User talk:Joeldl

Please feel free to make comments here.

Joeldl 09:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

You may be interested in checking out the Mathematics WikiProject. The project's talk page is the central place for discussing mathematics on Wikipedia.

Again, welcome! -- Fropuff 04:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the warm welcome! Joeldl 10:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Completion (ring theory)
Hi, Joeldl! Welcome to Wikipedia!

I just ran across your start of an article on topological completions of rings. (I've been browsing the new articles on math topics, just to keep on top of what's happening.) Anyway, I'm curious where you intend to go with it. Have you already looked at Complete ordered field and/or Complete space? I'm thinking that your topic might fit into an existing article more cleanly than it can stand on its own. But then, you no doubt know more about algebra than I do ... I'm mostly a complex analysis guy.

I hope you have fun at Wikipedia! DavidCBryant 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nice note. Really, I think the reference to the other cases is just a way of saying where the idea came from. Virually immediately after that there will be technical material that looks very different from the cases in analysis, see for example Chapter 10 of Atiyah and Macdonald's "Introduction to Commutative Algebra". In any case, it's true that it's a special case of the completion of uniform spaces, but the extra algebraic structure will be important. Joeldl 23:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft
The front page featured article doesn't get protected - check WP:NOPRO. RJASE1 Talk  04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC) All right. Joeldl 04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoroute
You recently requested assistance with dealing with the issue on Autoroute by the Mediation Cabal. I would like to help with this. I have started a new discussion thread on the talk page to help resolve this problem. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be happy to resume mediation and I've contacted Captain scarlet about this as well. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 20:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to tell you that I read through that whole discussion page and I can't believe CS's behaviour. I do agree with your points, but even if I didn't, you were clearly the only one of the two of you clearly stating points and not being completely insensitive and innapropriate. I'm writing this here because I don't want to necessarily set that discussion back on fire, but I definitely wante to tell you that that discussion was completely absurd (as you say), and in my opinion by no fault of yours. Cheers. RobHar 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Field
I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

response
The agency I listed is charged by the state with the administration of teaching French "as it exist in Louisiana." For the most part this really just means sticking to basic French but there are alot of places of divergence in Louisiana as well as a lot of vocabulary that is very specific to Louisiana. While I don't think that the Council for the Development of French in Louisiana can force its rule on the population and it doesn't impose rules on classes that teach Perisian French there are accepted by the public school system and the Univeristy systems in Louisiana as having an athoritave say. Louisiana State University in particular tries to follow the rules of Louisiana French published by the agency. Check it out: http://appl003.lsu.edu/artsci/frenchweb.nsf/$Content/Cajun+French?OpenDocument.

If you feel that this is not enough to warrent a listing them as a regulatory body for French then I will certainly look into it further and see just how much authority they have.--Billiot 05:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This was published on March 19th this year by the Louisiana state News office. It doesn't mention The Council for the Development of French in Louisiana I can not but think that there must be information pertaining to it in the acual document which I admit I have yet to read.


 * "''BATON ROUGE -Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and French Minister of Education Monsieur Gilles de Robien today signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) encouraging educational and professional development between Louisiana and the French Academy of Rennes.

"The people of France and Louisiana share many historic and cultural bonds," Gov. Blanco said. "France remains our greatest supporter in advancing French education across our state. This lasting partnership will build new networking opportunities for high school and post-secondary students and implement meaningful historical and cultural projects."

The agreement will occur through technical networking and cooperation between Louisiana and French students in common projects. Louisiana's Community and Technical College System (LCTCS) will link with French universities and technical schools encourage the establishment of professional exchanges between Louisiana and the Brittany region.

The MOU highlights generations of partnerships between Louisianans and the French. Citizens of France and their government are credited with providing more than $1 million to Louisiana schools in addition to numerous contributions to the arts, music and universities in the state. The French made sizeable contributions to Louisiana's recovery efforts following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE); President, Linda Johnson; Deputy Superintendent of Education, Carole Wallin; and LCTCS Board of Supervisors Brett Mellington joined Gov. Blanco in representing Louisiana during a signing ceremony in the Governor's Mansion. French signatories included Monsieur de Robien, Minister Francois Rivasseau, and Rector of the Academy of Rennes, Jean-Baptiste Carpentier''."

Another interestiong fact is that this agency is our official link to Le Francophone and it is through them that we carry observer status.--Billiot 05:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of the CODOFIL publications you're talking about? The reason this seems surprising to me is that even a place like New Brunswick doesn't have a regulatory body. They've got so much work just making sure French is used that they can't bother making decisions about what's okay and what isn't. Let me give you an example: the Office de la langue française in Quebec makes decisions about what to call things in French, and then Quebec government documents need to follow their decisions. They decided, for example, that the official word for "e-mail" was going to be courriel, and France actually followed suit a few years later. They also decided in the 70s that the feminine form of ingénieur was to be ingénieure, while in France, it's ingénieur. I'm not disputing that Louisiana French is different, I just wonder whether anybody is actually sitting there making official decisions about what is and what isn't good French. Joeldl 06:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. The Council for the Development of French in Louisiana does most of it deciding through collaboration. They have released a Louisiana-French glossory which can be view at http://appl003.lsu.edu/artsci/frenchweb.nsf/$Content/Cajun+French+-+English+-+European+French+Glossary?OpenDocument. You will notice again the collaboration with LSU. I could also be mistaken, as taking a look at it all it almost seems as if LSU is the regulator that dictates to the CODOFIL. I need to e-mail them to find out for sure. I may also be helpful for read the charter. I sure I can find that. --Billiot 08:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you agree to remove the information until there are sources considered acceptable by WP:Attribution ? After that, let's continue talking on the talk page of the article. Joeldl 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Government and politics
Actually, it probably would be a good idea to have a cleaner separation between the "government" and "politics" categories. I'd suggest maybe having separate categories, though, rather than proposing a rename. Bearcat 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently, Category:Government of Canada is a subcategory of Category:Politics of Canada. What would you suggest doing about this? Joeldl 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the organization for the United States separating Category:Government of the United States, Category:Government in the United States, Category:Politics of the United States and Category:United States law. The first one is for the Federal Government only. I would suggest the same thing for Canada. Joeldl 05:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Related (probably obvious) question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario. –Pomte 13:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner
Considering that the situation with Soulscanner will not end at any point during this lifetime, what avenue of dispute resolution do you think should be pursued? I think his behaviour warrants an administrative action, however, my attempts to raise attention to this matter have been ignored. Laval 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have had sufficient contact with Soulscanner to relaize that I disagree with him/her on matters of content, but not enough to say anything about his/her conduct. You and Mathieugp seem to have dealt with Soulscanner more extensively than I have, so for now, I will leave to others any action concerning Soulscanner's conduct. Joeldl 07:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Le Devoir letter
Can you explain in which way you find his opinion "quite offensive"?

This letter is very interesting for a great number of reasons:


 * 1) It shows User:Soulscanner yet again singling out references that do not support his view. Even in this guy's passionate, irrational and straight from the heart opinion, the Québécois are not a community of biological descent but a community of whoever voluntarily self-identifies as such (and is recognized as such by the community).
 * 2) It shows the POV of a person who became independentist in the 1950-60s during the decolonization which sparked the movement of the redefinition of nationalism in Quebec, abandoned to the priest for so long, something that simply cannot be separated (no pun intended) from the independentist writers and artists of Quebec. Some people are trying to perpetuate the status quo, to freeze Quebec inside Canada, to make it look as though being a Quebecer first or alone could have any sense within a State where in fact all citizens are by law, since 1947, nationals of Canada and nothing else. There is the unacceptable, immoral and unjust status quo, then various options of constitutional reform all more unlikely than the next and finally various ways of getting to Statehood for Quebec. No organized group of Quebec nationalists, reformist or secessionist, aim for a society where citizens have unequal rights. That is the plain truth, but it makes the movement respectable, with its desire for peaceful and legal means. It is not difficult to see who has interest in misrepresenting that.
 * 3) It shows the heart of the independence movement: a desire for justice to end a long-standing and devastating human crisis started, in the 1760s by a tiny group of imperialists who confiscated the future of an entire nation for short term profit on land speculation and trade monopoly. It is not about going back in time, it is about justice for all now.
 * 4) It is so full of self-contradictions in terms that it would be a first class example of what not to write to convince people other than those who already think exactly like you. It literally defeats the purpose of dialoguing. He goes on to explain how there was a shift from "we" Canadians(first meaning) to "we" Quebecers after a period of being named by others as "French" Canadian(second meaning) and he fails to see that this is a return to the original territorial and political or civic nationalism! What he calls civic nationalism is, in his mind, basically, the State without the content meant for it, the Nation which is human and cultural, the Nation-State without independence which makes it recognized both at home and world wide. If that is the definition of civic, then I certainly agree, but that is not the case. Civic nationalism, even in the bad Wikipedia article on it, refers to this social contract of voluntary identification which can only exist, in law, on a designated territory.

Ultimately, the opposition made between Civic/Ethnic is false, one isn't the opposite of the other. Michel Seymour and others made that very clear in his writings. When an ethnic community of descent decides that in their homeland, it will self-govern and grant equal rights to others born elsewhere who migrate there, where is the ethnic nationalism left after a few generations have gone? Is American public culture ethnic because it is primary expressed in English, a natural language? If that is the case, then aren't all nations ethnic? We can see how this goes nowhere. Ambiguity over definitions is a plague. All Nations that do have a State would refuse to give it up. Those that lost it never cease to reclaim it. Those that never had one dream of it. Parents of the living generation of a nation that do not have a State of their own (because of conquest or else) are being forced to chose, in utter violation of the human rights of all members of the community, between a good future for their children at the price of the disintegration of the bond uniting their community or a though and ethnic survival in poverty and misery.

When France and the United States gave birth to the modern concept of nation and its associated and necessary State, the nation and its nationals were coupled with the State and its citizens. A citizen and a national became, essentially, synonymous in law. The problem is of course that at that time, not all nations had the luxury of having their State. The Americans kicked the royal power outside the American continent (except here) and France guillotined the nobles. You most likely knew that. What is less know to Westerners are the consequences of that in Eastern Europe's maze of overlapping "homelands"...

Anyways, I'll stop here. That's long enough. I am getting off topic. ;-) -- Mathieugp 17:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand the desire many Quebecers have to have their own country. What I find offensive specifically is this writer's notion of what "we" means. He complains that now he has to say "Québécois francophones de vieille souche" instead of just "Québécois".
 * Do the majority of Americans not generally call themselves just Americans, the majority of Canadians, just Canadians, the majority of French just French? That was his whole point.
 * Yes, that is precisely my point. Americans of British descent do not feel the need to identify themselves as "WASP Americans" because their most important identity is as Americans.
 * Good. So you agree with the very reason why he wrote article. Quebecers of French Canadian descent do not feel the need to identify as French Canadian Quebecers because their most important identity is just Quebecer.
 * I think that's true of most francophone Quebecers, but his most important identity is as a French Canadian Quebecer, only he wishes that the word to describe that group were Québécois.
 * The guy was born in a time when the identity was not yet territorial, when French was as public a language as German, Greek or Hebrew, i.e., it was spoken within the community alone and not in-between the communities.
 * That argument is not tenable, because he is referring specifically to today's situation. He objects to calling David Payne and Alfonso Gagliano, who use French to interact with francophones, Quebecers. His position is not appropriate for today's reality, and yet today's reality is the very subject.
 * That is innacurate. He said that David Payne and Alfonso Gagliano do no self-identify and are not identified as Quebecers, which I dot not agree with.
 *  Lisa Frulla et Pierre Curzi sont Québécois; le prof Marco Micone et Alfonso Gagliano, avec la même souche, sont Italiens.
 *  André Ouellet et Jean Chrétien, en exil pendant 25 ans à Ottawa, encore plus rouges que le flag sur le hood, sont Québécois; alors que David Payne (Anglais) et Nadia Assimopoulos (Grecque), convertis miraculés à la cause nationale, ne le sont pas.
 * Are you saying that he only says that they aren't identified by others as Quebecers? The entire gist of what he is saying is that those who do not identify them as Quebecers are correct, Of course he starts with obvious cases like Mats Sundin, but then goes off into territory where he knows not everybody agrees with him He is clearly taking a position in favour of "reclaiming" the word Québécois for les Québécois francophones de vieille souche, with a few extra people like Liza Frulla, Claude Ryan and Normand Braithwaite.
 * Here is what I read: People with the same parental origins self-identify and are identified by others differently, one unavoidable componenent of identity being language, which can be spoken by any human and does not have a 1/1 relationship with heredity nor place of birth. He gives examples of people with "French" and "Albion" origin who self identify and (according to him) are recognized by others as Québécois or not. He does the same with "Italian", "White", "Indian", "born near the St-Laurent". I can see how this kind of reasoning made sense before bill 101, but today there are many more people who have no issue self-identifying as Québécois and are recognized as such by people like yours truly even though they may not speak French with one of Québec's typical regional accents, Montréal's, Saguenay's, Gaspésie, Québec's. Jacques Noel, because of his age, made the conscious choice of "become" a Quebecer when he was in fact self-identifying as French Canadian. I never made any choice. I was born a Quebecer. I have seen more than enough people with foreign accent talk of Quebec's culture as their own, sometimes express their sympathy with our independence movement to find Noel's point of view disconnected with my reality, because it is dated.
 * Not to mention that they can identify with Quebec culture without being sovereigntists. But point taken.
 * But why should the first classification be more important than the second?
 * I do not know, but I don't think he said anything about that.
 * By going on about it for so long and saying that it is not enough to call yourself a Quebecer to be one, he is confirming that for him, the most important "we" does not include Alfonso Gagliano, David Payne, or Dany Laferrière. Nobody worth talking to in the U.S. talks about who is American in this way.
 * Really? In what proportion does he think one is more important than the other? 2/1 importance, 3/1? As I wrote, he didn't say anything about that. That is your perception. I think you are missing the debate underlying this letter, which was meant as a reply to a long series of events (as the author perceived them). Is perceived by him that the majority painted itself in the corner before independence is achieved under the pressure of people who are hostile to Quebec being something else than the province with a big "French" population in it. The majority of Americans are not routinely accused of being racist because they identify with America and American culture alone and therefore call themselves American. They have not painted themselves in the corner, referring to themselves as "Anglophone Americans of old stock" even though such differentiation could be made. In the USA as in English Canada, the guy who speaks Chinese to his friend on the street is called a Chinese even though he might have been born in America. To recognize the different of other is not exclusion. To refuse citizenship, that is something completely different.
 * I think that that identity is more important for him because he thinks the word Québécois, which is the word most French Canadian Quebecers use to identify themselves, should apply only to them and not to all Quebecers. I don't really understand your point about Americans. I think Americans who wrote in to a newspaper arguing that Chinese Americans weren't really American would be viewed as racist by most people. I am not just talking about legal citizenship. I am talking about precisely the kind of social recognition the author denies Alfonso Gagliano. There is nothing wrong with calling a person Chinese American, and in some circumstances "Chinese" is an acceptable if undignified abbreviation of that. But that is not tantamount to "not American". In Gagliano's case, leaving aside the reasons one might dislike him, it is as unacceptable for a francophone Montrealer to say that he's not a Quebecer as it would be for an anglophone Torontonian to say he wasn't Canadian. It's particularly disgraceful as he served the country as a cabinet minister (please indulge me and let's say he served the country honourably).
 * I think you should reread carefully here. He never said "it should apply to" he wrote about those who self-identify as Québécois to make it clear that, as with other national or else identities (French, Chinese, Chilean, chemist, surgeon) the residence factor is not at all the only one. Are refugees who hope to go back home one day self-identifying as Canadians? The human and emotional factor cannot be erased from a person. I would never give up being a Quebecer after 30 years in the USA. But then returning to Quebec for visit, I might realize how I am much more American and much less of a Quebecer than I though. I think we must be careful not to derive implications that are not logically derivable from the text just to comfort a prejudice. The starting point is the constant questioning of the motives of the evil Quebec nationalists. He is trying to say, not very diplomatically, that self-identification has a great deal to do with language and speech and that is the same elsewhere in the world.
 * His examples of who is not a Quebecer speak for themselves.
 * And how do they speak for themselves in your opinion?
 * His examples clearly exclude people who self-identify as Quebecers, either primarily or in combination with other identities.
 * Quebec will never be like the United States or France even if it separates. In those countries, there is tremendous pressure to abandon any minority ethnic identity in favour of a common one, especially in France.
 * The same goes for Canada or any Nation-State in which the linguistic majority uses its native language as the public language.
 * Using French as a common public language does not mean singling out as different people who have a less than perfect command of the language, or who speak differently in trivial ways. (Perhaps not trivial linguistically, but trivial in terms of communicative ability.)
 * What law of Quebec does that? What institution within Quebec reserves anything to those who speak Quebec French as their native language?


 * I am not talking about any laws. I am talking about this author emphasizing differences with people who speak French less well or differently than he does, and saying that they're not Quebecers, even if this is in a social rather than legal sense.
 * I cannot agree that the author emphasizes differences. He is pointing out examples (badly chosen for a few) of people who are residents of Quebec but identify with Quebec as much as independentists identify with Canada.
 * He goes as far as saying that even the miraculés are not Quebecers.
 * A person who speaks with a "foreign" accent can reasonably be assumed to have been born abroad. Quebec will, and should, be more like Romania, which has a Hungarian minority with its own identity and institutions, which is not expected to assimilate in order to truly belong.
 * That is already part of the sovereignty project since the 1970s: Quebec de facto recognizes collective rights to the English speaking minority on its territory.
 * I was emphasizing that Quebec is not France or the United States. It is unthinkable for a French president to have a non-French accent. It should never be that way for a Quebec premier, but I'm afraid it will be for a while, because people like the author do not view some Quebecers as part of his "we".
 * And I suppose that an American president does not have an American accent? It is a question of the percentage of the population who speaks a certain language in a certain way. When Quebec will be independent, and the English-speaking population of Canada-minus-Quebec will be equivalent to that of the USA, people like Jean Chretien will no longer be elected in Canada. The policy of indirect rule will stop to make any sense.
 * I don't know what the rest of Canada will do, but I wouldn't be surprised if a French Canadian were elected prime minister. Ujjal Dosanjh was the premier of B.C. As for the United States, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the governor of California. Under Lionel Jospin, of 577 deputies in the National Assembly, only one was not of European descent. Can you really compare the U.S. and Canada to that?
 * Much to say here. Canada and the USA receive a great deal of immigrants, Europe very little. There is no possibly comparison here. Europeans countries that have good electoral systems, the Scandinavian countries and Germany, just happen to have little to no immigration. Those that receive more immigrants, have totally flawed and corrupt electoral system that are aristocratic, excluding the poor, women and immigrants. In France, the two-turn election is demonstrably the worst system if we care about proportionality. In America, the worst possible electoral systems are also in place but on the continent of marketing and image, of illusion, party leaders are clever and pick their candidates based on skin colour and exploit ethnic voting with great results. Yet the poverty of immigrants does not improve at all. I am surprised to see how North American Anglophones can be quick at judging the morality of Europeans (especially the French) based on totally artificial and foreign perceptions of reality. With what fabulous algorithm are we supposed to derive the probability of elections and the acceptability of candidates? Have hand-picked anecdotes found in corporate media useful at understanding the culture, the social and political problems of other countries since France and Germany decided not to invade Irak? I think misunderstandings resulting from poor and insufficient dialogues are worsening.
 * My knowledge of France comes primarily from French media. Do you think that anti-racism advocates in France haven't noticed the problem of underrepresentation of non-Whites in politics? The two-round voting system in France is not any worse for minorities than the first-past-the-post system in Britain and Canada, where minorities are much better represented. It is mostly a matter of how parties pick their candidates. It may be that there is some ethnic politicking in Canada and Britain, but the motives are not as Machiavellian as you make it sound. If French people were ready to vote for an Ujjal Dosanjh, then there would be more Ujjal Dosanjhes in politics there. It is in France that racism is a taboo subject, much more than in North America. By the way, Sweden and Germany have sizeable minority communities, and Germany is well-known for its restrictive citizenship laws, although they were relaxed somewhat under Schroeder.
 * The two-round voting system is worst. The anti-racist groups in France do not look up to America. They have examples to follow on the continents.
 * Obviously, there are many problems with racism in the United States. But specifically with respect to political representation of visible minorities, I would say there are few European countries on par.
 * I would be convinced of that with good statistics taking into account the percent of the population that comes from recent immigration in the USA vs most European countries, as well as the unequal assimilationist power of the USA vs that of the nationalities of Europe, France's being probably the strongest yet far from being comparable to that of the USA.
 * Theoretically, I suppose we should look at the total number of citizens belonging to visible minorities, and compare that with their political representation. Of course, naturalized citizens are less likely to participate in politics, so perhaps it would be more appropriate to look at the percentage of native-born citizens who belong to visible minorities. Certainly, the percentage of native-born French of Arab origin must be at least 4 or 5 percent. A majority of them speak French natively, and the rest speak it as if natively. 3 or 4 years ago, I heard the following statistic. Of 36,000 mayors in France, not one was of Arab descent. Compare this to the United States, where it is commonplace for minorities to occupy leadership positions. Black mayors of major cities have included David Dinkins, Willie Brown and Marion Barry. See Category:African American politicians for many more. Bill Richardson is the Hispanic governor of New Mexico, and Alberto Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States. In the Bay Area, Heather Fong is the police chief of San Francisco, Ron Gonzales was until recently the mayor of San Jose, and Ron Dellums is the mayor of Oakland. Fabián Núñez is the Speaker of the California State Assembly. Asian American Assemblymen include Alan Nakanishi, Fiona Ma, Mary Hayashi and Van Tran, and Leland Yee is a State Senator. Current Asian American U.S. Congressmen from California include Doris Matsui and Mike Honda. There are two Asian American U.S. Senators. The House has 435 members, and here is what Members of the 110th United States Congress says: The 110th Congress includes the most religiously diverse House in history, including the first Muslim, (Keith Ellison), the first two Buddhists (Mazie Hirono and Hank Johnson), and thirty Jews. There are 42 African-Americans (including two non-voting delegates), and 74 female Representatives. There are also twenty-seven Hispanics, four Asian Americans, and one Native American.
 * I found this here: Les mots varient, la réalité ne bouge pas: la chambre du peuple n'est pas à l'image du peuple et de sa diversité. Noirs, Arabo-Berbères et Asiatiques forment largement plus de 10% de la population française, mais ces minorités, dites visibles, sont invisibles au palais Bourbon. Aucun élu sur les 555 de métropole. Elections après élections, les espoirs sont déçus. Mais les récentes émeutes de banlieue ont agi comme un électrochoc. Quels effets auront-elles sur les législatives de 2007? Opportunément, Jacques Chirac et François Hollande ont chacun plaidé pour une représentation plus équitable des minorités dans les institutions. «Cela fait vingt ans qu'on nous fait attendre, déplore Fayçal Douhane, 38 ans, membre du conseil national du Parti socialiste. Nous n'attendrons pas cinq ans de plus.»
 * By the way, here is what the UN Human Rights Committee told France in 1997 :The Committee takes note of the declaration made by France concerning the prohibition, prescribed under article 27 of the Covenant, to deny ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities the right, in community with members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion or to use their own language. The Committee has taken note of the avowed commitment of France to respect and ensure that all individuals enjoy equal rights, regardless of their origin. The Committee is, however, unable to agree that France is a country in which there are no ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities. The Committee wishes to recall in this respect that the mere fact that equal rights are granted to all individuals and that all individuals are equal before the law does not preclude the existence in fact of minorities in a country, and their entitlement to the enjoyment of their culture, the practice of their religion or the use of their language in community with other members of their group.
 * France pretends to be colour-blind, but the situation there is extremely serious. The United States admits to having a racism problem and accepts trying to do something about it.
 * There will hopefully always be Quebecers, born in Quebec, who speak French with an English accent, and I am very sorry that things haven't worked out that way for francophones in the rest of Canada, but that is not my fault.
 * Nobody blames the current generations for the errors of the past. It's like Albert Camus wrote (paraphrasing/translating from memory here): it would be an injustice to accuse people of something done before they were born. But the current generations, by their inactions, are guilty of taking part in the continuation of the injustice. They have a responsiblity in this regard.
 * What I meant was, people in Quebec should not aim for Quebec to be as French as Ontario is English. They should aim for what Ontario should have been. I am not responsible for what has happened there now or in the past. I suspect that many francophone Quebecers who do not accept anglophones as Quebecers are thinking, "Well, they don't want to be Quebecers anyway." But I do not accept the rationale of collective responsibility. What matters is the individual. What is even more absurd is to say that the 600,000 anglophones in Quebec have any power over the 24,000,000 anglophones and allophones in other provinces.
 * Trudeau once said that Quebec should be as French as Ontario is English by the way. It is true that there is a danger to swing the balance to far off the other side. That is why the Charter of the French language, which was meant for an independent Quebec, aims at getting 80% of linguistic transfers to the French-speaking majority, not 100% which would mean the end of our Anglophone community. What is incompatible is the meaning of Quebec as a province of Canada and Quebec as a country-to-be. For as long as there will be federal institutions dividing Quebecers along linguistic and ethnic lines, a desirable and fair level of national unity or cohesiveness within Quebec will be impossible.
 * That is fine, and I find most aspects of Quebec language policy reasonable. But that is not the subject of this conversation. We are talking about the letter to the editor. Many of the people he named are no doubt more proficient in French than a good number of Franco-Ontarians are in English, and I think that anybody writing a letter to an English Canadian newspaper pontificating about who is or isn't "Canadian" would be viewed unfavourably by most English Canadians. Since it would be absurd to say that of a French Canadian, one would have to imagine he was talking about Sergio Marchi, for example. I would venture to guess that most francophone Quebecers would think the same thing about the letter to Le Devoir.
 * There is indeed a great taboo on serious discussions about cultural identity in English Canada, I fully agree. He wrote a letter stating the obvious: "Not every resident of Quebec identifies as a Quebecer. It tends to follow linguistic lines". The exact same thing could be written about who identifies as Canadian. You'll find it tends to be people like Joe Canadian who claim "we Canadians say Hey!" even though by saying that he is, following your reasoning, excluding all francophones and allophones from his definition of Canadian. Statistically, 89,4% of Franco-Ontarians are proficient in English by the way.
 * I think you mean "Eh?". Well, there is of course no need to say "English Canadian" when the context makes it clear that one is talking about the English language. Fifty years ago, a francophone Quebecer might have said "Les Canadiens disent fin de semaine," and it would have made perfect sense. There is a certain amount of latitude of course to identify a political unit with the majority group there. When you say "Americans like pork chops." Obviously, you are not talking about Jews when you say that. But it would be another matter, and completely unheard of, to say "Joe Lieberman is not American." In Canada, this needs to be modified slightly, because there are two major groups. One should say "English Canadians don't eat beans in the morning." Unfortunately, English Canadians outside Quebec don't always know enough about French Canadians to make these distinctions, and undoubtedly, some English Canadians wish to view English Canadians as analogous to "English-speaking Americans" or "French-speaking French", relegating French Canadians to an afterthought. That is unacceptable, but we should also have the courage to admit it when some Quebec nationalists go too far. Remember, I am not criticizing Quebec nationalists as a group, I am criticizing this particular one.
 * That is pure non-sense. Canadians have a common language English and as a nation have the right to not to paint themselves in the corner because there are other nations AND minority groups inside Canada. Canadians, defining Canadian in cultural term is NOT exclusion of others! If the Canadian union was called Borealia, the ambiguity would be solved. We would all be citizens of Borealia and from there have things in common beyond what all human beings have in common. Then, there would be the nations: Canadians in 9 provinces and Quebecers here. Then, there would be the aboriginal nations, whose territories we are just starting to name according to who they are. Then, people who acquire the Borealian citizenship through immigration would know in what country they are landing, would know that as new citizens they have responsibilities in exchange for the common liberties and rights which their adoptive country provides. Joe Canadian is NOT racist, he is a stereotype of a Canadian sure, but these people exist and they are not racist because they have a cultural identity. It would be unjust to treat the majority of Canadians the way some are already treating the majority of Quebecers.
 * If Joe Canadian is the one who said "Canadians say 'Eh?'", then as I said that is 100% acceptable. If Joe Canadian says French Canadians are just another minority in Canada, I wouldn't call him racist, but I would call that position unacceptable in a united Canada. If he said Sergio Marchi wasn't Canadian, then I might think he was racist. You seem to assume that coexistence of multiple ethnic groups in one country is unrealistic. That is not true. Switzerland is a good example. Of course, there are also bad examples, and they are quite numerous. Canada is somewhere between these two extremes, and time will tell what solution is found. But your solution to the problem seems to be to deny that the idea of a bilingual country makes any sense to begin with. You would encourage people to agree with Joe Canadian's view and drown out those English Canadians who believe in a bilingual country, making separation inevitable. Of course, you feel it already is inevitable, but you know that if all English Canadians were like Joe Canadian, you would win the argument with francophone federalists. As long as Canada is one country, I will not accept the idea that it should be unilingual.
 * I did not know who Sergio Marchi was, thanks! Switzerland is a good example of what Canada could have become had it not been for Trudeau's silly war on Quebec nationalists. To me, Canada is not a good example at all when it comes to the relation that exists between Quebec and the level of government formerly know as Dominion, which I can only accept as being totally egalitarian, since for the ROC it is now their national government. That is why I am pointing out to the Scandinavian countries, as did Janes Jacobs in 1980 as much better examples on so many levels. I do not think the acceptance of Canada as a bi-lingual yet not a bi-national and bi-cultural country doesn not make any sense indeed. Not to mention there are a miriad of ways in which binlingual country could be understood, Canada's being the least useful to help the French language. This radio interview with Davidson Dunton of the B & B commission might lead you into understanding where I am coming from: http://archives.radio-canada.ca/IDC-0-17-592-3077/politique_economie/bilinguisme_biculturalisme/clip8
 * Undoubtedly, most English Canadians who are in favour of official bilingualism believe that French Canadians have a special place in Canada that is different from Italian Canadians, Chinese Canadians, and so on. You don't blame Joe Canadian when he views English as being the common language of Canada, but a majority of English Canadians disagree with him.
 * How can there be any justification for rejecting those people who wish to identify as Quebecers on the basis of what he calls "le gros bon sens"? This seems to be shorthand for something unpalatable he avoids defining explicitly, but which excludes non-francophones and people with non-Quebec accents in French.
 * I am not sure I agree. He says, like René Lévesque was saying Est Québécois qui veut l'être. It would be wrong to call Quebecers people who do not want to be called that way. This of course says nothing about the political definition and the legal implications, only the reality that you may be resident of some place, citizen of some State, but not (yet) or never really feel like you belong. When I was living in Alberta, I experienced the reality of being someone with an accent. It really does get anoying to be reminded of your difference all the time, but this says nothing about the formal and legal definition. We all live in a State of law where differentiated status is only justifiable if it is meant to redress the injustice done to a given community.
 * He is wrong and contradicting himself in not distinguishing between native francophone Quebecers and people who may be Quebecers by adoption and possibly have an accent. He gives multiple examples of how anyone pretty much can come to self-identify as a Quebecer, which can only happen in a society that is able to integrate its immigrants through political means, and then he concludes by saying that it is pretty much only those who are born with the right accent who are Quebecers.
 * Yes, which is why I'm glad there are Quebecers with a more inclusive view of who "they" are. He unfortunately doesn't agree with René Lévesque, and le gros bon sens fronts for many things.
 * I am not sure his saying that "are Quebecers roughly those who think they are and are recognized as such because of their speech" is that bad because it probably was like that in the 1960s when about 99% of those identifying as Quebecers were indeed French Canadians, whether Tremblays, Petrovskis or Ryans. But now we are many decades after bill 101 and identification as Québécois is in fact not restricted to those. That is what Parenteau who is just a little older than me says in the quote of him I translated.
 * I'm not sure what difference it makes what the situation was in the 60s, because he is saying it now. Also, I'm pretty sure anglophones called themselves Quebeckers then the same way they might have called themselves Ontarian, which is fine, isn't it? Or are you saying that Lévesque meant that Quebecers were those who identified first and foremost as Quebecers?
 * It makes a big difference. In 30 years, if I were to not closely follow the situation of the youth, I would be disconnected from their reality which is the future. Lévesque, who fought all his life against the cultural imperialism, meant that you do not impose your identity on others by force. You let them come to you. You grant them equality in law and let time do the rest.
 * If the author knows about Dany Laferrière, David Payne, and Alfonso gagliano, then he knows enough to draw the appropriate conclusions from their existence, especially since he is specifically talking about them.
 * That is indeed from his personal experience. I would have spontaneously classified Dany Lafferière as a Quebecer of Haitian origin. He is both from there and of here we can read in his books and see in his movies. I would have classified David Payne as a Quebecer because to my knowledge he is sovereigntist and it must be hard to so without self-identifing with Quebec! I would have classified Alfonso Gagliano as a Italo-Quebecer who thinks he is Canadian also, but is probably less Canadian now that he know how disposable an "Italian" from Montreal really is for the Liberal Party of Canada.
 * And what justification is there for rejecting those who identify as Quebecers but not only as Quebecers, as most anglophones and allophones do?
 * There are none. Were this into law, I would be battling against this unjust law. Remember that for him Quebec is a country, not the province of some other country.
 * This kind of attitude is typical of countries like France, where the idea of Breton-language public schools, for example, is beyond the realm of the imagination.
 * Or Canada and the USA which packed Native Americans in reserves to make room for European immigrants? You won't see me defend that fanatics of the indivisible republic, but in all fairness, the situation of the Breton speakers is, historically, comparable to that of the other communities speaking a Celtic language in the British Isles, don't you think? You can read about the linguistic situation of France's minorities here: http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/francegeneral.htm and compare it to the native American languages of Canada here: http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amnord/canada.htm
 * Yes, but Canada and, to some extent, the U.S., have matured. France hasn't.
 * I which way have they matured? Now that the populations have been downsized to a few thousand individuals badly organized in imposed institutions leading to the worst social problems human communities have ever experienced in history, they still refuse to recognize their collective rights. They are still kept in the circle of dependence.
 * I think I read somewhere that the Aboriginal population is higher now than ever before. Regardless, you are right in saying that governments need to deal witht he challenges faced by Aboriginals. Nonetheless, in 2007, most Canadians acknowledge their right to have their own culture, including schools and media operating in their own language. Inuktitut is the working language of the government of Nunavut. Can you imagine such a situation in Corsica, where 60% of the population speaks Corsican natively?
 * Now that Canadians acknowledge it, we just have to fight against their representatives who do not. ;-) I am favourable to the independence of Corsica, but all French people I have met are totally brainwashed on this issue. They think Corsican nationalists are terrorists, kind of like what Canadians thought when the FLQ was around.
 * I am in favour of self-determination for Corsica, but there are many reasons Corsicans might prefer to find an acceptable arrangement with the rest of France.
 * In 2006, the situation of Breton in France is dire compared to that of Welsh. The number of native Welsh speakers increased between 1991 and 2001. Schools in North Wales are bilingual and native English-speakers born there (many and perhaps most of whom are of English descent) learn Welsh.
 * This source (http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/paysgalles.htm) says the population has been stalled at 508 098 from 1991 to 2001. Bilingual schools, that is what francophones have battled against for generations in the English Canadian provinces. Read about the teaching of Breton here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enseignement_du_breton As I wrote, all situations of Celtic languages are awful. Nothing will be solved for as long as they do not give themselves the proper policies. It will be hard since French speakers and English speakers are tho ones who have the political power.
 * His statistics appear to be mistaken (it's unlikely to have the same number twice). Welsh language says the opposite is true and concords with other information I've seen. There is absolutely no comparison between the two. The Welsh are in a much, much better situation.
 * I do not know how to verify what stats are correct. What I know is that Ottawa is manipulating statistics all the time to make it look as though the situation is improving for out-of-Quebec francophones which is far from being the case. Reading more on the links I sent you, it seems the Welsh speakers might be slightly better off than Breton. But when you compare yourself to a Third World country, your country always looks rich.
 * In France, people think it's racist to dislike somebody because they have dark skin, but not because they wear a Muslim veil. France achieves its unity by ostracizing cultural differences and declaring them un-French rather than accepting them.
 * I cannot agree there. France refuses to all, Catholics or else, the invasion of the common secular public space. Most Western countries have similar principles, but all have set different boundaries based on different experiences.
 * France plays a game of pretending that this is the case. But a person wearing a cross (who, if the cross is large enough, French people like to point out would be banned from schools &mdash; this is of course tailor-made to suit the majority) will have few problems getting a job in a bookstore, for instance, while a person wearing a veil will have problems going beyond what they can expect because of their skin colour. Not to mention the fact that they're comparing apples and oranges, because many people view the veil as a requirement of their religion, which is not the case for any Catholic insignia. Is Sunday not the day off work there? In practice, people tolerate Catholics in ways they do not tolerate Muslims.
 * That seems to be the common perception in English Canada. Speaking to actual French Muslims, we get a very different portrait of the situation. France is practically atheist and worries about the return of sectarianism within the republic. No doubt, anti-Arab sentiment is stronger in a country with such a huge minority of Arab origin. I do not believe we, in Quebec or Canada or the USA, are in a position to judge what is going on there or any European country.
 * Of course, many people around the world buy into this "when in Rome" idea, including Muslims and people of a Muslim background in France, but that should not take away from the right of other French Muslims to freedom of conscience. I am well acquainted with France. I do not accept the French position that arbitrary limits can be placed on manifesting one's religion in public, and I believe that we have the same obligation to speak out against this as when we see human rights violations anywhere. Of course, there are more and less serious violations, but countries in a position of leadership shoulkd hold themselves to high standards.
 * Freedom, but equal freedom for all. There is a private space, a communal space and the greater public space. Honour thy host. In Rome, do as the Romans do. That is the foundation of civility among peoples when they are not expelled of their country by the thousands because of poverty, persecution or else. The solution is equal and fair economic development so populations are not leaving their home countries by the million to seek a decent life elsewhere. American and European countries have managed to find a way to get a lot of people think that mass immigration was normal to perpetuate the old system of colonialism and exploitation pillaging all parts of the so called "underdevelopped" yet more human and solidaire parts of the world.
 * Maybe I overstated my position. I am saying that people have a right to freedom of religion, and that extends to all spaces to the extent that it does not interfere excessively with the rights and freedoms of others. Unfortunately, some people are given to finding such interference where there is none or where it is minimal.
 * We think the same. But the French are another culture, many people see "interference" where I and you do not. We have to respect that and let them find their own balance. I do not consider myself morally entitled to judge Americans who display overzealous religious fervour in places where it does not, in my humble opinion belong. Atheist Americans, who also have same freedoms as the Christians, must be many to lookup up to countries like France when they see every President referring to God all the time as if that was not precisely the kind of space where religion did not belong. In the President's private life, in his community life, but during function? May Americans would not agree with me, because finding the right balance is in part subjective and certainly cultural.
 * Yes, you are right about atheists in the United States. France is very good about respecting atheists. But the violations of atheists' rights in the U.S. are fairly minor compared to the legal restrictions imposed on Muslims in France. You know, when it comes to human rights, the argument countries often advance is that "foreigners just don't understand". Well, international opinion often has a positive effect. For example, it was a European court decision that put an end to the practice in Britain of discrimination against homosexuals in the armed forces. We both know the effect of the UN decision on the commercial sign provisions of Bill 101. (You may or may not agree with the decision, but it shows that international bodies feel that they do have a right to judge.) In non-Western countries, international pressure has helped women gain the right to vote, or convinced countries to ban female circumcision. These are all issues where countries tend to argue that special circumstances or cultural realities justify their practices. I am afraid that European courts will be reluctant to intervene on the hijab in France, because most European countries share a similar view of the issue.
 * When the internal laws of a religious community comme into conflict with the public law, it is the members of religious communities who must make concessions. The legal restrictions on "ostensible" religious symbols in public schools seems exaggerated to me and I find the arguments of the French legislator to be quite weak on this as far as I know. But a great deal of feminists are happy because they associate many religions with violation of women's rights. By the way, there never was a "decision" by the UN on Bill 101. The people who "judged" were people who used the opinion of the UN Human Rights Committee in McIntyre v. Canada to support their usual flawed arguments. I wrote about it in Legal dispute over Quebec's language policy. It had no effect on the process to admend bill 101 which had already begun.
 * Many human rights groups have criticized the French laws as a violation of freedom of conscience, and the UN human rights committee has expressed concern. I don't accept your position on Bill 101. Avoiding criticism from the UN was a significant concern in the process of amending the Charter. For example, Jean Doré wanted to see the restrictions applied to business with 5 employees or more, and believed that would be accepted. Claude Ryan rejected that position in large measure because it was feared that the UN would criticize the law again. The UN had a significant effect.
 * I can agree with the importance of promoting respect for human rights in certain countries with condamnable regimes.
 * Countries with less severe forms of human rights violations need to be criticized too.
 * Turkey goes as far as declaring in its constitution that the mother tongue of Turkish citizens is Turkish.
 * I do not know much about Turkey's laws, but I do know how it is dangerous to judge other societies based on the values of our own. Read on Turkey here: http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/asie/turquie.htm
 * I know enough to know that this was directed at denying any legitimacy to the Kurdish language. People are still tried for distributing political literature in Kurdish. Turkey is a more extreme version of France.
 * That seems quite unfair to France. The greatest freedom of expression, especially in literature, exists in France. That is undeniable.
 * You're right, it was unfair to France. Nonetheless, if taken too far, the ideology of "une république une et indivisible" leads to these results. The idea is that there cannot be any minorities because there is only one French people. Therefore everybody must conform to a single mould. Of course, it is no coincidence that the mould they are to conform to is that of the French-speaking majority. Intelligent people in France have told me that they thought it would be "discriminatory" to require a percentage of civil servants dealing with the public in Corsica to know Corsican, presumably because in practice ethnic non-Corsicans seldom speak Corsican. As for your statements about freedom of expression in France, I'm not convinced that things are any better there than in other Western countries.
 * What leads to this result is refusal to recognize the collective rights of others. The French republic was founded on the territory of the Kingdom of France where only 25% of the population spoke French natively. For as long as people lived in rural communities, coexistence of a strong language and regional languages worked out OK as visible in France, Spain, Italy or Ireland. When unplanned, chaotic industrialization resulted in the urbanisation of most of the people, things started to get really difficult for smaller language communities and became hell for those that had developed a desire to establish themselves as independent nations. For privately-own mass media, France sucks as elsewhere, but for anything related to literature and arts and philosophy, she is not behind the rest of Europe.
 * If all francophone Quebecers were like the author of the letter, the result would be disastrous for interethnic relations in Quebec, because he wants to make the most important "we" a linguistic one, in a way that goes well beyond what is necessary to communicate and in order to be familiar with most aspects of French Canadian culture?
 * If all francophone Quebecers were like the author of the letter, Quebec would be independent and the whole issue of the relation between majority and minorities would be resolved for the greater good of all. We would not need to support our common language with complex regulations. A Quebec persecuting its English-speaking minority inside Canada or outside Canada, right next to the USA is simply unthinkable, don't you think?
 * Well, if for whatever reason 50% of francophone Quebecers thought what he did and the rest voted against independence, that would still be terrible for interethnic relations.
 * 60% of francophones (home language) already voted YES in 1995. It is non-sense to think that interethnic relations would worsen after freeing a the nation. The end of an unequal competition between English and French in the public space would get all Quebecers closer than they ever got before.
 * That's not what I'm saying. Whether Quebec is independent or not, it is a bad thing if people think the way he does. You are merely saying that if fully 65% of francophones thought the way he does, Quebec would become independent and then people would stop thinking that way. Well, that doesn't excuse those who do.
 * I am saying that judging of the moral character and tolerance of a people on the negative perception (and misinterpretation of the implications and portée) of an opinion letter and not on that people's history, laws, customs, culture, the current state of their society, the most unbiased statistics available etc. is irrational. The fear of the evil Quebec nationalists motives, those bastards who hold dangerous referendums, is purposely entertained by their political adversaries using a treatment they would never apply to Canadian nationalists. The core sovereignist arguments do not consist in saying: "we will take revenge of those who voted No", "We will not grant citizenship to those who do not speak like we do". Yet those ideas made it into the minds of most English speakers in Quebec. I wonder if alluding to it all the time in the media might have something to do with the misunderstanding?
 * I am not talking about Quebec nationalists or francophone Quebecers in general. I am saying I'm glad most of them don't share this guy's opinions about who is a Quebecer.
 * If it can reassure you ever further, probably the guy, upon taking to a hard core separatist who think just like he does on so many other leves, would admit to have given some bad examples and sent the wrong message. But the kind of discourse he holds is not argumentative, it is not rational and certainly not scientific.
 * Do you know that many Welsh-speakers have a distinguishable accent in English? Yet they are fully aware of all aspects of common British culture. The same could be said of many minority groups in Russia.
 * I am not sure I am following. The Welsh who speak Welsh are in the same disastrous position as all speakers of Celtic languages in the UK and Ireland. Those who speak English natively but with a Welsh accent are the descendants of those who were assimilated. See: http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/paysgalles.htm
 * My point is that Britain has English as its common public language, yet has a stable Welsh-speaking minority. Few people in Britain are concerned with excluding Welsh people when they talk about "Britishness". Welsh English-speakers of course have a distinctive accent in English, but I am referring to those native Welsh-speakers who may be more comfortable in Welsh and have an accent different from that of Welsh English-speakers. Those native Welsh-speakers who are perfectly at home in English usually have the same accent as Welsh English-speakers. Incidentally, although there are of course many English-speakers who are descendants of Welsh-speakers, I doubt most of them are. There has been considerable immigration to Wales from England since the industrial revolution. Many Welsh do not have Welsh ancestors.
 * I am hoping for the best for Wales. If you stats are correct, I am happy to see that their days of ethnic survival are maybe over. You might find this interesting to read: Colin H. Williams, L'influence de l'aménagement linguistique au Québec au-delà de ses frontières : le Pays de Galles
 * If Canada was named Borealia and was understood as a Kingdom with multiple nations in it, the Canadians, the Quebecers, the many Amerinds and the Inuit, then what you are describing would be possible here too. But the Canadians consider all Canada to be theirs. The idealized Welsh-English relation you are describing which I presume you are trying to compare to French and English here does not take into account this one important detail: London is not in Wales. But Montreal is in Quebec. I wish for the independence of Wales and the complete resurrection of the Welsh nation if possible. Then Wales could ally with England on the basis of mutually beneficial treaties.
 * I don't really understand. 80% of the Welsh speak English natively, and there are many foreign-born citizens there, so "Montreal" is in every one of their towns. The point I am making is that even though some people are identifiably native speakers of a different language than that of the majority, that does not call into question their acceptance in a society in which that language is much more dominant than French is (or should be, as Welsh-speakers are 1% of the British population) in Quebec. The author's point of view is that anglophones and speakers of European French are not Quebecers.
 * I am saying that proficiency in Welsh is localized and weak in urban areas. I doubt that if Welsh speakers had not been forcibly made into a minority in their home country, they would have accepted the dictats of London much more than Quebecers.
 * Of course it is natural to compare the Welsh language in Britain to the French language in Canada. But in this case, I am comparing the Welsh language in Britain to the English language in Quebec, and saying that the author's requirement for not having an accent in French goes well beyond anything the English-speaking majority in Britain expect of Welsh-speakers, or Urdu-speakers for that matter.
 * The English speaking majority of Canada is a minority on the territory of Quebec. It will become a linguistic minority only after independence. Even then, there will be no possible comparison between the situation of Welsh speakers, who speak a unique language transmitting the memory of a unique national culture. After independence, Anglo-Quebecers will finally be comparable to Franco-Canadians and it will become self-evident which majority is set on following the example of the other, if they care.
 * Perhaps their uniqueness adds something to the importance of preserving Welsh. But on a practical level, 1% of the population there is Welsh-speaking and 8% of Quebecers are anglophone. With those numbers, it's normal to expect that, even if Quebec becomes independent, most anglophones' proficiency in French will not be good enough to make them indistinguishable from francophones. Francophone Quebecers should not require this of anglophones as a condition of recognizing them as fellow Quebecers as the author seems to suggest. (For example, most Franco-Ontarians I have met, with both parents francophone, have at least a slight accent in English, even when they speak it very well. I think most of those you meet who have no accent are mixed. I understand that Swedish-speaking Finns also usually have less than native competency in Finnish, although that is unquestionably the common language of Finland.)
 * The Scandinavian countries are good examples of Majority rule made compatible with the rights of historical minorities. If our elected representatives do their homework, this example might be followed for the Canada Quebec relationship, as argued by sovereignists since the 1970s. The requirement for proficiency is usually imposed by work. French is expected to progress as language of work, but it will not reach the situation of complete dominance of English in the ROC or the USA anytime soon. 18.8% of Wales speaks Welsh natively. Did you mean 1% in the UK?
 * Yes, I meant 1% in the UK. I am in favour of French being the main language of work in Quebec. However, things should never get to the point that a level of proficiency is required in French that goes beyond what is actually required to do the job. In broadcasting and similar jobs, it is of course reasonable to expect a "native" accent. But not, for example, for an executive of a company, as long as communication is not significantly impeded.
 * Why does he expect people to roll their r's to belong? Joeldl 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it is because he is 1) from an older generation and 2) because he lives around Quebec City where he cannot easily witness as I do that there are in fact a great deal of people who identifies as Québécois and as something else. National communities overlap. Individuals move and adopt new identities without renouncing their own or are born as part of a national minority, making them de fact two or more "things" at once. The question is, are the national communities engaged in egalitarian rapports? -- Mathieugp 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (refactored) Those are good points, although your last question is often used by people to deny people's right to be treated as individuals. Joeldl 07:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I do not know. I personally fail to see the relevance of the flawed distinction between individuals and groups. Individuals are always member of some community, usually many at once. I am for the social contract that says Tous pour un et un pour tous which solves the problem of the balance between individuals and groups through complete and genuine liberty, equality and fraternity. -- Mathieugp 16:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, I was very surprised when you decided to translate this, because you sounded as if you'd finally found something that would show anglophones that even those nationalists they thought were the worst weren't so bad after all. The only thing that redeems him is that, as you say, his criterion is not a biological one. But in my opinion, his text is not the kind that will quell anglophones' fears. It is not legitimate to reject "le dernier Tamoul débarqué" out of hand because one's previous experiences with some allophones was that they did not wish to identify with French Canadians, or perhaps that some of them didn't respect the status of francophones as the majority. It is even less acceptable when a person has lived in Quebec for years, or was born there, and has made every effort to respect francophones. Everyone deserves to be treated as an individual. Joeldl 19:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see that his text will not quell anglophones' fears. I am very saddened to realize that our national division along ethnic lines is much stronger than I thought it was. One good way to respect individuals is not to deny their cultural and linguistic identity, their importance and legitimacy in the public space. Exaggerated political correctness prevents real honest discussions from occuring, pushing people who live in the same city further apart than they should. -- Mathieugp 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will state my position very clearly. There is a division among Quebecers, including francophone ones, about allegiance to Canada. I am in favour of self-determination for Quebec, but I still hope federalism can be fixed so that Quebec feels accepted. I am opposed to those in English Canada who would like to think of French Canadians as "just another minority", as I am sure there are some in Alberta that you met. I am also opposed to those Quebec nationalists who share this man's views about who is a Quebecer, but I do not accept that these views are representative of francophone Quebecers as a whole or even of Quebec nationalists. Obviously, he is reacting to those francophone Quebecers he believes are foisting "political correctness" on the rest of them. But if, at the very least, I agree with those francophone Quebecers he is reacting to, you are not in a position to say that there is a profound gulf in Canada with francophone Quebecers on one side and me on the other. I believe taking "political correctness" too far would be to feel one had to say, "Les Québécois francophones de vieille souche aiment la tourtière." Saying "Les Québécois aiment la tourtière" is absolutely fine, even if anglophones and Tamils don't. But saying "Dany Laferrière (Alfonso Gagliano, David Payne) n'est pas Québécois," is not fine, and I am not contributing to any ethnic divide by saying that, because, first, many (and I would even say, most) francophone Quebecers would agree with me (otherwise, who is he responding to?), and second, it is statements like those that can contribute to an ethnic divide, not mine. I might be tempted to accept the argument that he is from another time, but only the way a person might humour their racist grandfather in Mississippi, thinking that that generation will disappear anyway, but not listening to it any more. (Don't get me wrong, his position is nowhere near as offensive or dangerous as the racism in 1960's Mississippi, but the parallel is that even if one is tempted to forgive a person with outmoded views on a personal level, one need not accept that their arguments have any value in determining how people should behave now.) Joeldl 07:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I must first say that met a very polite and understanding people in Alberta, but I do not know how many were from there being in Calgary. My perception was that Quebec was not even on the map for them as Westerners. Many were suprised to find out Montreal was on an island. The red neck cliché was not confirmed. The scariest moment for me was during a Canada Day party when some dude wrapped up in a maple leaf flag started swearing against the Jews. I strategically avoided talking to him. All the other people there were happy to meet a genuine Franco-Quebecer (or a French Canadian as they were saying).
 * Being English Canadian, I have of course heard extreme views on French Canadians' place in Canada myself. A good indication of English Canadians' views is given by the recent CROP poll [www.cric.ca/pdf/bilingualism/Opinion_publique_bilinguisme_finale_fr.pdf] (PDF) on bilingualism.
 * C’est au Québec que l’appui au bilinguisme (le français et l’anglais comme les deux langues officielles du Canada) est le plus fort, soit 98 %. Dans chacune des autres régions, les répondants appuient la politique majoritairement. Dans les Maritimes, ce pourcentage est de 76 %. Il est de 72 % en Ontario, 67 % dans les Prairies, et 63 % en Colombie britannique.
 * Evidently, most Quebecers disagree with you about whether Canada should be bilingual. Joeldl 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot conclude the same thing you seem to conclude from this "information" communiquee for two main reasons) 1) that fact that I do not know what questions were asked to the respondants and 2) the CUC being a propaganda organ involved in the Sponsorship Scandal. -- Mathieugp 06:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a CROP poll. I doubt the CUC changed the data in reproducing them. It was widely reported in the press, and I don't recall seeing any criticism of the methodology. Joeldl 09:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your position. It seems more than reasonable. Mine is not too far off from yours. I think singling out Dany Lafferière was probably personal. Otherwize, I do not understand. I really do not get it for David Payne (a friend of mine who read it didn't either). Alfonso Gagliano? As much as he may think of himself as Canadian, I have yet to see him say anything that was not typical of our communauté italo-québécoise. :-) -- Mathieugp 13:31, 16 April 2007

Language demographics
With your strong knowledge of both math and natural languages, you are probably the best candidate to help me finish the rewrites of most of the language related articles I have written for Wikipedia. All the drafts are here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Mathieugp/Brouillons#Langue

You are more than welcomed to modify these drafts, some of which I hope will be releasable (and eventually translated) during the years 2007. (Especially the fist 4 in the list). The most up to date and complete one is Démographie linguistique du Québec and is the template for the ones on Canada, Ontario and Montreal.
 * I'd be happy to look at them. Joeldl 06:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian French/French in Canada
I have closed the discussion, and moved the article to French language in Canada. I also moved the history of French in Canada to the same article, see here for my close. I hope y'all build this into a great article, I think it has potential. Teke 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

New articles
Should we request comments on this scenario?


 * 1) Move Québécois (disambiguation) to Québécois.
 * 2) Add Use of the word Quebecois to the disambiguation page.
 * 3) Create an article on the recognition by the House of Commons that the "Québécois form a nation within a united Canada" (full name of the actual motion).
 * 4) Create an article on French-speaking Quebecers.

-- Mathieugp 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's a good plan, eventually. Do you think we've gotten enough comment on the first request? Maybe we can wait to see what edits we can have made on the basis of that request. Joeldl 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We can wait a few more days I guess. What edits are you referring to exactly? -- Mathieugp 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Removal of the infobox, especially. After that, I think people will have a good sense of the fact that the article is not intended as one about the people themselves, and would be receptive to a move to Use of the word Québécois. The infobox is reflective of Soulscanner's original intentions for the page, and could be misleading to people commenting on the move. Joeldl 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rings
You make two points. In both cases, I think, you prefer a clumsy and potentially confusing phrasing; which seems to me a severe disadvantage.
 * Not necessarily unital instead of non-unital. Either sentence is true. Not necessarily unital is broader, but the extension is made in the same paragraph anyway.
 * Subring instead of sub-pseudo-ring. Sub-pseudo-ring is  formally better, but I think the slight stretching of meaning is worth avoiding the infliction of "sub-pseudo-ring" on the hapless reader.

This may reflect a difference of opinion on what we are attempting to do. In practice, I think, our articles should be directed at a reader who is prepared to learn the subject matter, but who does not yet know it. For such a reader, the impeccable, but unexplained and impenetrable, style of Bourbaki is one of the worst available. Better the partial statements, gradually expanded, interspersed with examples, of Hardy and Wright. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As a counter-quibble: I prefer the unital definition of ring; what I dislike is the term "pseudo-ring". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that since we have adopted a convention in the article we should stick to it, and keep strictly separate words for the notions. I would prefer "pseudo-ring" in both cases. I honestly don't think it is more confusing to the reader to have two words for two concepts than one word for two. In fact, it feels more like we are sacrificing clarity for the reader as a concession to some editors.
 * Of course, the sentence with "non-unital" is true, but it renders the following comment on what happens when the ring already has a unit element meaningless, since the definition of the new ring won't have been given in that case.
 * If you don't like pseudo-ring, then rng is fine by me. I like the idea of conforming to Bourbaki terminology, which is regarded by many as a de facto standard. Joeldl 04:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes Bourbaki is a de facto standard; sometimes they aren't. But this may be a difference between English and French. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To Correct Something
"SanchiTachi, you placed your reply to my previous comment above someone else's who replied before you. Please try to avoid doing that. Joeldl 06:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)" Village_pump_%28policy%29

I believe that the timestamp for my reply was done afterwards (I forgot to add my name) and not at the same time. As you see below, I replied down to the third person on the list, and then the timestamp was after that. I rarely go up in a line of conversations, but sometimes I leave tags out. I hope that makes sense. SanchiTachi 15:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My userpage
Hey, just noticed that you reverted some vandalism to my userpage! Thanks!--NeoNerd 09:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Joeldl 09:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Caps
Interesting... I'm going back to re-read the manual of style because I don't remember that jumping out at me before; thanks for bringing it to my attention! Philippe 16:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Quebec
Hi, I think your recent update is a little over complex - the purpose is to let people know what article they should look at to find what they want. It shouldn't mislead or be wrong, but need not be complete - just enough to tell people what's different about the article. I leave it to you to update (or not). (John User:Jwy talk) 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian politics/government categories for templates
This issue is trivial at best. I only started considering it because there has been a bot going around adding Uncategorized to uncategorized templates. It looks like you did a lot of work organizing the Canadian politics and government categories, and I don't want to deviate from the convention.

Election table templates for each province in the line of 40th Canadian federal election/nb are currently uncategorized. They are used only in the article 40th Canadian federal election (candidates), but it'd still be a good idea to categorize them, so I was thinking to parallel {{cl|Canadian election stubs]] under {{cl|Elections in Canada}}. It could also be {{cl|Canada election templates}} to parallel the existing {{cl|Canada riding templates}}, which covers a different scope. "Federal" may need to be in there if there are a lot of non-federal election templates.

Secondly, there are table cell style templates like {{tl|Canadian politics/party colours/Liberal}} and a whole lot more listed at {{tl|Canadian politics/party colours/row}} that are used in a large number of other tables. Some possible category names for grouping these together:


 * {{cl|Canada politics templates}} to parallel {{cl|Canada politics stubs}} under {{cl|Politics of Canada}}
 * {{cl|Canadian politics and government templates}} to include {{cl|Canadian politics and government navigational boxes}} as a subcategory
 * {{cl|Canadian political party templates}} to parallel {{cl|Canadian political party stubs}} under {{cl|Political parties in Canada}}
 * {{cl|Canadian political party table cell templates}} under {{cl|Table cell templates}}

One of the last two are probably most appropriate, but could also replace "Canadian" with "Canada" or have "Political parties in Canada..." –Pomte 07:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I introduced the politics/government convention you're talking about not so long ago. I borrowed the idea from the United States categories. So now, I think the U.S. and Canada are the only two countries with those conventions. (They suit federal countries.) I {{cl|Canadian election stubs}} seems like a good name to me. Throw in {{cl|Canadian federal election stubs}} right away so people get the idea. I like {{cl|Canadian politics and government templates}}. I agree with {{cl|Canada politics templates}} eventually, but if that's all that's there then a lot of government stuff will be thrown in going against the convention which seems to have stuck for articles. So {{cl|Canadian government and politics templates}} might be better if there's only one. I should have addressed stub categories when I moved everything but it didn't occur to me. If you agree with the conventions you can write little descriptions of what the categories are for. I just copied the U.S. ones. Come to think of it, why don't you just copy their template categories too? Since they have more heads working on it they've probably already worked a lot of stuff out. Joeldl 07:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal
You seem to want to make this personal. I'm just trying to keep WP a better place for contributing writers to be able to donate their knowledge without a preponderance of rules, restrictions, and bureaucracy.

This is a complex project and it is important to get the big picture. Clearly you have a lot to offer and are dedicated to the project. I don't want to generate animosity, but I am also somewhat protective of a project that I love.

Clearly I am passionate about what I think is the most important project on the internet, but I don't mean to give offense. Can you see any validity to my concern about newcomers creating policy? Let's talk. Kevin --Kevin Murray 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being too brusque. I agree that I have become aggressive, but this gets to be a bit of an aggressive place around the rules etc.

I really am following policy with the rejection tag, but there is no sense beating this to death. I won't object to removing the rejected tag if you think that you can build consensus. I think that you will fail, and I will in the end oppose you unless there is a compelling reason for a new guideline, but for now I'll stand-down.

Are you familiar with the AfD process? Are you familiar with the notability guidelines etc. If not, I'm happy to share some background with you.

Keep going, and have fun with it. --Kevin Murray 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick apology
Hi Joel, I just wanted to write a quick thank-you and apology: I'm grateful for your message on my talk page about the developments in the National Varieties of English debate, and I appreciate the invitation to contribute. I actually printed out what you'd written and had a good old read. But then life took over and I never got around to making any constructive input. I'll have a look at the state of play shortly and see if I have anything useful to add. But I just wanted you to know your message hadn't fallen on deaf ears. Regards, – Kieran T  (' talk ') 21:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Kieran, I'm really pleased that you're interested. I wouldn't want Wikipedia to exclude people who have real lives, so don't worry about having taken time. I think there needs to be some show of interest in serious development and then submission for broader consensus, or the whole thing may be tagged with a "historical" template, or, if Kevin Murray's opinion prevails, a "rejected" one. I'm going to add a section of the talk page for people to indicate interest in reviving active discussion about the page. Joeldl 23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Quebec English
Thanks for the information on that mistake. I've added a temporary exception to stop correcting those words, and have raised a query on the WP:RETF/T talk page, with the intent of removing them all together. Thanks Rjwilmsi 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Quebec geography templates
Titles like "La Tuque (territory equivalent to a regional county municipality)" or "Gatineau (territory equivalent to a regional county municipality)" simply aren't ever going to have separate articles from those that already exist on the cities of La Tuque or Gatineau, as the cities themselves are the "territories equivalent to a regional county municipality" in most cases. So please just link the templates directly to the city articles instead of creating obscure new links that are never going to get filled in. And where such an article really does need to exist, as in the case of Quebec, there should a shorter and less confusing title for it than Québec (territory equivalent to a regional county municipality). Thanks. Bearcat 22:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. But if they're necessary, could we find a less complex and eyeglazing name for them? Bearcat 03:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They say you're not supposed to use abbreviations. Maybe in this case it would be okay to use "territory equivalent to an RCM". I don't know. On the French Wikipedia they just write "territoire équivalent", sometimes without the context you have in a phrase like "MRC ou territoire équivalent". I find that really confusing. An alternative, I guess, would be "geographical regional county municipality" (which I've never seen in English and is a little more difficult to understand - at least the other name has the merit of giving you a better idea of what you're talking about.) Unfortunately, true RCMs are also MRCGs, so there's a problem with lack of uniformity there. We could use something like "statistical subdivision of Quebec", but this would not remove all ambiguity since in some cases such as that of Quebec City, a census subdivision has the same name.
 * I'm open to suggestions. Joeldl 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to over simplify things but why not refer to such areas as, for example, "Gatineau-city region"? CWPappas 06:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It can be assumed that most people familiar with Quebec know what an RCM is, since this is an extremely prominent level of government. It may be that English-speakers are less familiar with RCMs because the vast majority of English-speakers live in areas not belonging to an RCM, so they are not often mentioned in the English media. Those people who know what an RCM is would have some idea of what was meant by an RCM-equivalent territory. I'm not sure I would understand what was meant by "city-region".
 * In any event, territoire équivalent à une MRC is the official terminology used by the ISQ. It appears in their "Lexique du code géographique du Québec", and has an acronym, TE. Statistics Canada, I think, also uses TE, based on the provincial practice. I don't feel good about making something up when there's an established term, but if enough people disagree with me, I'll change my mind. Joeldl 07:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft
I am sending this to everyone who participated about six months ago in the discussion about the appropriate English variant to use for the Mary Wollstonecraft article.

You may wish to read a similar discussion, taking place over a Mary Wollstonecraft pamphlet, A Vindication of the Rights of Men, currently a featured article candidate.

The FAC discussion is here: Featured article candidates/A Vindication of the Rights of Men

The applicable part of the article's talk page is here: Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Men

-- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Equivalent territories
Well, since you've decided to redirect all of these pages, could you add the corresponding navigational boxes and categories to the pages you're redirecting to? Joeldl (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. -- P199 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whapmagoostui (in Eeyou Istchee)
I do not believe that Whapmagoostui previously belonged to Jamésie Territory. I don't have any evidence that Jamésie ever extended beyond (north of) the 55th parallel. Where did you find that information? Backspace (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm glad somebody else is interested in this business!
 * Please have a look at the November issue here: Look at page 5, fourth paragraph, defining Kativik as the territory north of the 55th parallel, excluding Category IA and IB Cree lands. Also, in the third paragraph of the same page, it mentions that before the change, Jamésie included 17 Cree territories (not 16). And the second-to-last paragraph of page 6 says Jamésie will be divided into two components, and doesn't mention any special cases.
 * It's a bit confusing that Nunavik and Kativik are almost the same thing. When Nunavik gets autonomy I would imagine the Cree part probably won't belong to it any more, and then Nunavik and Kativik will be synonymous. Joeldl (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But the paragraph begins with "D’abord, celui de Jamésie (991), dont le territoire est compris entre la limite sud de la région administrative du Nord-du-Québec (code 10) et le 55e parallèle de latitude nord.", which seems to exclude Whapmagoostui (both the TC and the VC, by the way, which would make the number 15 and not 16 entities). Does the paragraph contradict itself when it says that all 17 Cree entities were part of Jamésie, when, if its first sentence is accurate, Whapmagoostui (both) would not qualify as being part of it? Backspace (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true that it appears contradictory. I was confused by that at first too. I guess they thought it would make the text too repetitive if they kept mentioning what they felt was a minor exception. But the statement defining Kativik TE (then, as now) as being the territory of the KRG, itself defined in the law the way it is, is to me unequivocal.
 * Also, I worked a little on the subdivisions of Quebec before the change (in the spring), and I remember that Whapmagoostui wasn't part of Kativik then either, according to the results from the database at the time. I know saying that is cheating, but that's why, unless my memory is faulty, I personally don't have any doubts about how to resolve the ambiguity here.
 * If we want to be extra careful, we could try to find the text originally defining Jamésie TE. But that would be pretty old by now, I think, so probably wouldn't be on the internet. And that would be a pain. If you still have serious doubts, we can erase all mention of the previous situation and only mention the current one, but I hope I've convinced you.Joeldl (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Realize, however, that when I claim that Whapmagoostui was not part of Jamésie, that it does not mean that I am claiming it as formerly part of Kativik (which I have never done), but possibly/probably only as formerly part of Nunavik, with the assumption, as you have stated, that Nunavik and Kativik did not formerly comprise coextensive territories. Backspace (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, but previously there were only two RCM-equivalent territories in Nord-du-Québec, and RCMs and equivalent territories cover all of Quebec. So if it wasn't in Kativik TE, it had to be in Jamésie TE. Joeldl (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Allophone (Quebec)
You might consider taking the matter to Requests for comment. It would be easier for you to reach some consensus on the matter. All the best.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on "nation" issue at Quebec page
New consensus on Quebec page. Please comment, if only briefly. We want this one to last.

Specifically, the word Quebecois appears as several editors are insistent on including the HoC motion in the lead paragraph. This is not my choice, as it could be viewed as violating the spirit of behind what we agreed to on the Quebecois page. I've balanced it with a reference to the National Assembly declaration, which uses the wording "the people of Quebec", to emphasize the civic nature of this word espoused by the mainstream parties in Quebec. I don't want this to be a problem in the future and have to go through all this again, and I'd really like your input on this before we put the version in the lead. Feel free to tweak the wording, but keep in mind that many editors have compromised a lot to get it to this point. Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Joeldl (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois
The ethnic group infobox has reappeared with a new discussion. –Pomte 02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll have something to say about it. Joeldl (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:V
Hey Joeldl,

I reverted your change to the policy on verifiability, explaining my rationale in the edit summary. Sadly, my invitation to discuss the issue on the talk page was cut off when the edit was saved, so I wanted to stop by and let you know that you should feel free to bring up the proposed change at WT:V. Thanks! -- jonny - m t  04:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Subdivisions of Quebec
Hi, yes, I did see that this discussion was taking place. However, I'd be little help. My previous involvement in Quebec navigational templates discussions have all revolved around Montreal. I'm afraid that when the discussion ventures off -island -- "beyond the pale," so to speak -- to the regions, I don't have much to contribute. sorry, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. The discussion also involves merging Template:Urban agglomeration of Montreal. Joeldl (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take another look. Perhaps I might have something intelligible to say. Anything's possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Central Asia Naming Conventions
I'm undoing your recent edits to Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Throughout discussions at several different articles, categories, and at WikiProject Central Asia, we have agreed upon a standard for adjectives. Basically, Kyrgyz (or Uzbek) refers to an ethnic identity, whereas Kyrgyzstani refers to a political identification (a Kyrgyzstani citizen). As such, for articles about the state itself, Kyrgyzstani (or Uzbekistani) is the correct adjective. Please see the relevant discussion here. Otebig (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that that is the distinction that some editors wish to make, but I can't find any justification for it in reference material such as dictionaries, etc. I find it perfectly plausible that such a distinction is maintained in Russian, just like россиянин/русский, but I still need to be convinced it actually exists in English and is reflective of anything approaching majority usage even among informed scholars. In any case there are two issues:
 * What the demonyms are. This is a matter of fact to be determined by sources, not by a consensus between editors. I do not accept the World Factbook as a reliable source, when more reliable sources such as dictionaries could be used instead. I suspect they'll say that the demonym is "Uzbek".
 * How Wikipedia editors should use the words Kazakhstani, Kazakh, etc. That is a matter of opinion, and for that purpose I suppose the discussion you referenced serves as evidence of a consensus, though it might be a bad one if it contradicts the facts about what the demonyms actually are.
 * I would ask you not to revert the changes I made (the addition of dispute tags) until better sources can be found or a consensus forms that the World Factbook is a reliable source for this purpose. These dispute tags concern no. 1 above, and a consensus among editors to edit articles a certain way is not a substitute for reliable sources. Joeldl (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works by consensus WP:CON. There are plenty of sources out there which use the "-stani" demonyms, depending on the sources (President Nazarbayev uses the term Kazakhstani - you would assume he would know what to call citizens of his country). Just search the terms on Google (Kazakhstani gets nearly a quarter million hits). Also, the Uzbekistani embassy in the UK calls themselves the Uzbekistani embassy (again, if they're not a source of their own country's adjective, who is?). If you disagree with the current adjective consensus, by all means bring it up for discussion in the relevant areas. Considering that this is the standard across a broad range of articles and categories, any change would require some discussion first. I was actually against using this convention at first, but I have to admit it does make things clearer in terms of ethnic/national identification. Otebig (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about consensus, but signalling the existence of a dispute does not require consensus. On the contrary, it requires a consensus to remove indications of the existence of a dispute.
 * I don't know what to make of that "embassy" website. Click on "Nightlife" and it will offer you links to information about nightlife in many countries, including "Hounduras". It seems like either some outfit masquerading as the embassy website or some company they hired to set up an el-cheapo website.
 * For the moment, I'm not talking about what decision to make concerning the words to use in all of those articles, I'm only talking about what we say the demonyms are in the articles Uzbekistan, etc.
 * I'll continue my comments at Kyrgyzstan.

MontrealNeighbourhoods
Hey, I changed around the MontrealNeighbourhoods template a little bit. It is in my opinion that should all be on one collapsable template. I was always uncomfortable with boroughs and municipalities on the Island of Montreal being listed on multiple and separate templates. I think one common template should exist for all subdivisions of Montreal Island. What do you think? MTLskyline (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:MontrealNeighbourhoods
 * Template:Urban agglomeration of Montreal
 * Template:Montreal

Quebec subdivision templates
Hi. Thanks for the insight into the above. I began wondering whether it would be worthwhile merging Administrative divisions of Quebec region with Administrative divisions of Quebec after the region templates had been combined to make the former, but wasn't thinking of trying anything like that for a (long) while. I guess topics related to each region could also be added to a combined template (that would be a monster template!) or just the Quebec region template, but am not sure whether the resulting template or templates might be too big and/or centralized. Hopefully the results of your, Qyd's and anyone else's considerations will sort out what's best. I have both the templates linked above on my watchlist, so I should be able to keep abreast of developments and chip in if/as/when I feel prompted. Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll now (try to) make the appearance of the notes in the region template re 5,000/10,000 depend on whether or not those regions are specified. Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...I think it's now sorted. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC) PS Re the technical know-how, check out "#switch:" at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions. (It's not an ideal explanation, though.)
 * Thanks, there's nothing incorrect there now. I'll have to look at some point and see how to put in the right numbers for Nord-du-Québec and Montérégie. Joeldl (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian units
--Ckatz chat spy  09:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Anglosphere
I am going to revert your reverts as i feel that it had been discussed enough, teh statistics speak for themselves, 1 tenth of poeple in Quebec speak english, vastly outweighed by the French speaking population, and even more-so, it is a member of La Francophonie and has French as its only official languge, what more do you need? Taifar ious1  10:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a little friendly advice. It's considered rude to alter another editors comments as you did here .  You more than likely did not intend this, but you must have received a warning when you tried to save to say that there was an edit conflict.  In those circumstances, you must reapply your edits to the new text, and not simply ignore the new text and have your version become the new saved version.  --Bardcom (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize. It was completely unintentional. Because I was having problems connecting, I must have gotten two different edit conflict pages and erroneously assumed that the second one was the same as the first one. Joeldl (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I put the comment back in. --Bardcom (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On Quebecers and their territory
I haven't been very supportive of your efforts to prove that the auto-redefinition from Canadiens français to Québécois meant going from a boundaryless nationalism to a territorial one. I really didn't know where to look for English-language sources stating this as a fact or at the very least implying it strongly. Then the other day, searching for something else, I read this:


 * http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=f1SEC850557

I thought we were in business, because the source is so Canadian and cannot be discredited because it is from a Quebec nationalist author or a sovereignist media or some other ridiculous excuse. But then just try to click on the "English" link in the top-right corner and see what happens: the English-language equivalent article was written by a different person! It's not available in English! This is the first time I encounter this on The Canadian Encyclopedia. I thought that every French-language article had a corresponding English-language one.

I guess we can cite the French source, but that is not best. Anyway, not all is lost because this one article, properly translated to English, implies what we know to be true very strongly:


 * http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009365

Quote from the article: "These radical changes to what was then called French Canadian nationalism were quickly interpreted by representatives of French-speaking communities outside Québec as abandonment of French Canada and of francophones residing outside the Québécois national territory (see FRENCH CANADIAN NATIONALISM). These changes, approved by the delegates to the national conferences, gave rise to debates during discussions on the resolution of French Canadians' right to self-determination. Recognizing Québec, among other things, as the national territory of French Canada, the resolution led some representatives outside Québec to show their scorn during interventions and voting. Franco-Ontarians rejected the resolution while French-speaking people in the West were equally divided in their votes among acceptance, rejection, and abstention. However, the majority of Acadians (52%) and Québec delegates (98%) supported the resolution."

The fact that there is a (see FRENCH CANADIAN NATIONALISM) internal link makes it clear that the article was translated from French and that the link should have logically linked to an English translation of the "Nationalisme canadien-français" article by "Lucille Beaudry" (who deserves a medal for concision). There is another mistake: the references of both articles are those of the English-language article, which makes no sense. -- Mathieugp (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE
You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ring (mathematics)
Sorry, I did not know the appropriate procedure.

Point-set topologist (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all right. Joeldl (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

re: AZS
Thanks for your help! I reworded the article somewhat now, as per your translation. --Soman (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I could help. Joeldl (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Russo chliborobska partija?
Is Russo chliborobska partija ((a name used in ) Russian language, or another Slavic language? I encountered the spelling Руской хлебопашеской партии at http://allaaria.ru/vid/bookscontent.php3-quest-b-eq-24-and-c-eq-633, and I reckon this has to be the same party. Might there be a simple spelling error in one of the texts? --Soman (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the German source, it said Russka, not Russo. It's definitely in another Slavic language. I can't say which one for sure, but it looks like Ukrainian. There seems to be a spelling mistake in Руской хлебопашеской партии, which should probably be Русской хлебопашеской партии. (Uninflected, this is Русская хлебопашеская партия.) All of these mean something like "Russian Peasants' Party", including the one in the other language, which is evidently related to the Russian word hleborob "peasant." The Russian one is based on the obsolete word hlebopašec which, according to my dictionary, means "tiller of the soil". So it's quite possible that they're both the same. I can't guarantee 100% that there's a spelling mistake in Руская (with only one s), because it may be an archaic spelling intended to evoke ancient Rus' instead of Russia. I only have medium-size Russian dictionaries, and this spelling doesn't appear in any of them. Joeldl (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence of Quebecois
What I really object to is doing anything that conveys the meaning of Quebecois as being an exclusionary term to describe only French-speaking natives of Québec. I would certainly like the definition to state that Quebecois can also be applied to any inhabitant, depending on context and not convey this exclusionary feeling. This is why I'd rather used especially (particularly; exceptionally; markedly) rather than specifically ''(1.having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite. 2. specified, precise, or particular. 3. peculiar or proper to somebody or something, as qualities, characteristics, effects, etc 4. of a special or particular kind. 5. concerned specifically with the item or subject named (used in combination). I'll re-read the sentence and see if an "or" might be appropriate too, as you suggested.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with your general sentiment. I'll let you be the judge between "especially" and "or specifically," or suggest something different. I had previously written "A Québécois is... . In English, the word may refer specifically to ...," but this was changed by Soulscanner. Joeldl (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think "or especially" makes sense, linguistically.Joeldl (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After re-reading your talk page explanations, I self-reverted. I'm still not happy with the way the lead reads (especially contrasting it with the meaning of Quebecer -- which I think is overkill). I'll think things over for a bit.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your message
Dear Joeldl,

I replied to (some of) the points in your message on my own talkpage. I agree that one does not want this issue to get out of hand, and at every step I have tried to measure my response accordingly. I want you to know that some of the concerns are serious. I view an overall commitment to honesty as being an essential part of a project such as ours, and I hope you agree. It seems to me that there is some relevant policy material on WP:SOCK under "clean start under a new user name": I urge you to read this if you have any continued interest in the matter. Happy holidays. Plclark (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Of course I do not approve of the edits made by the anonymous IP address that you recently (and correctly, in my opinion) reverted. Plclark (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion fixed
It should be fixed now. Didn't think it would matter that much to you. --soulscanner (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Greater Montreal logo
The logo was made Greater Montreal's (Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal) official logo (or "brand") a few months ago: MTLskyline (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BrandingGreaterMontreal.com
 * National Post
 * Montreal Gazette
 * 1. Yeah, go ahead and put the current CMM logo up. I believe that logo is for the official name of the body, wheras the Greater Montreal one is for marketing purposes. I don't know how we would distinguish them in the infobox: perhaps Regional Government Logo and Marketing Logo or Brand.
 * 2. Spacing Montreal has one without the accent: SpacingMontreal.ca, I believe that's where I got it, but I checked the link on the image page which says I put Montreal.com as the source. The spacing article does link to Montreal.com (which gives the é version), so perhaps Montreal.com had the other image and then updated it since I uploaded the logo. One of us can put the é version up, as it looks like it is actually the official one. Cheers.

MTLskyline (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Québécois
Hi Joeldl. I see no discussion under Talk:Québécois. Did you mean under Talk:Québécois (word) ? I assume that is what you meant. Which thread of conversation do you wish me to read on jump into? (Sorry, I have not been following too closely. You guys move fast! :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your commentary regarding recent edits to Québécois (word). I wanted more to include and report on the alternate variants (as these were not included previously). I thought it important to include the relevant passage from the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage, as it's completely appropriate, clear, and reputable. First, I believe the comment regarding its usual sense is correct: "[it] is generally only to refer to a French-speaking native" -- note, 'generally', not absolutely, therefore providing wiggle-room. Actually, Merriam-Webster rather corroborates this by tying the two senses together (emphasis added): "a native or inhabitant of Quebec; specifically, a French-speaking native or inhabitant of Quebec." As well, it doesn't equivocate regarding é and says it should be rendered in English with two or none. I'm also mindful that this isn't the sole source: the Canadian Oxford Dictionary also lists it without qualification. I do wonder, though, whether Québecois has propagated because it may be commonly used, but not necessarily because it's correct -- like nucular in English instead of nuclear. So, if anything, perhaps merely the first sentence of the note I added needs to be requalified, and expanded more? I'm fairly easy regarding this. Thanks! Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly trust the Oxford guide more than other sources. From the quote you've provided, the authors don't seem to realize that Québecois has in the past been a valid variant in French, so it's certainly questionable to give their opinion greater weight than that of other sources. They don't equivocate, but neither does the Merriam-Webster in listing Québecois without qualifying it as being criticized or incorrect. This is in no way comparable to nucular, which would be regarded as an incorrect spelling by anybody.
 * Also, I think you're misinterpreting the meaning of "specifically" in the Merriam-Webster definition. What it means is that the second sense is a common one subsumed within the first one. If this were to say that it only meant the second definition, what would be the point of including the first? Note also that to indicate that the second meaning was much more common, they had available the sense divider "esp", but declined to use it. I think "generally" may be an overstatement here. Joeldl (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I somewhat disagree. Even the first sense in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (as noun) defines Québécois as a "a francophone native or inhabitant of Quebec"; it then goes on to indicate (as an adjective): "of or relating to Quebec or the Québécois"
 * As for the double é issue, tts validity in French may be valid, in the past, but is that variant in common use now? Separately, note that the editors of the Oxf Guide were outlining its propriety in English usage, without necessarily equivocating about its validity in French -- that is appropriate, and the reference in context is completely valid.
 * As well, if Merriam-Webster thought to provide two distinct senses for Québécois, they perhaps would have, with numbers or similar. But, they opted to tie them together with 'specifically'.  The other definitions provided do not significantly diverge from this (with some saying 'especially'), and hence the interpretation is rather correct.  Alternatively, no English definition provided (aside from the French toponymy link you provided) indicates in isolation that Québécois means just 'Quebecer'.  Apropos, 'generally' seems appropriate to me, though 'usually' would also work -- anything else may be an understatement.  The wording can be tweaked, however.
 * Nucular is a malapropism, both as a word and as example herein. :) Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, this is fine with me. :) Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is what the Merriam-Webster says about specif:
 * "Sometimes a particular semantic relationship between senses is suggested by the use of one of four italic sense dividers: esp, specif, also, or broadly. [...] "The sense divider specif (for specifically) is used to introduce a common but highly restricted meaning subsumed in the more general preceding definition."
 * They also say that new senses are introduced by a boldface colon, and it so happens that the second sense here is introduced by a boldface colon. Sense dividers are used as an alternative to numbering when the writers wish to indicate a particular relationship between senses. It is clear to me that the Merriam-Webster considers the word to have two possible meanings.
 * "Generally only" is significantly stronger than "especially", and much stronger than the specif used by Merriam-Webster. I don't think it's safe in this context to report the strongest statement as fact, since the other sources address the same question but decline to make quite as strong an assertion.
 * Noted. However, this is one definition among various listed, all of which say essentially the same thing.  Québécois may have two possible meanings, but the question is what is its primary meaning in English.  It may be that Quebecer is the preferred term used in English to describe 'people of Quebec', unambiguously, whereas Québécois is mainly used to refer to francophone Quebecers.  The primary usage noted is also clearly reinforced by the Oxford guide and the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, which I defer to.  Furthermore, in Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names (ISBN 0-8020-8293-9), written by Alan Rayburn, previous head of the Canadian Permanent Committee of Geographical Names (p. 50):
 * The gentilé for a person from the province of Québec – Québécois – is spelled both Quebecer and Quebecker in English. The term Québécois in English usually implies a Quebecer whose language and culture are distinctively French Canadian.
 * As such, the current wording you've insinuated is agreeable. At this point, unless demonstrated otherwise, any other qualification is potentially misplaced in the lead when describing English usage of the word.  Also note that other notions regarding usage can be expanded upon later in the article, for which there are currently two 'usage' sections in dire need of enhancement.  I think the article, overall, needs alot of work.  Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the issue of two accents, of course, the Oxford guide is only talking about English usage, but what they say about how English pronunciation may be responsible for the spelling with a single accent strikes me as naïve when that spelling was common in French for so long. In any case, other sources clearly consider it correct in English, so we are dealing with contradictory sources. It's true that the Oxford Guide addresses the question most directly of all sources, but for the reasons I've given, it doesn't appear particularly credible on this issue. I think it's safest for the article not to take a position on the issue. We can include the Oxford Guide's opinion, but it will need to be balanced by those sources that contradict it, and also by mentioning that Québecois is a spelling that has existed in French. (I've actually encountered it myself in older French-language texts. The first time, I wondered if it was an error.) Joeldl (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, I'm not too strong on this point. Yes, the sources appear contradictory.  I totally disagree that the Oxford guide is not credible, and the passage should stay, but I also acknowledge that the note should be requalified and expanded upon, backed up by some other reliable sources.  I'm open to suggestions.  Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting what that annonymous IP wrote at Talk:Ring (mathematics). Unfortunately, I have the suspicion that that IP is actually a Wiki user who has participated in the discussion (how else would he have tracked the discussion at WPM and have watched my talk page?). Is there a way of finding out who he/she is (not that it really matters since he/she stopped, but I am a bit worried that this abuse may continue)?

Thanks again!

PST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist (talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Since they haven't edited since then, I would say, don't worry about it unless they do the same sort of thing again. Joeldl (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

English-speaking Quebecers
I left a comment on Talk:English-speaking Quebecer on December 20, 2008 (under "2006 stats on language"). I do not expect Soulscanner to react to it, so I will be making the change myself. This will be difficult, because as a result of the update I will make to the table(s), some parts of the text will stop making sense and we will have to start re-writing.

As made clear by StatCan itself, the English-speaking community of Quebec is on the rise when observing the 2001-2006 period. Signs of this increase were already visible in 2001. Of course at this point we do not know if it is a trend that will persist or not.

This is a significant change, and when in 2008 the OQLF failed to even register this fact in its reports (even though in Ottawa they did), it caused a great deal of controversy. The indirect consequence of this is that recently in March 2008, an Institut de recherche sur le français en Amérique (IRFA) was set up specifically because some former researchers and consultants consider the OQLF to have failed its very mission.

In any case, going back to the article, under the Population heading, we currently read:

"The English-speaking population has shown an accelerated decline in population in the last three decades." and "Outmigration is the biggest challenge facing the survival of English-language communities in Quebec, particularly outside Montreal." -- If it was arguable before, now it certainly needs revision. Not only is the community not currently declining, the reason for its current growth is that outmigration has been greatly reduced. -- Mathieugp (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I clarified my translation at the ref desk
-- PS T  13:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

National Order of Quebec
National Order of Quebec was moved to Order of Quebec on January 18, 2009. There is currently a discussion going on in the article's talk page. The user who made the move is now considering moving it back. We just need a few others to support this revert. Feel free to drop by and visit. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am being harrassed again
Dear Joeldl - As you participated in the (ancient) discussions between me and Plclark one month ago, I wanted to contact you regarding the following issue. I made some edits at fundamental group (and a few reverts, I must admit) and this resulted in a substantial number of personal attacks and harrassment towards me by User:Mathsci (before my first revert). Could you please have a look at Talk:Fundamental_group? After the first revert, I discussed on the talk page only to find another revert (by User:Mathsci) followed by a personal attack on the talk page (please see the link provided). I am not sure what to do, but unrelated to the topic of discussion, there has been a clear violation of WP:NPA at the talk page (about 5 strong personal attacks). I am having real issues as a user and I feel that I have done nothing wrong to receive this type of harrassment from other editors. In the same discussion, User:Mathsci made a connection between me and another user. Would changing my username do any good? Could you please comment? Thanks, -- PS T  07:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The foreign A
Hello! A few months ago we discussed the pronunciation of loanwords like pasta and Mazda (and, most likely, Barack Obama) with the low central vowel in their languages of origin, and the fact that you pronounce them with an extra phoneme--an intermediate vowel between the vowels of hat and hot, unlike most Canadians, who use the hat vowel. Well, a few days ago we found an explanation for this as we were talking about the phonological history of English low back vowels... I'm  Jack (Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss with me?
Hi there,

I wanted to see if you were still an active Wikipedia editor and to invite you to discuss the renaming of the article Evidence of common descent. See: Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent and Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent.

Cheers!  A. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  01:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)