Talk:Québécois (word)/Archive 1

Definition
Note to readers of this article. The definition is erroneous and Wikipedia seems to be happy with it. I am from Québec and it is false to state that the word Québécois can only be used to define French speaking residents from French ancestry. This has probably been added by someone with the desire to fuel intolerance towards French speaking canadians. Since Wikipedia has worldwide attention, I think this should be removed from the definition.

Racist? I agree that it would be racist to limit the meaning of qu&eacute;b&eacute;cois in French to a descendent of the French colonists. However, this is the English wiki, and in English the term Quebecois has a very specific meaning and refers to a very specific concept that has to do with ethnicity rather than with residence. I have never heard Quebecois being used in English to mean anything other than a Quebecer of French-Canadian descent. This is why I was careful to distinguish between a Quebecer and a Quebecois. I'm not a Quebecois, though I am a Quebecer.

Whether or not the concept is racist or not, the fact is that this is the meaning of the word. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * The dictionaries do seem to think that "quebecois" includes any resident (see here and here), though they specify that its more narrow meaning is the French-speaking residents. I'm not sure how that would indicate pure ethnicity or descent, as there could also be Francophones of ethnic "English" or non-colonial descent. It could be that your interpretation is just the local English usage and not the general one, but I'm not certain. Scipius 19:06 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * FWIW, my Canadian Oxford gives "a francophone native or inhabitant of Quebec." I suspect they're being a little broad. I've never heard a Parisian immigrant to Quebec described in English as Quebecois, for the same reason that if a Quebecois moved to Belgium, he or she would not turn into a Walloon.


 * I admit it's a little confusing - most demonyms use the same word for an inhabitant/national as they do for a member of the ethnic group. My mom and I are both Canadian and American, but for opposite reasons (she's an American by birth who moved to Canada; I'm a Canadian by birth who has dual citizenship with the US). Quebec is somewhat clearer in having different words for the nationality than for the ethnicity, and this can sometimes cause confusion. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * Do you think mentioning "pure laine" would clarify, or further confuse the issue? (And am I spelling that right?)Vicki Rosenzweig


 * It's a pretty separate issue, I think. Quebecois and pure laine are not synonyms. (I'm Scottish, but I'm not, um, pure laine Scottish, if you want.) - Montr&eacute;alais

Dictionaries will typically favour the broad definition of "Québécois" as any resident of Québec, or any person with links to Québec irrespective of linguistic ties. (There is also the use in reference to the Québec French dialect but that is not in dispute here.) I am of course familiar with the term "Quebec(k)er" and view it as interchangeable with "Québécois" in its ethnic or national sense, but not in its linguistic sense. As a bilingual Canadian, I find "Quebecker" to be a somewhat illiterate term which I would not normally use. My francophone ancestors moved from Québec to Ontario in about the 1860s, and I certainly do not consider myself to be Québécois in any sense of the word.

The definition that Montréalais seeks to impose is one from a nationalist POV. It is not new. In using the term to apply to pure laine (or "old stock") people in Québec, it carries implications of special rights or privileges, Such semantic distortions have been used repeatedly to fan the ardour of nationalists. These suggestions of superiority are what make this usage racist. These 1995 comments from the World Jewish Congress provide insight into the minefield where Montréalais' definition can lead:
 * A History of Extremist Rhetoric
 * Parizeau's belligerent (POV) stance does not represent an entirely new phenomenon. The PQ has an uneven history in relation to minorities (and especially Jews (sic=not based on facts)) living in the province (POV). Father Lionel-Adolphe Groulx, the patron saint of modern Quebecois nationalism (sic=not patron saint of modern Quebec nationalism), was an outspoken antisemite(sic=distorsion), and antisemitism in the 1930's was a prominent feature of French Canadian politics (sic=as it was in any christian society). It has also recently been revealed that prominent Quebecois politicians (including Father Groulx(sic=groulx was not a politician), Provincial Premier Maurice Duplessis and Montreal Mayor Camilien Houde) helped (sic=distortion) French "refugees" (Nazi collaborators fleeing justice) settle in Quebec to escape prosecution. It had been believed in some quarters that the Quebecois nationalists had abandoned the chauvinism and parochialism that had characterized the party in times past. In the most recent election, members of the province's ethnic minorities, including Jews, could be found amongst the PQ's activists and supporters (sic=not just in recent elections). One North African Jew active in the separatist movement explained that "Quebec nationalism is not ethnic based; it is territorial, so I am comfortable with it." Mr Parizeau's remarks, however, left many such supporters feeling disappointed and isolated (POV). Mr Parizeau is not the only chauvinist in his party(POV). In the period preceding the election PQ MP Philippe Parc suggested in the Canadian parliament that ethnic minorities refrain from participating in the vote on the future of the province and allow "old stock Quebecois" to determine whether or not to secede(sic=distortion). Across Canada, and even among certain quarters of the PQ, Parizeau's words produced outrage(sic=embarassement, but not outrage). Prime Minister Jean Chretien, a French Canadian, was shocked by the invective and roundly condemned it(sic=he was not shocked. He exploited the gaffe for political ends). PQ members who were not old stock Quebecois were especially upset. Edmond Omran, Director of the "Medical Aid for Palestine" office in Montreal, said it "felt like a slap in the face". Jack Silverstone, National Executive Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress declared that "to differentiate between classes of voters is reprehensible and racist" (POV + sic=distorsion). The Jewish Community was particularly outspoken in its condemnation(POV). Better than most, Jews understand that a state in which there is any differentiation between citizens based on religion, race, national origin or roots is a state doomed to ruin. (POV + Chauvinism)

A proposed definition that does not take this into account is not NPOV, and therfore intolerable (POV + sic). Eclecticology 08:19 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)


 * Oh, for pity's sake, this is insane ! "Extremists use it..."? I find that personally insulting. I and everyone I know use it this way, and most of us are federalist anglophones! (not surprising, since we are talking about English usage !) The definition you wrote is a falsehood, personally contradicted by my example and the example of everyone I know, and I am reverting it.


 * I have explained the difference between Quebecois and pure laine to you. You are bringing in a host of irrelevant issues. That some Quebecois are racist, and some Jews feel and do not feel threatened by the sovereignist movement is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the Quebecois people. (All Quebecois are not sovereignist!)


 * "Quebecer is interchangeable with Quebecois in its ethnic... sense..." As written, you do not concede that Quebec(whatever) has any ethnic sense; you are using it only to refer (ooh, except for by those scary extremists) to all residents of Quebec, who are composed of a large variety of ethnicities.


 * "Special rights and privileges..."? Will you please explain the special rights and privileges involved with being Quebecois, according to the definition I wrote, and compare and contrast these with the special rights and privileges enjoyed by members of other noted ethnicities such as British-Canadian, Fleming, Turk, Picard, Valencian, Basque, Welsh, Heiltsuk, Han, Tamil, Uzbek, Dyirbal, or Inuk?


 * Tell me, does any other group of people have to go through this? Do you even concede that the French-Canadian people of Quebec even exist, or do we have to have that argument too? If so, under what title can we write about them? Can we write an article about the Walloons, the Basques, the Scots, or the Catalonians, without having to tie ourselves in knots detailing the difference between a Walloon and a "French-speaking resident of Belgium"? Are we even allowed to write about ethnic groups?


 * Look - I'm just trying to write an article that discusses the French-descended people of Quebec. I don't see how specifying their mere existence is racist. I'm going to try again, move up the difference between the English and French languages, in order to assuage what I understand can be a legitimate source of confusion. But if you don't think the description is a fair one, I would ask you to please hash it out in Talk. - Montr&eacute;alais

--

Okay... after some reflection I think I understand the origin of the conflict. Am I right in thinking that you took "descended from the French settlers" etc. to mean wholly or mostly descended? If so, that wasn't my intent - I meant this to refer to the French-Canadians of Quebec as opposed to (for example) recent Belgian immigrants. I'm of course aware that a lot of people who consider themselves Quebecois are nowhere near pure laine, and that pure laine is widely considered (as it is by me) to be a racist idea. I was referring to the descent of the ethnicity, not of the individuals.

For that reason, I've thoroughly reworded the definition, and added the term "pure laine" to contrast with it. I've also mentioned other Francophone ethnicities in Canada, as well as a description of some Quebecois cultural items which I'm about to expand (and could use some help with). If someone (you, perhaps, Eclecticology?) wanted to write/work on articles about the Franco-Ontariens, Franco-Manitobains, etc., this would be most helpful. Anyway, how does this look? - Montr&eacute;alais


 * This is much improved; I had previously been puzzled about the relevance of the "Walloon" issue. I've parnethetically added "old stock" for the benefit of those who might take the reference to wool in a literal sense, and be thereby quite confused.  I've also changed the reference to French-Canadian authors to Québécois, since that is what the article is all about.  I've also removed Gabrielle Roy who was Franco-Manitoban.


 * One small issue that I would like accomodated is the fact that tourtière does not mean the same thing throughout Québec. Tourtière du lac St-Jean is a deep dish recipe that includes a variety of meat chunks (traditionally wild game) with potatoes, and a pastry covering; It is different from the small meat pies that you might find in Montreal.


 * I'll keep in mind, without any promise, the suggestions that you made about doing something for the other French-Canadian cultures; however, as is typical with many Wikipedians, I already have a very long list of topics that I would like to work on. Eclecticology


 * I'll see what I can do (once I return from indulging in highly Anglo traditional specialties in the middle of cottage-country Ontario (I haven't seen my aunt's family in three years, it's not my fault, I swear !! :). FWIW, I knew G.Roy was Franco-Manitoban, which is why I hedged by saying French-Canadian... I figured her writing was pretty important in QC culture (viz. Bonheur d'occasion... my metro station has a big mural commemorating her :)
 * Glad we were able to work this out. -- Montr&eacute;alais

I've moved this since it paints with an incredibly broad brush:


 * The anglophones primarily indentify to Canada (with Quebec as just a province), the francophones to Quebec (with Quebec as a nation), and the native populations do not recognize the borders established by the europeens imperialists at all. Miraculously, this country is one of the most peaceful on Earth.

- Montr&eacute;alais 12:44 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence of the second paragraph because Montréalais is right. In English, Québécois means a francophone Quebecker (sic) whose family has spoken French for at least a few generations, at least on one side (that's why Daniel Johnson and Georges Dor and Steve Penny are considered Québécois). The only authorities who think otherwise seem to be people who don't use the word routinely and in whose lives it is not an important concept. The phrase I replaced -- "can more specifically refer to a particular francophone ethnicity and culture" -- implies there is something else it can refer to. If somebody decides to revert they might add a citation to demonstrate what else the term designates. I also capitalized Québécois in the first sentence because as a noun it is capitalized in both French and English. Have to see if they've got Georges Dor on the list of Quebecois. Torontois

Québécois vs. Quebecker
In the intro, when it says that Quebecker/Quebecer is the English equivalent of Québécois, which is it talking about? I think it probably means the 2nd. Clarify? --Menchi 02:42 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) word equivalency?
 * the two words means identically, and are perfect translation
 * 1) person equivalency?
 * An English speaker in Quebec is called a Quebecker; a French Québécois.


 * And is that the French usage? I recall Mordecai Richler being described by a provincial cabinet minister as "pas de la famille." Jfitzg


 * The "Richler" comment has nothing to do with the description of what Québécois is. (Irrelevance) Québécois


 * If a prominent Québécois says that an English-speaking Jew doesn't belong to the Quebec family you're probably right that it's not relevant, but it sure as hell is revealing, eh? Québec pour les Québécois, et pour personne d'autre. Trontonian 20:19, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I disagree with what Mordecai Richler writes and it stains the reputation of Québec in big American newspapers. A member of the National Assembly calls him "pas de la famille". A normal, non-racist, person can only see two political adversairies not happy with each other. A racist person will ignore the political debate (which he obviously does not comprehend) and only consider the blood and tongue of the two persons and make his observation on it. Who is racist again? Mathieup


 * The issue of blood is raised by the phrase "pas de la famille." I should think that's obvious. Trontonian 04:19, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Obvious to a person who's convinced that Quebec independence has something to do with the ethnic origin of people. People who are involved in the debate know that it's about equality of peoples and self-government. Mordecai Richler was judged to be "pas de la famille" has someone who works for the other "famille". Mathieup


 * Hm. It is somewhat idiosyncratic, but I think it's an illustration of a certain mindset. It's not representative of the opinions of the whole society, but it does represent the opinions of a certain segment. I think there's something to be said for restoring it, but perhaps refactored so as not to give it more weight than it deserves. - Montr&eacute;alais 18:02, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The statement "Quebec is home to a multi-ethnic society with a primarily francophone population, eleven First Nations, an anglophone minority and a wide variety of ethnic minorities" confuses categories. Francophone and anglophone are linguistic categories, First Nation is a legal one (since one may be an aboriginal person without belonging to a First Nation), and ethnic minority is an ethnic category. I did change native tribes to First Nations (native tribes made my skin crawl) but the original phrase is no better -- in Canada so-called tribes, First Nations, bands or whatever you want to call them are legal entities defined by treaty. A member of a First Nation will be a member of an ethnic minority, but will also often be either anglophone or francophone. Jfitzg
 * So I revised it. Jfitzg


 * I'd just like to jump into the fray here and say that as a English-speaking western Canadian, I'm confident that I have never used the word "Quebecker". As far as I'm concerned anyone who was born in Quebec is Québécois. I don't care if their parents were born in Pakistan. I don't think it is a word that describes ethnicity or language (there are other words for those), it describes the province of one's birth. My two cents.

Steve Lowther 09:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Métis as French-Canadians and as a grouping
I changed "French-Canadian cultural groupings" to "French-speaking cultural groups" because considering all we have done to them I don't know that Canadians really accept the Métis as Canadian. I may be wrong, though, so feel free to change it back. However, I do think "group" is a better word than "grouping," which seems to me to imply an arbitrary aggregation. Métis culture goes back to the seventeenth century, so they seem to me better described as a group. Trontonian

Meti are spin from Quebueqois that left Quebec
Sorry man but Meti are a culture is from the west and Québécois are Native-French that never left... Quebec is a native word and not french... Its a word that the french hijack over time... The British did not set out, however, to persecute Quebec's native French population. The Quebec Act, passed in 1774, allowed the Quebecois to have religious freedom.

Also at the time was slavery of native population... so to state that your native descendent are would bring about bad things like capture or get shot… That’s why many left and changed to Métis… I know because I am from Métis-Quebecois… And we had to keep are mouths shut and go to church or no job or money went to you… we the French people who the Algonquin adopted…created the nation of people called Quebecois…

Now why should bad people take my history away... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZorroIsGod (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

How big is the Quebecois Nation
Don't forget that is like 270 years of new Native-French kids being born...to 1774 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZorroIsGod (talk • contribs) 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

The word Nation is used in Canada to describe First Nations Natives like the Cree-Nation so when you talk about the Quebecois they are mostly the Native-French descendents who lived and created Quebec city before 1774… Not Meti who are from the west... If your family tree dates back that far then your a Quebecois.

France back then in 1500 did not build jails they just ship you here to Quebec…it was way to get development going here…

When my great grandfather came over on one boat escaping prosecution he had to change his last name... I think it was a way to track down his descendents... The story was handed down to show the truth how we got here...

Father Paul Le Jeune proposed to the governor, Champlain that they try to promote Huron-French intermarriage. Champlain agreed not only for religious reasons, but also because intermarriage was a way of further cementing French-Native alliances. He also thought that by building a settlement in the Huron country, the French/Huron population could complete the exploration of the continent.26 While the Huron were ambivalent about accepting this proposal, the French court accepted and still promoted it during the late 1660s, namely that French and Natives “mingle” and “constitute only one people and one race.”

Harper himself has done little to clear up the confusion, saying cryptically, "The Quebecois know who they are."

After the initial 1755 deportions, England decided to sent the French back to France instead of to the American colonies.. When Louisbourg fell in 1758, over 3000 Acadians from the Ile St. Jean area were exiled to France. When Quebec fell in 1759, hundreds of prisoners of war were also sent to France. In 1763, 753 more Acadians arrived from England. Generally, they lived in poor conditions. Most lived in coastal cities, though several attempts were made to settle them elsewhere. When the opportunity came to leave in 1785, over 1500 of them traveled to Louisiana.

England did not remove the Naitve-Franch only the real french...So when did the French come? LOL

Quebecois are people of old Quebec they are mix blood that created an identity for them selves a long time ago… Vikings and other Europeans also came to Quebec before France and mingled with natives as a new nation… This all happed before the British came… To state that all Quebecer’s are Quebecois then you actually change their identity… It’s like saying the Cree and Mohawk should now be the same under one name… The Quebec Provence should not discriminate or set up pollicise that state that all people from Quebec are Quebecois…. That like creating an assimilation province under one culture… Under First Nations of many nations a nation is not defined by its boarders… Only a selected few Quebec are trying to redefine this as all people under a boarder are Quebecois… When they do this they are erasing history of the true Quebecois…

Take a look at this Metis site and you will see what i mean about its from Ontario and west.... http://www.metisnation.ca/

The relevance /irrelevance of Mordecai Richler
I see Mordecai Richler has been excised from the article as irrelevant. Well, that's a very Quebecois idea, eh? Sarcasm aside, I think that he is relevant, but the references to him need to be worked into the article better. So I won't revert but will consider a better use of the references. Or a use of better references -- certainly there are plenty from ''Oh, Canada! Oh, Quebec!'' which could be used. Trontonian 20:55, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I decided the excision was justified. See User talk:Québécois. Trontonian 21:26, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have also added a bit of clarification about Parizeau's statement (which probably didn't represent his real opinions on the matter) and removed the assertion that immigrants choose to speak French. Given the pressure on immigrants to adopt French describing their adoption of the language as a choice is questionable. Trontonian 21:34, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Gutting the article
If you're going to gut the article, how about logging in first? How about explaining why you're doing it? I'm open to arguments that the last massive deletion was justified, but apparently we're not to be made aware of any. If none are forthcoming I'm going to treat the deletion as an act of vandalism and revert the article. Jfitzg 22:37, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I've restored the previous version for the time being. The Jacques Parizeau bit needs work, but that wasn't the way to go about it. - Montr&eacute;alais 04:26, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think buddy may have been right to delete the paragraph, but it is inappropriate and unWikilike to do it without at least stating a reason. Uppermost in my mind is that the issue of whether Québécois are necessarily French or not was raised early in the history of this article, and at length, so the passage seems to me on balance to be relevant. Jfitzg 23:22, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

From a really pissed off person: To whoever keeps putting back the Québec bashing junk everytime, get the facts straight: The Québécois are not an ethnic group! The main ethnic group composing those who self-identify as Québécois are the (French) Canadians (aka the Canadiens). But they are not the only ethnic group making up this people! Québécois means all the citizens of Québec (YES, even those who don't identify as Québécois, the same way all Québécois are citizens of Canada even though a huge chunk of them don't agree to be called Canadians.)

Québécois IS NOT EQUAL TO French Canadian. The French Canadian ethnic group includes millions of people born out of French Canadian + Irish mariages (and others). According to the Canadian Irish Congress, 40% of the francophones in Québec have Irish ancestry! Wake up! You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word ethnicity! The word "ethnic" comes from Late Latin "ethnicus", which comes from the Greek "ethnikos", from "ethnos", meaning a people, a nation. A people is a sizable group of individuals sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.


 * So the Irish are not a people to you, I take it. After all, large percentages have Norman, Flemish, Scottish, and English ancestry (and other ancestries). Incidentally, we don't speak Latin or ancient Greek any more, so how they used cognate terms is irrelevant. Jfitzg


 * ??? What? I am saying exactly the opposite. People who self-identify as Québécois may not be of French ancestry because it is a nationality, not a blood line. Hence, all the Johnsons, Burns, Skene, Nelligans etc who identify as Québécois despite their origins. There is no difference for the Canadians. Not all are of British ancestry, because many other groups have been assimilated to the English language culture of Canada (since the conquest). Mathieugp


 * It seems to me that you explicitly say that French Canadians are not a people because many have Irish ancestry. I fail to see who can be a people then. However, what you do say is so confused that i could easily have misunderstood what you intended. Anyway, this is irrelevant to the meaning of the term in Canadian English. Or irrelevant to the fact that some Quebeckers of French descent believe that Québécois are francophone. The article does not say anything beyond that, not the last time I looked, anyway. Trontonian


 * Removed personal attacks I am saying that Quebecers are a nation (in the modern political sense). The majority group composing this nation (all citizens of Quebec) are those English-speakers called the French Canadians (aka the Canadiens). These French Canadians are not all of French ancestry, and they are definitely not all of French "blood". The term Québécois in English can refer to the French language culture and population of Quebec all you want. Despite English being my second language, I believe I had made that clear in my previous intervention. I do that because this page is awful. It must be free from any political bias. (This IS and encyclopedia!) Mathieugp

Today, hundreds of thousands of Québécois simply have NO French roots at all (yes, even those who speak French too!).

Those who root back to the French colonists are today scatered across all of North America. If all these people had their identity based on their origins, there would be about 10 millions in the US and 8 million in Canada. These people are of French ancestry. This is not the case for all Québécois.

For the love of God, keep politics out of this page: this is an encyclopedia! We need facts and facts only!

Removed personal attacks To those who to think that québécois = french race = parizeau = fascism should really visit http://english.republiquelibre.org/.


 * Okay, show us some authoritative quotations where any anglophone Canadian has ever used the term to mean anything other than a francophone Quebecker. In Canadian English Québécois means a francophone Quebecker. I'd also say that Lucien Bouchard's description of the Québécois are a white race shows that the party named for this people certainly considers them to be an ethnic group. This party also has a policy of restricting the use of English and other languages, which also suggests that it sees the Québécois as francophone. Jfitzg 01:19, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that you see Québec through the racist filter of English Canadian medias? Because it seems that all your opinions are taken from the loads of Québec bashing published since 1995. I am more than ready to grant that Québécois is, most of the time, used to refer to a francophone Quebecer or to refer to Québec's own culture (Québécois literature, music, cinema etc.). That does not make it right. Why is that? Do English speakers do that for other nations? Do they use the word français when speaking of french-speaking French? Of course not. That would be ridiculous even if there are millions of French citizens who speak languages other than French.


 * The word entered your vocabulary because we are dealing with a very unique situation. Québec is an annexed nation, in which also lives a colony of Canadians who will never see themselves as Québécois until the day we are independent. Until then, there will be brainwashed people to make the distinction between the two. In Québec, we started to use the word Québécois specifically to rid ourselves, once and for all, of the ethnic question we inherited. How can a chinese, an algerian or any other immigrant self-identify as a Canadien-français were we telling ourselves some 50 years ago? It's then that we abandonned the idea of being recognized as an equal nation inside Canada (the name of the country in which the Canadien people was born in the time of New France) and we opted for Québec. In fact, René Lévesque's movement started as Option Québec. Mathieugp


 * Sigh. Haven't got an answer? Claim I'm Quebec-bashing! The issue is what the word Quebecois means in English, not what you think it should mean (especially as the word is not offensive or derogatory in English). English is something we learn in Toronto. Trontonian


 * I have answered twice. You can say that in English Canada, people use the term Québécois in an ethnic sense because that's what they learned. Despite the non-homogenious nature of their population, it is generally accepted to claim that the Americans are an English-speaking nation even if there are of course large groups who speak other languages. The Algerians are an Arabic-speaking nation. The Italians are an Italian-speaking nation. The British are an English-speaking nation. Quebecers are a French-speaking (non-sovereign) nation. Oh no, wait! we have to disect them along ethnic lines because otherwize, they might start thinking they have the right to be free like the other nations of the Earth! They might tell the world that they are an oppressed nation and make us look bad! Yeah, but surely we can dig out their past and find things to stain their reputation with. Yeah, I like it. Ah! Look at them, those bastards had fascists as part of their elite in the 1930s! That's great! Let's not talk about the fascists in all the other Christian nations and make them look silly with this and have people be afraid of them! Nobody will ever know the truth, who still speaks French nowadays! Ha! Ha! Ha! Mathieugp


 * Incidentally, I don't think Parizeau = fascism. I think he's provided some of the most intelligent analysis there is of the relationship between Quebec and Canada. That doesn't change the facts that Quebecois in Canadian English means a francophone Quebecker, or that there are francophone Quebeckers who think that only francophones are Quebecois. Trontonian (aka Jfitzg)


 * Your almost right. Except that you see it from the wrong angle. It is only francophone Quebecers who identify as Québécois. They, themselves, do not reject any person from doing the same, on the contrary! To adopt a new culture is a very difficult change. Mathieugp


 * What we are talking about here is not the readiness of the French-speaking citizens of Quebec to accept others as Québécois (a fact which I myself personally have introduced into the article, if you'd care to check the page history) but what the word means in Canadian English. To say that the word means what it means is not Quebec-bashing. There is nothing wrong with being a French-speaking citizen of Quebec, so why having a term designating such a person is Quebec-bashing is beyond me. We are also discussing what the word means to some francophone Quebeckers. The article does not say that most francophone Quebeckers believe that only francophones are Québécois. Trontonian 04:19, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The clear-cut little world I live in (Québec) made me a person who speaks two of the most influential languages on Earth. A person who understands and appreciates cultural diversity in general and wish that people be able to put themselves in the skin of others more often. Mastering a second language will teach you that. A great deal of immigrants in your country know that. In Quebec, because we are a French-speaking people in North America, even non-immigrants like me can fully understand this.


 * I believe there is no truth in the opinions of the right-wing English Canadian press. That the nationalists of Québec are not as open-minded as Canadian nationalists is something a great deal of anglophones take for granted. In fact, I can't think of nothing more twisted than claiming that people from another culture are incapable of the same level of moral standards as your own. This is what Quebec bashing is. If you want to express that, in Quebec, as in any other society, there are people who discrimate others, go ahead. However, this page is not the place for it. Mathieugp

I removed a line that is unnecessary in an encyclopedia. A statement of relevant facts is all that is required. NightCrawler 01:35, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Second: give weight to the ideas of someone using a pseudonym? NightCrawler


 * Buddy did identify himself on the edit as Mathieugp who is a user on the French side, so I removed my indignant stuff. Pis je lui ai laissé un petit message là-bas. Nothing nasty, or mostly not nasty, but I would like to see his answers to those questions. Jfitzg 01:50, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It seems Mathieugp has never made any contributions to the French wikipedia, so I suspect his contribution here is going to end up being a piece of anonymous abuse. Maybe we'll get more! If he has that idea, though, I'd encourage him to check my user page, where he'll find there's no mystery about who I am (just click the links). Some of us, at least, aren't ashamed of disagreeing with others. Jfitzg


 * That is not accurate. I contributed a good number of time in both French and English, however only recently did I create myself an account. It seems Mister the Torontonian really has it for judging without knowing. How would you feel if on the Canadian page of Wikipedia, it emphasized that John A. MacDonald was a racist Orange man and that MacKenzie King was an avowed antisemite ( http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/non2many.html )? Mathieugp


 * Well, I added the bit to the Louis Riel article about Macdonald's calculations about the political effect of hanging Riel (incidentally, one would think it would have occurred to you that someone named FitzGerald is not a fan of the Orange Order -- you know, there are many Catholics in English Canada). Macdonald was an Orangeman, or at least he pandered to the Orange Order, and King was an antisemite; I can have no objection to those observations being included in their articles or in any article about Canadian history where those points are relevant. Wikipedia is not about making people/peoples feel good about themselves. Trontonian 04:19, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * And I remain open to removing the paragraph about Parizeau and Bouchard if someone would like to advance some serious reasons for doing so. I even like Parizeau. Jfitzg


 * There are millions of people who call themselves Québécois the way you call yourself Canadian. You cannot take the sentence of one of them to stain the reputation of the rest of the nation. If you really cannot help but talk about Parizeau, then leave it to his page in Wikipedia. And don't forget that the last time Parizeau and Bouchard sued for deffamation, they won their case. Mathieugp


 * If you had looked below you would have seen that I had already reached the conclusion that it was best to leave the discussion to Parizeau's and Bouchard's pages -- but now I see below that you have replied to it. Work on the memory. And has anyone here said anything defamatory about either Parizeau or Bouchard? Incidentally, the Toronto Star once published a column saying I represented an extreme of political correctness because I dared to send them a letter defending Mr. Parizeau's statement (and pointing out that they had made worse ones). As for defamation suits, Canadian libel law is such an offence to natural justice that any public figure or rich person can win a defamation case. Even Bill Van der Zalm won one. Trontonian 04:19, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * To link anyone who is not an antisemite or a racist man to fascism and nazism in mass media is defamatory and never innocent. For God's sake, we have a picture of Trudeau in a Nazi uniform. We have him speaking of the 1982 federation as a regime that would "last for a thousand years" paraphrasing Hitler himself. How difficult would it have been to use that against federalists? Why did the nationalists of Québec not use this? Because they are fair minded people who care about the truth? No, that's impossible, we cannot say that. It would make them look good. Mathieugp

Another removal: "and the control of the Anglo-American financial elite in the province" - It was no greater in Quebec than any other province. NightCrawler

The two revisions by 64.10.99.80 on November 4 were by me -- forgot to log back in. Jfitzg 14:20, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I revised the paragraph about Parizeau, Bouchard etc. to tone it down. As I've noted above, it is a fact that that some francophone Quebeckers believe that only francophones are Quebecois. Still, the assertions by Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Bouchard are dealt with in the articles about them, I believe. Even if they aren't there's no need to make the point at length, given the purpose of the article -- or purposes, since some people seem to be determined to turn it into a puff piece, which I don't think was Montréalais's intention. Trontonian 23:53, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Don't tone it down. Put some more details on it if you want in a page named Quebec bashing. This page should be written by someone who is knowledgeable of Quebec's culture as whole. Mathieugp


 * Oh, I see. If I agree with you, I'm still wrong. Glad you're being so reasonable. Trontonian


 * You are funny. I am beginning to like you. :-) Mathieugp

Remember Mordecai Richler's interview with Barbara Frum? He said when they March down the street on Saint John Baptiste day shouting "Le Quebec pour (for) Le Quebecois", he didn't think they were including him! NightCrawler


 * This is unbelivable, but true. At a time when so many new nations were gaining there independence ( http://www.angelfire.com/sc/freedom/polbritain.html )? Poor mister Richler. Yet another great writer living in isolation from the rest of the world.


 * But they weren't including him. Remember when the Quebec government named all sorts of geographical features after Québécois authors? They didn't name any after Mordecai. Trontonian


 * Mordecai Richler's books are part of the Bibliothèque québécoise like all the other famous authors of Québec. He is not all that renouned in the French-speaking world because a translation can never be as good as the original and anglos live in a segregated Canadian bubble inside Québec. Can you be impartial and agree that Québec anglophones themselves do not identity to Québec the way the majority of the people of Québec do because they consider themselves Canadians first? Can't you see it is the same as Englishmen living in Scotland or Wales or before Ireland? Mathieugp

Mathieugp, you know, the quickest way to express your concerns would have been to make the addition I made to the article today about how some francophones consider the English use of the term Quebecois offensive. But it has amused me to read all those blanket generalizations about the evil imperialist English Canadians from someone who claims to be fighting racism. Your remark about how someone from Toronto wouldn't know anything about diversity was especially rich. Anyway, if you feel the need to slag me and the English Canadian people further, please do it on my talk page. This page is getting way too long and I think everyone here's got your point. However, it would help us settle these issues if you tried to address what I and others write rather than basing your responses on your lurid fantasies about the English Canadian mind. But whatever floats your boat. Trontonian 03:24, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * You'll have to excuse my exasperation. This page cannot be made decent, objective and similar to the Americans, Canadians, French or British wiki pages without a near complete rewrite. There are a good number of facts scattered throughtout the article, but they are presented in such a twisted way that people from outside Quebec or Canada must be unable to make sense it. Is it so much to ask that the pages Quebecer and Quebecois be made by people who are from Quebec or know and love Quebec? I don't believe so.


 * I can see that you have taken some of my comments the wrong way. The policy of Ottawa towards Quebec is that of neo-colonialism. However, I am lucid enough not to generalize about English Canadian sentiments towards Quebec. I lived among your people for years (in Alberta) and I know that since the MPs in this federation are elected with the archaic first-past-the-post voting method, the people in power represent a minority of the population most of the time. I met very open-minded people in Alberta. Most of you guys have of course nothing to do the imperialist tories and pseud-liberals who governed the Dominion of Canada in the interest of Britain for over a century. Since 1957, the immigration policies of Ottawa can no longer be considered racist. Today, Toronto is one of the most ethnically diverse megacity in North America. All these immigrants are well integrated into mainstream Canadian culture and quickly self-identify as Canadians. The overwhelming majority of them want to be a part of your society, learn English and send their children to English schools. The linguistic transfer rate is pretty much that same as in the United-States. Where there is a problem though, is in Canadians realizing that Quebecers want the exact same thing, but in French. I trust that you and others who write better English than I do can make a nice article that will reflect what Quebecers are. Mathieugp


 * This is great, Mathieugp. I'm glad we could both clarify that we are serious. Mettons qu'on n'a rien dit. Thank you. I've removed my outburst in French because it is now obviusly irrelevant. I would be quite happy to work with you to improve this article. And an article on Canadian neo-colonialism would be a good addition to the encyclopedia, if you want to work on that. I'm sure we would differ on may points, but that would make a good article (although I certainly do not reject the idea outright). It could also include Ottawa's neo-colonial policies towards the aboriginal peoples, and towards other parts of Canada (notably the Maritimes). Trontonian 17:18, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * By the way, although I do not share the idea that a page about Quebec should necessarily be written by someone from there, I'll point out that Montréalais, whos started this article, is from Quebec, and that I was born there (a petit gars de St-Henri). Perhaps you could let me know on my talk page what you consider twisted and we could start by working on that. Trontonian 17:22, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Well if it isn't cute. We shake hands and become friends. ;-) I'll do my best to provide you with as much facts as I can, but I think you should write the text. I'll also give you (on your page) the details of what is not acceptable to me (and probably a majority of the people in Quebec who are lucky enough not to be able to read all this because they don't read English well enough.) Mathieugp

Removed personal attacks I know what discrimination is like in Quebec, more than Mordecai or any other person I am aware of. For MathieugpTo link Trudeau to the Thousand Year Reich is symbolic of his/her integrity. The realties of anti-semitism writings in Le Devoir etc. of the 1930's is abundant but this crap was not limited to Quebec by any means although it was more pronounced. When a society honors a stated public bigot like Lionel Groulx by naming a street after them, it is no difference whatsoever to name a street for Hitler. Racism is racism it is not acceptable and certainly not laudable, in any form. When reading Sir John A. MacDonald's words and actions, we must take in the times. Always. Translating him, or anyone, into today's views is not only illogical but reveals the immaturity of the commentator. NightCrawler 17:27, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It's funny how you can say that "translating him, or anyone, into today's views is not only illogical but reveals the immaturity..." and be unable to realize that it also applies to Lionel Groulx. This old catholic priest's views on many subjects were archaic in the 1920s and still are today. The man can be quoted for saying really nice things on the Jews as much as saying the most stupid crap. Contemporary Quebec nationalists cannot share the opinions of this man on religion and nationalism. They defend him because he defended our language, our culture and our existence as a people.


 * A persecuted religious and linguistic minority had better things to do than persecute another one. Mathieugp


 * They defend him because he defended our language, our culture and our existence as a people. - Conclusion : if you are a bigot and promote hatred of a specific race, its okay to do that if you defend your language and culture. That, Miss/Sir, is exactly what Adolf Hitler did. No man in history defended his language, culture, and existence as a people more than Hitler and he doesn't have a street named after him.


 * Miss, Adolf Hitler is a monster for organizing the systematic killing of every single member of the Jewish community in Europe. This is called a genocide. Many such events, I am sad to say it, have occured in Human history. However none compares to the Shoah in monstrosity. As for individuals defending their people's culture and language in a situation of political inferiority, we are millions throughout the world right now and billions in Human history. It will end when all nations, small and big, old and young are permitted to govern themselves or, in other words, respect Principle VIII of the Helsinki Act. Mathieugp

Also: A persecuted religious and linguistic minority ? What world do you live in? Start with 54,963 people of French origin living on a narrow strip of land along the St. Lawrence River in 1759 and look at what the British conquerers did and how well that group has grown and prospered and the size of the land they have now. Then, compare that to France's conquering of say Algeria, Vietnam, and dozens more and see what they did to the ethic groups who lived there. NightCrawler 00:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Strange, I thought that Quebecers had battled for 200 years to keep their political autonomy and were militarily crushed in 1837-38 when they were ready for independence. I had forgotten that her Royal Majesty was the elected authority in determining what peoples are allowed to live freely and what others don't. As for the colonial history of France, you won't find a single Quebec nationalist to defend it. Quebecers, such as Rene Levesque who went to Algeria for reporting, were thrilled to see the Algerian people vote for its independence in 1962 after a war of 8 years. It's around that time that Quebecers understood that they were not alone. Mathieugp


 * Please clarify on User talk:Cyan: which part of NightCrawler's post was a direct threat to you? Thanks, Cyan 01:35, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)~


 * Yeah, i think we'd all like to know. Trontonian


 * Re-reading the comment, I can see why you guys are wondering. I think I had misread. I thought she was implying that we should have been crushed like in Africa. I removed the first sentence since it makes absolutely no sense to me either. Sorry, it is not always easy to read a foreign language. Mathieugp

Oh, well. Maybe that wasn't such a good idea I had. Maybe you should just dispute the neutrality of the page. Or maybe you should find a non-Canadian to work with. When Lionel Groulx was around the brief campaign to absorb francophones (which was British idea) had been over for 75 or 100 years or so, thanks in large part to the co-operative relationship established by Macdonald and Sir Georges-Étienne Cartier, and to the one between Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine. But leave me some stuff and I'll see if there's anything I can or am willing to do with it. Trontonian 22:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I see so many wrongful ideas in your last comment. The assimilation plan, which was Britain's plan of course because the idea was to keep Canada British at all costs (despite the fact that the majority of the subject were Canadiens), was passed when the Act of Union passed. The Act of Union of the Canadas is no different in nature than the Act of Union that united Wales with England in 1536. Or Scotland and England in 1707. Or Ireland and England in 1800. It is about political annexation. Do you understand how that alone is an assimilation policy?


 * When was Quebec (or Lower Canada or French Canada or whatever name they gave us) given back its autonomy? In 1867? It could have been. That's what Cartier had in mind when he and others demanded exclusive power for provinces over of many key jurisdictions such as education. However, history has proved John A. MacDonald to be the brightest of the two: He went for money powers. Today, Quebecers send 60% of their tax money to Ottawa. And before the 1950s it was worst. Ottawa is considered the national government of Canada by Canadians (- Quebecers). Quebecers don't have the sovereign State they are more than ready for. What is normal is self-government for all peoples and peaceful relations among States.


 * Some people dare compare Canada with the European union where each sovereign country sends 3% of its tax money to Brussels. The European union, the world's most brillant political union based on equality and mutual recognition of nations is something that Bernard Landry keeps talking about everywhere he goes since he became an evil separatist. Mathieugp


 * Sigh. How can anyone "give back" an autonomy that Quebec never had?


 * Before the annexation of Quebec, only the Parliament of England had supranational powers over the legislature of Quebec. When Lower Canada became Canada East, the parliament of Quebec stopped existing, hence it losts its autonomy. With the 1867 pact, Quebec thought it was regaining it's autonomy in a loose confederation. Refer to the definition of autonomy at Dictionary.com. Mathieugp

And how can one be both a member of a confedersation and autonomous?


 * See the definition of a confederation in Dictionary.com. A confederation is a union of States (autonomous from each other). Autonomy was important to Quebec and the maritimes, because they had smaller populations than Ontario. It was extremely important to Quebec, because it was the only state with a Canadien majority, therefore the only place where democracy (the majority rules) would work for them. Mathieugp

And haven't you noticed that Quebec does have money powers?


 * You really should read on the fiscal strangulation of provinces by Ottawa. This is something not just Quebec complains about nowadays. In Quebec, the complains began from Day One of the confederation (which really is a federation with a strong central power, especially since Trudeau). Mathieugp

It collects its own taxes and runs its own pension plan. Much of the money it sends to Ottawa, if not most of it, goes to pay for programs negotiated between the federal and provincial governments to ensure national standards in areas of provincial jurisdiction rather than for programs within exclusive federal jurisdiction (and when you lived in Alberta you were sending a larger share of your income to Ottawa than you would have in Quebec).


 * Of course. Alberta is not home to a nation. If the Albertains were to have a national consciousness, if they considered that they were a distinct nation because of their history, their culture, their traditions, their language or else, than nobody on Earth would have the right to tell them that they are wrong. They would have the right to build a society that resembles them. This is however not the case. They consider themselves Canadians living in Alberta, like some others live in Ontario. Mathieugp

Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction over education, and over immigration, and over taxation, and over other areas which in other coutries are considered the rightful sphere of the federal government.


 * You mean the rightful sphere of the national government. Education, culture, immigration, banking, international trade. These are jurisdictions split between Ottawa and Quebec in the 1867/1982 constitution. Ottawa is however in a much better position than Quebec City because it has a lot more money and it gives itself the right to violate the spirit of the constitution with its spending power. Also, all new jurisdictions go to the federal government. Mathieugp

It has more autonomy than it would have had under the Yes side's sovereignty plan presented for the 1995 referendum, which would have paralyzed both the Quebec and Canadian governments.


 * You cannot be serious when you write this. There is not a iota of truth in this sentence. After independence, 100% of taxes are levied by the National Assembly. All laws, all treaties are passed in the interest of Quebecers. If there were to be a union between Quebec and English Canada, it would be based on the equality of both our nations. Mathieugp

Look, I would like to help you, but I can't if you keep ignoring the facts and making blanket generalizations (that no Quebecker regards Ottawa as the national government, for example).


 * There are individuals who consider Ottawa to be their national government in Quebec. These people tend not to self-identify as Quebecers. These people tend not to get elected in the National Assembly of Quebec. I find it so sad that we have to repeat that everytime. The parliament of Great Britain recognizes the existence of the Scottish and Welsh nations. Lester B. Pearson spoke of Quebec as "the nation within the nation". While England moves forward in recognizing others as equal, Canadians regress. Mathieugp

Perhaps you should just put the standard notice on the top of the page that the neutrality of the article is disputed and take the issue up in the appropriate forum. And I wish you well &#8211; some of the issues you have raised should be dealt with somewhere here and I will follow your attempts to deal with them and will contribute where I can. But I've had it with trying to find out just what the hell is supposed to be wrong with this article. Trontonian 13:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think Quebecois should be a disambiguation page pointing to Quebecers. On that page, you (or others) can write that when Canadian anglophones use Quebecois in English they mean French speaking Quebecois or of Quebec French culture, unlike the francophone majority who uses it to mean a citizen of Quebec. This should of course not be in the top paragraph as it is somewhat irrelevant to an article treating of who Quebecers are. There could be an article on Canada/Quebec debates where pro-federation and pro-independence opinions can be presented. That's where all those who think Quebec nationalists are ugly fascists can express their views. Maybe we can invite Irish, Scottish, Welsh and American people in the debate? Mathieugp

Please can everyone on this page read the No personal attacks policy and make some attempt at adhering to it. I have removed various irrelevant insults from the page and would encourage you to do the same for any I have overlooked. Thanks. Angela 23:47, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Restating
As I wrote above, Quebecois should be a disambiguation page pointing to Quebecers (which could simply redirect to Quebec). The page could clarify that, in Canadian English, Quebecois is generally used to refer to Francophone Quebecers or Quebec francophone culture. There are a lot of relevent details in the article that could be moved to Culture of Quebec or others. By the way, there is a Constitutional debate of Canada article now which needs to be restructured. The contentious subject of the national identity of Canadians and Quebecers would be more appropriate there I believe. Mathieugp 18:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ethnicity and Residence
You write:

"Racist? I agree that it would be racist to limit the meaning of québécois in French to a descendent of the French colonists. However, this is the English wiki, and in English the term Quebecois has a very specific meaning and refers to a very specific concept that has to do with ethnicity rather than with residence. I have never heard Quebecois being used in English to mean anything other than a Quebecer of French-Canadian descent. This is why I was careful to distinguish between a Quebecer and a Quebecois. "

Ethnicity and residence. That's exactly what 'québécois' named and that's why i use it even in english. A cultural group in North-East America. A creative cultural group i think. In french, we can't do the distinction between quebecer and québécois.


 * That's because there isn't one. In French, here is what you can do:


 * Québécois = a Quebecer, someone who resides in Quebec or identifies as such. Exactly the same as Canadian, or American, or German, or French, or Irish, or Mexican etc.


 * Québécois d'origine canadienne-française = Quebecer of French-Canadian origin
 * Québécois d'origine française = Quebecer of French origin
 * Québécois francophone = Francophone Quebecer (can be of French-Canadian origin or any other imaginable except except extra-terrestrial)
 * Québécois anglophones = Anglophone Quebecer (most likely to self identify as a Canadian living in the province of Quebec.)
 * Franco-Québécois = same as Québécois francophone
 * Anglo-Québécois = same as Québécois anglophones


 * I understand that the root of the problem is that in English, Quebecer already meant a Canadian who lives in Quebec when the French word Québécois started being used to refer to a nationality by the Quebecers of French-Canadian origin who no longer wanted to have anything to do with an hyphenated ethnic identity they had inherited from British imperialism in America. In a sense, they went back to being Canadien as it originally meant in the times of the Patriots. Back then, you were either with us, or against us. No in betweens. ;-) -- Mathieugp 04:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I think Mathieugp has hit the nail on the head here. The two words "Québécois" and "Quebecker" are the same, just in different languages.  Like "Parisien" and "Parisian."  Sure, people may (say, in English) use the French word to refer to Quebeckers who are French(-speaking or -descended), but that is not an inherent property of the word but of the language of the word used, which influences the meaning in context.  Even when it's literally the same word in both languages (like "baguette"), whether or not you pronounce it à la française influences what you're saying: if it's just baguette, I'm referencing the type of bread; if it's baguette I'm talking French Revolution-esque let's-storm-the-Bastille type bread.  And I agree, Quebecker should be classed with all the other local appellatives like American, German, Ontarian, Manitoban, etc. 68.116.189.234.

Pure laine is used to designed somebody who has a family here since the Nouvelle France. America is a so young continent... All Québécois are not francophones. And all Franco-Americans are not québécois. But we were all canayens, canadiens, cadiens and acadiens, canadiens-français.


 * I always understood pure laine as meaning a Quebecer of French-Canadian origin, ie, related to the French Canadian community by descent. Most of the time, that will be someone who's ancestors came from Quebec, lived there for many generations before the British army took over.


 * Canayen, Canadien français and Canadien-Français appeared when being Canadien alone started to make little sense because there were now two solidly anchored nationalities inside something called Canada (which no longer was the St. Lawrence river valley alone). The word Canadien français existed before though, because the Catholic cleargy was sometimes using it before the rest of society did after the forced Union. The priests were the first ones to bend over and accept domination. -- Mathieugp 04:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

English Canadians don't use the word Québécois. But that's ok, we call them 'canadiens anglais'. But when i talked about me, in english, i am not able to say that i am quebecer. I would prefer say i am québécoise or i am canadienne. I know... my english is a litte bit cranky...


 * They do use it. They often give it the meaning we (those who consider themselves Quebecers) give to Québécois d'origine canadienne-française. This is really confusing and should be avoided in my opinion. It would never come to the mind of any English-speaker to use français to refer to the French language culture of France right? A French is a French is a French right? For two centuries, we have called the Canadians les Anglais or les Anglais du Canada. We moved to Canadien anglais more recently. Although not obvious, this includes any person who identifies to Canada and speaks some English. Now we are trying to call them by their own name. We can't call them Canadien because that already means either all residents of Canada (now) or my ancestors (historically). I have seen a lot of people write Canadian in italics the way you sometimes see Québécois in italics in English texts. However, in French, Canadian in italics will never exclusively mean the Canadians of British descent. It will always mean all of those who identify as such, whatever their origin. Maybe it will evolve to Canadian without the italics. Human language is so poor at expressing complexity... -- Mathieugp 04:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh! And i would like to add at the 'pâté-chinois-beans-tarte-au-sucre-poutine' list this important information: Canada can eat now raw-milk cheese because some brave québécois made a 'dégustation' on the parliament hill. Sorry for my english. Back to reading. Excusez-la. H

Variations on the word
The article is not clear on when it's discussing English vocabulary or French. It should mention:
 * 1) Quebecker is not interchangeable with Quebecois; Quebecker almost always means a person, it not used as an adjective
 * 2) Quebecois is not spelled with accents when it's used as an English word.  When it is used as a French word it's québécois in italics.
 * Plus it doesn't make sense to call this an English word and then go on say "English equivalent is..." Peter Grey 19:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The Canadian Oxford Dictionary does not agree: it lists Québécois, Quebecois, and Québecois, in that order, as the most common spellings as an English word. Indefatigable 19:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Confusion
I am really confused by this reworked sentence:

"Its English equivalent is Quebecer or Quebecker (pronounced [kwəˈbɛkɚ] or [kəˈbɛkɚ]), although these terms are used most usually to refer to anglophone or allophone natives or residents of the province."

Why does the word "Quebecer" (or Quebecker) not include the majority of Quebecers? I had never heard that one before. -- Mathieugp 20:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

All the English-speaking Canadians I know use Québécois to refer to Francophone people from Quebec, and Quebecer to refer to Anglophone people from Quebec... There is an indisputable difference in usage between the forms. For instance, even though the word Québécois has definitely become incorporated as a Canadian English word, in Canadian English you hear the term Scots-Quebecer but never Scots-Québécois, even though in Canadian French it WOULD be Écossais-Québécois. Fawcett5 22:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

A lot of bilingual people use "Québécois" for Francophone Quebeckers and "Quebecker" for Anglophones, sometimes with a political connotation, sometimes not. But it's certainly not a trend in the English-speaking world as a whole. The article should just list every variation, and then point out that Canadian English (really just the Montreal dialect) has a few eccentricies. Peter Grey 22:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not just the "Montreal dialect" &mdash; I have lived in 6 of the 10 provinces from BC to NS, and yes, including PQ. I have never, anywhere in Canada, heard the term Quebecois used to refer to an anglophone Quebecer. The relationship is not transitive though, because sometimes you will hear people talk about Quebecers being either either francophone or anglophone....but this is why the article text says "most usually". Granted, Yanks, at least those that have even heard of Quebec, would probably say "Quebecer". Fawcett5 23:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope, most Yanks are more familiar with both the (now outdated) "French Canadian" and with "Quebecois" than they are with "Quebecer." I've lived in the United States my whole life and I only have ever heard "Quebecer" when talking to English Canadians, but plenty of Americans say "Quebecois."

Proposals to improve the article
I clicked on this article out of sheer curiosity, and found I had landed into one of these raging controversies typical of Wikipedia. If I can give my two cents worth... it seems to me the article as it stands now is in need of more clarity and disambiguation. I think, you tell me what you think, that the words "québécois", "québecois", "quebecois", "quebecer", and "quebecker" should all direct to one single article that would fully explain the differences and similarities between these five words. The article would have to clearly list the definitions of these five words in international French, Canadian French, international English, and Canadian English. I am going to write here below the clear definitions of the words that exist in international French (with examples showing how the words are used). Please do the same for Canadian French, international English, and Canadian English. Then when we have all our definitions, we can put them into a clear and unique article. What do you think? Hardouin 20:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

On the obsolescence of the term French Canadian
Today, French-speaking Quebecers who go on to learn English as a second language discover with great surprise that Anglophones still talk about them as "French Canadians", a term which in French (Canadien français) has fallen out of fashion some half a century ago for political and cultural reasons. The majority of Quebecers will usually never use Canadien français when referring to themselves. The fact that the same is not true in English brings a lot of confusion. Confronted with a reality that does not reflect how they seem themselves, Francophone Quebecers have been trying to explain the situation to English speakers for decades with little success. Again, politics is behind all this. -- Mathieugp 17:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to take a middle road here. The term French-Canadian is often inappropriate; individual people should normally be referred to as Québécois, Franco-Ontarian, Franco-Albertan, etc., rather than French Canadian. However, there's really no other way in English to clearly express the more general concept of "all Canadians whose ancestry can be traced back to New France", which is the way in which it's used here.
 * I long ago made an edit to the French-Canadian article which tried to clarify appropriate vs. inappropriate uses of the word. I may be wrong, but I thought Mathieu had found that edit worthwhile and helpful. I've also just added a paragraph to this article which tries to clarify in as NPOV a manner as possible that the word's definition and application can be controversial at times. Bearcat 16:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As Lysane Gagnon articulately explained in the Globe and Mail a few weeks ago, there is no such thing as a "Quebec nation." Quebec is a province.  The nation that everyone is really talking about is the French-Canadian nation.  Quebecois nationalism arose from those French-Canadians in Quebec who turned inward.  The 400 years of culture and history on which Quebecois nationalists are more than happy to declare defines their distinct character does not belong exclusively to Quebecers as a birthright.  It belongs to all French-Canadians across Canada who have collectively contributed, and continue to contribute, to French-Canadian identiy.  Moi, comme un francophone hors Quebec, je proteste fortemont contre cette grande injustice a ma identite.  The next time Quebecers read a book by Manitoban Gabrielle Roy or enjoy the music of another Manitoban Daniel Lavoie, they would be well advised to take a moment and consider that they are francophones who were born and raised outside of Quebec - and they each have made critical contributions to franco-Canadian culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.55.142.205 (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

What Wikipedia is not
The Wikipedia policy clearly states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See What Wikipedia is not. Should we move/merge the contents of this article over to the Wikitionary instead and link to it? -- Mathieugp 18:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Seriously? I think this is already more than a dictionary definition, and I think there's quite a bit more that can be done as well -- there's a lot of cultural and historical context to it that could be expanded upon. So I don't think Québécois is a Wiktionary candidate, and I'm actually kind of surprised that you would suggest this. Bearcat 19:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * NO! There is much here that is encyclopaedic! Fawcett5 19:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am surprised by this opposition. Québécois is a word that should not even be there in English, just like Français or Espagnol. There is already a good word to translate the French meaning of Québécois : Quebecer.


 * There could be, as Bearcat said a full article on the historical, cultural and political references associated to the word, but how could we make NPOV? That seems impossible. The POV of Quebec nationalists, who are at the origin of the current French meaning of the word, is unlikely to be accepted as valid by Canadian nationalists. I am anticipating more endless debates. -- Mathieugp 19:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * While that's probably true, moving something to Wiktionary isn't really the solution to potential controversy; the solution is to have as many objective people as possible keep it on their watchlists. And whether the word Québécois should be used in English or not isn't really the point; it is used in English, and Wikipedia's job is to report what is, not to enforce notions of what should be. Bearcat 19:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Therefore we must make it into a full article covering all aspects of the issue because otherwize we are violating the Wikipedia policy by making an article on a single term.


 * Here is the POV of Quebec nationalists on the use of the term Québécois to convey the meaning it currently has in English: it is propaganda and a denigration of who we are collectively. For as long as Quebec is not recognized as an equal nation within a new Canada or outside Canada, Anglophone Canadians will continue to reject Quebec's nationalism, continue to misunderstand Quebec, misrepresent it on the international scene, and continue to make an unecessary distinction between Quebecer and Québécois even though one is logically the only correct translation of the other. The failure of English-speaking Canada to recognize/accept the existence of a French-speaking national community with its own distinct political institutions inside Quebec is at the root of the problem. For as long as it is like that, Francophone Quebecers will fail at convincing non-francophones (and especially anglophones living in Canada) that Quebec is another nation within a bigger nation and that no, you can't just move to Quebec and ask everyone to switch over to English for you because that is colonialism. Until then, Anglophone Canadians will continue to assume that it is their "right" to just be Canadians in Quebec without first "immigrating" into a French Quebec, therefore bypassing the normal way of naturalization. -- Mathieugp 21:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mathieu, please note that Québécois IS now an English Canadian word (though often spelled Quebecois), and it is NOT interchangible with Quebecer, which is a word that MOST English-speaking Canadians reserve for Non-Francophone people from Quebec. What is offensive here is when people that don't speak English as their first language try to dictate to native English speakers how to speak and use our own language. Ring any bells for you? Fawcett5 05:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC) And by the way, my Anglophone father, brother, and sister were all born in Quebec, so don't presume to lecture about how they should somehow "immigrate" to their own birthplace. That is truly offensive. Fawcett5 05:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, at least now you know how difficult it will be to reconcile all our POVs, although I don't see what could be offensive in anything I wrote. Can you explain the nature of my offense? I never meant to tell Canadians how to use their language, that would be pointless and silly. I am forced to accept that everything that has happened in Quebec in the past 50 years is still completely misunderstood in the other provinces. The language divide surely has something to do with this!


 * In French, Quebec-born Anglophones are Québécois, they are Anglo-Québécois that's all. However, we are not stupid. We are aware that this isn't how the majority of them perceive things. They will never see it like that for are long as Canadians use the power of their language and state to divide Quebecers along ethnic lines. The Quebecois (read "French Canadians") on one side and the rest of us who are normal Canadians living in the province of Quebec on the other side. Its a question of who's the minority of who.


 * After independence, everything will fall into place. Quebec will continue to welcome some 20 000 to 30 000 new immigrants every year, but these people will know that they are moving into a society that functions in French. There will no longer be a competition between two host societies, a huge English-speaking one which contains a smaller French-speaking one. No more flag war, finally! Quebec will continue to be what it has become in recent years. The English language will continue to have a disproportionate influence in Quebec because we will continue to live North America, but we actually like America. What we don't like is a 200 years old political inequality between two nations that should see themselves as equal. -- Mathieugp 15:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The point remains that Wikipedia's role is not to impose a vision of how things should be; it's to present as balanced a picture as possible of the way things are. Wikipedia, thus, simply cannot structure articles based on how you think the English language should handle the distinction between "Québécois" and "Quebecer" — our job is to neutrally reflect how the English language actually does use the words. Wikipedia can discuss why the common usage is controversial, but until common usage actually changes, we simply can't pretend that usage doesn't exist. The fact that you don't particularly like the way the words get used has no bearing on the matter. (Just for the record, I'm not nearly as far from your way of thinking as it might seem; in reality, I agree with you that a lot of English Canadian language around Quebec and francophone culture is quite problematic. But my job as a Wikipedia editor is to reflect the way the world is, not the way I think it should be. I'm fully amenable to expanding the article with more references and a more thorough analysis of why the term is controversial, but that's not what you proposed — you expected the article to be entirely canned because of your political preferences regarding how the word should be used.) Bearcat 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am in no way opposed to that. My reasoning, was 1) I don't see a point to the article, let's use Wikitionary. Then I wrote: "OK. Therefore we must make it into a full article covering all aspects of the issue because otherwize we are violating the Wikipedia policy by making an article on a single term." I then proceeded to give an example of why the word is so politically charged. If you still want to make Quebecois into an article, I can assist you. --Mathieugp 02:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Quebecois!
Well, here in Alberta, I've heard Quebecois used interchangeably with Quebecer--certainly there are many people who would tell you that Quebecois means someone from Quebec (and, if you questioned them, they might agree that Quebecois implies the ability to speak French), but many would be surprised to hear the term Quebecois tied to ethnicity. But, if you're from Quebec, and you speak some amount of French (even not as your primary language), you could be Quebecois.

Here are a few English documents/pages that uses the phrase "English-speaking Quebecois", from the CBC to a site promoting an independent Quebec.


 * http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/docs/languages/2005-2006/pdf/QC2005_e.pdf
 * http://gocanada.about.com/cs/mediaqueacute/
 * http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/1999/0107/the4.html
 * http://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/QUEBEC2.HTM

FireWorks 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

minor changes
The term Quebecois in English generally refers to Quebeckers who self-identify as francophone, mostly in the cultural sense of that word.

That is the way it is used.

Quebecois and Quebecker are not synonymous in English.


 * The article already made that clear; your changes were unnecessary. Bearcat 20:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Orthography
Standard English orthography does not employ accents, tildes, diereses, or other diacritics on letters. Since this is English Wikipedia, orthography should follow English conventions, so it seems to me that the article title should be Quebecois, and that the words should appear without accents in most cases. Of course, it is completely appropriate to spell it the French way in the right contexts, so I'm not proposing that all of the accents shoudl be removed--just the majority of them. Thoughts? Godfrey Daniel 09:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose there can be, at times, a question of what's standard, but in fact, English does frequently retain accents on words adopted from other languages. For example, even in English the thing at your kid's birthday party is spelled "piñata" rather than "pinata", and the thing you submit when you're applying for a job is spelled "resumé" rather than "resume". (It should actually be "résumé", but IME the first accent is usually dropped, while the second one never is.) The rule, by and large, is that the accent is retained if the anglicized pronunciation has kept features that would not be conveyed by the usual rules of English orthography — i.e. we still say "pinyata" and "rezumay" rather than "pinnata" or "rezoom", so we've retained the accents on the letters whose pronunciation doesn't follow normal English rules — but we've largely dropped the first one in résumé, because the anglicized pronunciation has more or less dropped any audible distinction between "re" and "ré" in that word. But, on the other hand, we've kept it in "récherché", as we've retained the "ay" sound in that case.


 * It's true that some people do type "pinata" or "resume" or "recherche" if they don't know how to type the accented letters, but the accented spellings are still considered the correct and normal spellings in English and the unaccented ones are technically considered spelling errors.


 * For what it's worth, Québécois is a word that has retained its accents in normal English usage. I don't think it really matters whether that's because the French orthography influences English Canadians to ignore a standard drop-the-accent rule, or because we still do say "kay-bay-kwa" rather than the "keuh-beuh-kwa" that would be expected if the accents were absent — what matters is that the accents still do appear in normal and correct English usage. The Oxford dictionary of Canadian English, for example, doesn't even list the unaccented spelling as an alternative; it only lists the accented spelling. Bearcat 06:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section is unneccessary
The controversy section is unnessessary. If it is included, you should definately include the fact that the POV has been called into question.

Firstly, I realize that there is no offence intended, but holding up Haitians as an example could be misconstrued as unjustifiably singling out an ethnic group, and has the unintended effect of making the ethnic sense of the word "Quebecois" more racist than it is in most cases. It's clear from the already stated definition that the term Quebecois is ambiguous, and can either refer to ethnicity, citizenship, or residence. Call me guilty of political correctness here, but since we're talking about the widespread Quebec nationalist denial of a cery real populist Quebecois ethnic identity, I think political correctness might be the call of the day here.

Bringing in the "Pur-Laine" controversy adds nothing of use to the article:

- Pur Laine does not literallay translate as "100% wool" - it translates literally as "pure wool" - a better translation would be "died in the wool" or "true blue". It is not neccessarily racist - it can refer to ardent patriotism, and not ethnic nationalism, although like Quebecois, it is an ambiguous term that populist demagogues can twist anyway they like. The embarrassment of Quebec's educated elite at this term has as much to do with class as any: people who use the term are generally working class and look a little like yahoos when they use the term. If you insist on including that reference, at least take some time to explain the full cultural and societal context.

- A mildly less controversial term that refers the Quebecois ethnicity is "Vielle souche" or "old stock". That definately refers to ethnicity, but there is nothing wrong with being proud of your ethnicity.

- As well, the reference to Quebec Bashing should not be made without reference to the considerable Canada-Bashing performed regularly by Quebec seperatists before the referendum. Otherwise, these refrerences should be prefaced by POV qualifiers like "Quebec Nationalists claim" or "Quebec sovereignists believe". If there is POV, it should be cleraly delineated. One man's Bashing, is another womans legitimate political criticism. Morover, it should be balanced with alternative POV if included. I'll gladly provide alternative POV if you want to make a long list of other Quebecois qualifiers.


 * I couldn't agree more that the section is unneccessary. There used to be a time when Quebecois would simply redirect to Quebec which was even better. When English speakers start to call ethnic French the "Francais", and ethnic Germans the "Deutch", an article on the use of the "Quebecois" word will start being relevant. -- Mathieugp 03:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not the same thing, because as previously noted, the word is used in English as to imply a distinction, fair or not, between residents of Quebec. Whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant, because Wikipedia's job is not to prescribe how words should be used. Our job here is to describe how words are used, and the fact that the word is used in English in the way this article describes, and is controversial in the way this article describes, is — like it or not — a simple and unavoidable reality. Bearcat 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "The word Québécois can be politically charged because ..." I've added the more germaine aspect of ethnocultural identity. This revolves more around language in Quebec than ancestry, and is the course of the ambiguity surrounding the term  I

Controversy often results over the word's definition.

"people of Haitian ancestry living in Montreal"  - I still think it's a bad idea to use particular ethnic groups as examples in this context. However, I've added the dimension of etho-cultural identity in the example if we insist upon keeping it

"... Anglophone Quebecers are generally included in the French meaning of the word ... " This is POV based on subjective impressions. It may be true, but this is not my POV. To present such a controversial statement without any objective evidence or references is misleading in an encyclopedia article. I changed it to "may be" to reflect the uncertainty of this claim.

"This interpretation of the word's meaning is now rejected by the majority of francophone Quebec society, ... "

This is POV. Have any polls been conducted on how francophone Quebec interprets its meaning?

"... and public figures who have used it have been quickly rebuked by other public figures and the media."

This means that it remains a debate and that it is politically incorrect to use the term. It makes no claims of how this term is used or iontended by the general public.

"... (sometimes in a derogatory fashion) ... "

This is a big assumption. It is not used to refer to anyone in derogatory fashion. This makes it sound like an ethnic slur. It is never intended that way. It is used to highlite the attitude of those who first used the term. This may be considered unfair or antiquated, but it is equally unfair to say that it is used in derogatory fashion.

"As noted, most francophones use a single inclusive term which describes residents of the province without distinction to origin or ethnicity. "

Again, you need to document a controversial notion like this, and I'm not sure that it's worth going into in a quide for the English usage of the word. The English sense of "Quebecois" is just as often employed in French, and it's meanng is sometimes deliberately ambiguous.

"Pure laine is itself a deprecated term in French — in modern speech the term is now used almost exclusively by anglophones, to denote the disputed idea that mainstream Quebec society actually draws this type of distinction between residents of the province."

Actually, it is deprecated in French BECAUSE anglophones and allophones use it to underscore their exclusion from much of Quebec society. It has become bad form to use it because it makes Quebec Nationalists look bad.


 * I think the majority can be wrong. Québécois includes all Quebecers whether it is used this way or not. I love Québec, but I live in francophone Quebec and I know that anyone with a strange last name or an accent or a different skin color is not really considered to be a Québécois. It does not really matter if you have a carte soleil. We are told we are Québécois by the politicians who want to be politically correct, but it is not used this way. Unfortunately most Quebecers including French Quebecers use the word Québécois to mean only French Quebecers. I sometimes insist "En fait, je suis Québécois". I think more Allophones and Anglophones in Quebec should start asserting their attatchement to Québec. It is partly our fault if we are not considered Québécois. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should all start voting Parti québécois, but maybe we need an advertising campaign with posters like "hey, je m'appelle (add any "non québécois" name here), je suis québécois(e) aussi!". I am glad to see many people from Quebec insisting on an inclusive definition of Québécois. It takes time for changes to happen.


 * I actually disagree. There is nothing wrong with francophone distinguishing between anglophones and the Québécois; if they are to retain their culture, language and identity, they need to distinguish themselves from other Canadians. If you rob the word of its cultural meaning, what's the point? A Quebecois then becomes like an Ontarioan, a Canadian living in Quebec. I object to the politicization of the word, becaseu at that point it infers more civic rights to French-speaking Quebecers than others by elevating their identity and culture above those of others (specifically, English-speaking, aboriginal, and immigrant Quebecers). --Soul scanner 04:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)