauce/

Not to mention all the comments on social media about it during the summer.Axolotlxl (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Quote from Ivanvector: "I think you'll find Axolotlxl is the only editor to hold that opinion with respect to Wikipedia articles and categorization. And that would come out through discussion, and sort of has through the initial back-and-forth. Quebec's official designation as a "distinct culture" (or whatever the official wording is) is irrelevant to this discussion, unless there really are many people who think that Quebec is actually the only subregion of Canada with a unique culture, while the entire rest of the world's second-largest country is just one homogeneous cultural blob.". -- EzekielT  '' Talk  15:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you really believe "Quebec is actually the only subregion of Canada with a unique culture, while the entire rest of the world's second-largest country is just one homogeneous cultural blob"? -- EzekielT  '' Talk  15:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the French version of La Banquise website says that Poutine is a Quebecois dish (the English version use French-Canadian): http://labanquise.com/poutine-histoire.phpAxolotlxl (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This is because you're only looking for sources calling poutine Quebecois, and as you said, "I stand from the point of view of a Quebecois". If you were neutral, you would look for both sources calling poutine "Canadian" and "Quebecois", like Ivanvector is doing. As User:Bearcat said to you a few days ago:

"So clearly your interpretation of "objective" is "agrees with my opinion" and your interpretation of "biased" is "disagrees with my opinion". What is your definition of what the word "Canadian" means, if Quebec is part of Canada yet somehow not part of "Canadian"?". -- EzekielT  '' Talk  15:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There really isn't anything for us to say about social media activity, blogs included - they're not normally treated as reliable sources. To be fair, the sources that I linked elsewhere are mostly discussing Fabien-Ouellet's paper, but Charlebois was writing about the same phenomenon a year before the paper was published, so it's not fair to say it's one academic's opinion. And in all of this I haven't seen any good sources refuting the appropriation view. Although all of the discussion about the topic is very recent, in academic terms. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

EzekielT, for the sake of clarifying your point: if Quebecois culture is part of Canadian culture, and Quebecois cuisine is part of Canadian cuisine, and Quebec is part of Canada, why would the sentence "poutine is a quebecois dish" contain in itself a negation of the previous statements? I am not talking about opinions expressed by other users on this page, or arguments made by external sources, but about you own point of view. When you read "Quebecois cuisine", don't you interpret it as necessarily implying its inclusion within Canadian cuisine? If so, I don't understand your point in opposing to using it the lead of the article, because is already implies the point you're trying to make. Seeris (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)