User talk:Liberlogos/Archive



I appreciate very much all comments from fellow Wikipedians. Please write to me from any place in the world, I will be quite honored to read and respond. My mother tongue is French so, if you are a french speaker, you are welcomed to either write in English, so all visitors can understand, or in French, so the writing of your prose can be more comfortable for you (or if you simply prefer it for any reason). Thanks. ;)

Souverainisme québécois
Bonjour Liberlogos. Je voulais te féliciter/remercier pour ta contribution aux divers articles qui traitent du mouvement souverainiste, surtout pour les extraits audio et les images. Cependant, il aurait été préférable que tu demandes l'avis des wikipédiens avant de rediriger History of Quebec sovereignist movement vers Quebec Sovereignism. C'est une bonne chose qu'il y ait un article central (exemple Quebec Sovereignism), et plusieurs articles qui approfondissent le sujet avec plus de détails (exemples: History of Quebec sovereignist movement, Quebec nationalism etc.).

Je propose de redonner son indépendance ( :-p) à l'article History of Quebec sovereignist movement pour qu'il puisse évoluer sans alourdir l'article Quebec Sovereignism (qui est déjà pas mal chargé). Aussi, "sovereignism" ne devrait pas avoir de majuscule dans le nom de l'article suivant la convention des noms d'articles. (Il semble que la règle des majuscules dans les titres ne s'appliquent pas ici.)

Aussi, dans sa forme actuelle, l'article Quebec Sovereignism ressemble plus à de la propagande pro-péquiste qu'à un article qui traite du mouvement souverainiste de façon objective (surtout à cause de l'image). Ça pourrait être quand même être acceptable selon moi si on créait un autre article sur l'indépendantisme québécois. J'ai pensé faire ça avant, mais pour rendre les choses plus simple, j'ai inclu la période 1958 à 1968, la période qui précède la création du MSA dans l'article History of Quebec sovereignist movement. Voilà, il y a deux possibilités selon moi :

1. On tente de rendre plu neutre l'article qui traite du souverainisme pour y inclure tous les partisans de l'indépendance (UFP et compagnie aujourd'hui, RIN à une autre époque etc.) ou bien 2. on crée un article séparé qui traite de l'indépendantisme dans son ensemble (incluant le souverainisme) et on développe l'article sur le souverainisme comme si cela n'incluant que la mouvance souverainiste (1968 à aujourd'hui). Qu'en penses-tu? -- Mathieugp 16:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Bonjour Monsieur! Quel honneur de recevoit votre... hum hum, je vais tutoyer... ton commentaire! J'ai découvert cette encyclopédie relativement récemment et je trouve le concept fort fascinant et révolutionnaire. Malgré les risques de publications erronées ou biaisées (qui sont souvent discutées et corrigées par la suite, tout de même), je trouve l'idée d'une encyclopédie faite *par* le peuple plutôt intelligente. En plus, de par la nature du bassin contributeur à laquelle elle fait appel, cette encyclopédie (en anglais surtout) est plus complète encore qu'une encyclopédie conventionelle. Hum ...ai-je tapé le mot "encyclopédie" suffisamment?


 * Au sujet de mes contribution, merci. D'autres viendront bientôt. Je compte bien mettre un peu de viande autour de l'os de l'article du Parti Québécois et retoucher d'autres partis d'ici et d'ailleurs (peut-être le NPD, un parti qui m'est bien sympathique, lui son chef, notre idole "Moustache détendue"). J'ai déjà touché, en passant, à l'UFP, le PLQ, l'ADQ, etc. Aussi, j'ajouterai bientôt d'autres images (j'hésite encore pour le choix de photos pour Ti-Poil!) et sons (j'ai deux extraits de M. Lucien Bouchard, un du puissant "Quoi qu'on dise et quoi qu'on fasse" de Robert Bourassa, un du "Vive le Québec libre" et je pourrais peut-être inclure un extrait de la chanson de campagne de '76, "À partir d'aujourd'hui, demain nous appartient", de Stéphane Venne). Je suis particulièrement fier de la "viande" que j'ai ajouté à l'article du Bloc et les trouvailles de la section "Early Projects". À ce sujet, je sais que c'est dedans mais je cherche le passage, dans "Attendez que je me rappelle..." (auto-biographie), où René parle de l'éventualité d'un parti souverainiste à Ottawa. J'ai trouvé hier le passage traitant du même sujet dans la biographie par Pierre Godin, mais je veux trouver l'extrait mentionné par Campbell (l'oeuvre de Godin n'était pas publiée en 1993). Cet extrait de Godin m'a d'ailleurs donné plus d'info sur le sujet et j'ajouterai bien ça... dans betôt. Aussi, je cherche une référence concrète à un des sondages récents au sujet de la pertinence du Bloc selon les Québécois. Hum!


 * Pour ce qui est de la page de Quebec Sovereignism (j'hésite toujours pour une seconde en écrivant ça en anglais... gn... ng? ei-ie, sov-sove?), oui, oui, oui! ...ça aurait peut être été préférable d'avoir lancé l'idée en discussion d'abord avant de passer à l'acte. Je me suis senti un peu coupable peu de temps après le "crime". ;) Je comptais faire mention dans la page discussion que j'étais prêt à entendre l'opinion des autres sur le sujet.


 * J'ai fait une recherche pour voir ce qui se fait avec d'autres philosophies politiques. Je constate que Social Democracy a sa section History incluse dans le même article. Conservatism a une courte section semblable. Communism racconte furtivement l'histoire sur la même page. La seule "idéologie" ayant un article historique "distinct" (tant qu'à emprunter des termes ;)) que je trouve est celle du "socialism". Toutefois, il est vrai qu'il est le seul dont l'ampleur de la section histoire est comparable à celle que nous avons bâtit (pas mal...). Qu'en penses-tu? Je serais ouvert à effectuer une "dévolution" :P de la page sur l'histoire (en débutant l'écriture de cette réponse, je m'apprêtais à défendre l'opinion contraire! ; le tact de ta remarque m'a permis de reconsidérer mes opinions)... Alors, il serait important d'offrir un court résumé et de diriger le lecteur/internaute/wikipédien/chasseur d'abeille (... :P) vers l'article principal, "à la manière" de l'article "Quebec" lui-même (exemple: "Main article: Bla blu blu").


 * C'est exactement ça. Les anglophones appellent ça un "umbrella article".


 * Pour ce qui est du titre, je le crois légitime. L'anglais commande les majuscules pour un titre. Pour une encyclopédie, je crois que les deux sont acceptable. Pour ce qui est d'inclure les différentes mouvances au sein même du souverainisme, je suis entièrement d'accord. Pour cette raison, c'est moi qui ai ajouté la liste d'organizations souverainistes, y soulignant l'UFP. Une section des organizations du passé seraient aussi pertinente (pour le RIN, le RN et l'Alliance Laurentienne, par exemple). J'ai aussi reflété la diversité des groupes en mentionnant, au début, Honoré Mercier (Parti National & Libéral), la motion Francoeur (Libéral), les Patriotes (Parti Patriote), l'Alliance Laurentienne, etc. J'ai aussi mentionné l'ADQ dans la section des alliés et adversaires. On pourra tenter de dépéquiser davantage avec nos prochaines harmonisations qui s'imposent (contrairement pour l'article du Bloc, je considère encore ce que j'ai fait à Quebec Sovereignism comme un work-in-progress :P). Il est toutefois inéluctable et même nécessaire de parler de façon importante du Parti Québécois, l'organisation ayant puissamment contribué à faire carburer l'option depuis quatre décénnies.


 * Bon, nous sommes sensiblement sur la même longeur d'onde. Pour la majuscule, j'avais moi-même créé l'article Quebec Nationalism et on me l'a fait changer pour suivre la convention dans les noms des articles. Je suis à peu près certain qu'on viendra le faire pour toi éventuellement de toute façon. Ça n'a pas beaucou d'importance tant qu'à moi.


 * Finalement, pour la page sur l'indépendantisme, je crois que, si l'on retourne l'histoire à son berceau d'origine, on a l'opportunité de transformer la page Quebec Sovereignism en exposé des diverses tendances dans le souverainisme, notamment ce qu'on pourrait appeler l'indépendantisme... exclusif ou radical... c'est tout ce que je trouve pour le moment, je sais pas si ça décrit bien! Enfin, l'indépendantisme sans "trait-d'union". J'aimerais aussi souligner que je crois légitime et pertinent d'inclure ce type de pensée dans "Quebec Sovereignism" car le souverainisme englobe tous les indépendantisme; par définition, souveraineté et indépendance sont virtuellement synonyme et souverainisme me semble plus apte à servir de "terme-parapluie" que indépendance ou souveraineté-association, justement (d'ailleurs, je tâcherai de modifier l'intro pour ommetre la référence à l'association, pour plutôt en parler plus tard, comme "classe" de pensée au sein du "grand" mouvement "parapluie" souverainiste).


 * Oui, bon, j'ai hésité beaucoup là-dessus personnellement. Chronologiquement, le souverainisme est venu après l'indépendantisme. Le mouvement souverainiste serait donc une branche de l'indépendantisme. Mais il est vrai que l'on parle de souverainisme depuis 40 ans et que beaucoup d'indépendantistes ont changé de vocabulaire après 1968... Pour éviter de confondre les gens, je pense qu'on peut se permettre de considérer le souverainisme comme une grande mouvance incluant l'indépendantisme des premières heures, la souveraineté-association, la souveraineté avec partenariat et la souveraineté tout court (tiens, on revient à la case départ!).


 * (essoufflement) ...Ben voilà! Donne-moi tes opinions et dis-moi ce que tu veux! Tu peux bien me dire ce que tu penses du débat s'il a eu lieu quand tu auras lu ("Martin va rappeller que Ducceppe est indépendantiste... OH NON!!! Run for cover, save the children!" ;)) ou pour qui donc tu crois voter. Merci de tes remarques constructives et à la prochaine!


 * Je vais voter pour le Bloc puisqu'il n'y a pas d'autres choix. Le NDP est bien sympatique, mais il n'est pas prêt à reconnaître le Québec comme une nation sauf dans les discours électoraux. Au moins ils ne nous insultent pas en utilisant l'euphémisme de la société distincte. En ce sens, ils sont plus respectables que les "nationalistes-provincialistes" de Robert Bourassa. Enfin, n'embarquons pas là-dedans! :-) -- Mathieugp 01:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Liberlogos

Fédéralisme et confédéralisme
mention que les souverainistes ne sont pas opposés au fédéralisme et sous-entendant que tous les souverainistes laisseraient tomber leur idéal si le Canada

Je ne crois pas que ça sous-entend ça du tout. Je n'ai certainement pas eu envie de dire ça en tout cas. En langue anglaise, si on dit federalism, ça inclue toutes les formes de fédéralismes, dont le confédéralisme. Deux niveaux de gouvernements en parallèle et division des pouvoirs entre états. Si le Canada est une fédération et non pas un pays unitaire (sur papier on s'entend) c'est en grande partie parce que pour les politiciens du Canada anglais, c'était la meilleure façon de donner l'illusion de pouvoir aux Québécois pour mieux gouverner sans eux dans l'intérêt des britanniques. La majorité des indépendantistes ne le sont pas parce qu'ils s'opposent au fédéralisme comme idée, mais bien parce que le faux-fédéralisme du Canada est une fraude depuis le début, que le gouvernement fédéral se prend pour le gouvernment national de tous les citoyens canadiens et qu'en conséquence il a besoin de pouvoirs législatifs en matière d'économie, d'éducation, de santé, de culture etc. La constitution a été contourné par le fédéral 100 fois. Pour le Canada anglais, ce n'est pas un problème, pour nous s'en est un.

Beaucoup de nationalistes canadien-français étaient des fédéralistes comme tu le sais. Pour eux, c'était une question de principe. Mais les beaux principes du fédéralisme n'ont jamais été respectés deux secondes au Canada. Ce qui motive le mouvement indépendantiste ce n'est pas fondamentalement une objection au fédéralisme, c'est beaucoup plus fort que ça. Nous croyons en l'égalité des peuples, en leur droit fondamental à s'autogouverner. Nous croyons en la démocratie et la souveraineté populaire. Nous sommes une peuple et nous voulons notre propre État souverain. Ça c'est la base. Ce qui nous stimule le plus est un grand idéal de justice de liberté et d'égalité. Cependant, penser cela ne nous met pas en contradiction avec les principes du fédéralisme. Un peuple souverain dans un état souverain pourrait très bien s'entendre avec d'autres états pour former une union. Le Canada anglais présente son histoire comme si elle se comparait à celle des États-Unis. Or nous savons que la vérité est tout autre. Le Québec a été conquis en 1760, puis annexé en 1840 suite à l'échec de la révolution qui aurait fait de nous un peuple libre au même titre que le peuple français ou américain.

Je vais clarifier tout ça prochainement. :-) -- Mathieugp

Seinfeld storytelling
Hi Liberlogos! Thanks for the comments on my Seinfeld contribution. Regarding the nuances and use of the English language, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel appropriate. English is my second language, so I'm not bothered with my contributions being edited, on the contrary, I appreciate it. --Gutza 08:05, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

National Assembly of Quebec
Bonjour,

Yes I did see the diagram on that link but I did not really follow it, because I more or less wanted to show the party standings, but since you requested it, I will of course fix it.

Merci, Earl Andrew 18:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of flags of nations not fully sovereign
Please dig through Talk:List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. Trying to figure out which nations are not fully nations or whether they are nations at all will be too much of a mess. --Jiang 21:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Réponse

 * Le probleme avec Quebec sovereigntism c'est que c'est un néologisme. Il n'existe pas vraiment dans la langue anglaise et les gens qui n'y connaissent rien seront déconcertés. Présentement, l'article Quebec Sovereignism traite du mouvement souverainiste. Il serait donc approprié qu'il se nomme Quebec sovereignty movement, qui sera compris comme « Mouvement pour la souveraineté du Québec » par la majorité des anglophones. Un article intitulé Quebec sovereigntism devrait être beaucoup plus profond et traiter des fondements idéologiques du souverainisme québécois. Cet article devrait exister selon moi, mais pas avant d'avoir été bien préparé. Le fédéralisme a ses origines philosophiques dans The Federalist Papers. Le souverainisme québécois n'a pas de document fondateur célèbre comme ça, mais il a tout de même des fondements rationnels très solides. Il n'est pas non plus opposé au fédéralisme comme tel contrairement à ce que les faux-fédéralistes canadiens et québécois laissent entendre partout où ils vont. Il est par contre opposé au régime fédéral (qui était supposé être confédéral) né de l'AANB en 1867.


 * Pour le souverainisme français, il faudrait qu'il soit très clair que le souverainisme québécois le précède d'une génération et que, mis à part le nom, les deux n'ont que peu de chose en commun.


 * Il est important qu'il y ait un article séparé qui traite de l'histoire du mouvement souverainiste et du mouvement indépendantiste, qui le précède de 10 ans. Beaucoup de gens ne connaissent pas les détails historiques, même chez les souverainistes!


 * Pour ce qui est de List of flags of non-sovereign peoples tu ne t'en sortiras jamais, crois-moi. Avec List of flags of non-sovereign states, ils ne pourraient rien faire pour t'opposer, mais cela incluerait les drapeaux des 50 états américains, des provinces canadiennes etc. Peut-être aussi qu'avec le terme «autonomous regions» tu arriverais à t'entendre avec les impérialistes de wikipedia. La définition d'une région autonome correspond à leur vision des choses : « Vous n'êtes pas des nations, parce que seuls les forts ont le droit à ce titre, mais vous avez tellement chialé que nous avons été forcé de faire un compromis avec vous. Voilà, vous êtes des régions autonomes, maintenant fermer-là! ». Tu perds ton temps si tu comptes leur faire avaler le sens français des mots nation et people. Pour les anglophones, une nation c'est un état souverain, un pays. Le sens premier du mot ne les intéresse pas. Pour ce qui est de people, là c'est pire parce que people veut dire peuple mais aussi n'importe quel groupe de gens! C'est d'une ambiguité incroyable, mais c'est leur réalité. J'avoue que sub-national entity est carrément insultant, tout comme société distinte était le comble de l'euphémisme! Allez dites le vous êtes capables: Quebec is a (conquered, annexed) nation that wants to be free! Un jour ça viendra. ;-)


 * Le meilleur nous est venu de la Cour suprême du Canada dans le fameux renvoi sur la sécession :


 * "... While much of the Quebec population certainly shares many of the characteristics (such as a common language and culture) that would be considered in determining whether a specific group is a "people" ... ".


 * C'est ce que je vais dire maintenant : « Les Québécois ne forment pas un peuple, ils ont seulement plusieurs des caractéristiques qui sont à considérer lorsque vient le temps de déterminer si un groupe particulier forme un peuple ou non. »


 * Un jour je vais prendre le temps de me faire une belle page personelle.

-- Mathieugp 15:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Salut,

En réponse à ton message sur l'utilisation de "even" dans la photo sur Quiet Revolution - je pense qu'il serait peut-être plus utile de décrire la position initiale de Daniel Johnson Sr dans l'article en tant que tel que de résumer sa position avec 'even' sur la photo. Je pense que cette subtilité de langage n'était pas comprise par beaucoup de lecteurs de Wikipedia non familier avec l'histoire de Johnson Sr. Tremblay 17:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fait: Robert Lepage est canadien
Bonjour,

Vous avez changé la phrase "Robert Lepage is a Canadian playwright..." pour "... is a Quebec playwright". Je tiens à vous rappeler que Wikipedia est un espace où il faut tendre le plus possible vers un point de vue neutre sinon on ouvre la porte aux sempiternelles batailles d'édition. Spécifier la nationalité d'un individu est définitivement un fait et est donc neutre. La substitution que vous avez faite s'éloigne de cette neutralité. J'ai remis en place le mot "Canadian" tout en gardant votre contribution. J'espère que cela vous contentera mais j'espère surtout vous avoir sensibilisé au principe de neutralité de Wikipedia pour vos contributions futures. Delta G 18:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * (en réponse à ce que vous m'avez écrit) Juste une note pour commencer. Le terme "Quebecois Canadian", qui me semble pas mal barbare, a été ajouté après moi par un autre usager. J'avais simplement écrit "... is a Canadian and Quebec playwright..." Ce qui me semblait ma foi pas si mal. Ce étant dit, je m'attendais un peu à votre réaction. Vous pouvez faire ce bon vous semble comme par exemple de retirer à nouveau le mot "Canadian" et vous ne me verrez pas essayer de l'ajouter à mon tour. Je lance la serviette. Je considère encore que les termes "Quebec" et "Canadian" sont deux informations pertinentes à propos de Robert Lepage et ce surtout dans une contexte international comme en.wikipedia.org. [Gros soupir] ... J'aurais toujours bien essayé. Bien le bonjour chez vous. Delta G 02:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An American in Canada
I fixed the article on An American In Canada. Bearcat 06:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Francophonie
"Francophonie" is not an English word, and our article resides at Francophony. Perhaps Category:La Francophonie would be a happier category choice? - Nunh-huh 05:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

History
Categorizing an article under Category:FOO history doesn't mean its only about the past, it means that someone trying to find out about the history of FOO will find significant relevant content in the article. Many articles are included in (one or more) categories that their content touches upon. -- Jmabel 22:50, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Speeches
Transcripts of speeches do not belong on Wikipedia. If you want to create an article on Wikisource, that is entirely acceptable. RickK 06:13, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

I also find ironic that you cut the excerpt but left the more complete transcript
 * I did no such thing. I left two paragraphs.  where is the "complete transcript" I am supposed to have left?  And whatever, it makes no difference.  The text does not belong in Wikipedia, and WILL be deleted.  It is unacceptable to keep original source texts here.  That is standard policy and will be enforced.  RickK 19:42, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Acronymes
J'ai mis les acronymes parce que les noms complets étaient trop longs et ne rentraient pas dans une seule ligne (pas en 800x600, ni en 1024x768). Oui, on peut certainement mettre l'Union des artistes dans la catégorie culturelle. -- Mathieugp 02:37, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

À propos du terme État québécois
Je pense que la question du terme État québécois peut être inclu dans un article existant. Peut-être dans Politics of Quebec ou Quiet Revolution ou les deux? Par contre, le terme, son origine et son utilisation (quoi que valide) ne justifie pas un article complet sur le sujet. Comme l'utilisateur RickK te l'a fait savoir (avec un certain manque de tact il est vrai), certaines choses ne sont pas appropriés à Wikipedia. Les textes complets, les transcripts, les manuels sont bon pour Wikisource. Il y a aussi Wikitionary.

Voila, je voulais juste de le laisser savoir. Il est probable qu'on vienne questionner sa pertinence. J'anticipe le même problème pour certains autres petits articles comme Sovereigntist events and strategies, The Three Periods et French America. -- Mathieugp 21:14, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

-- Mathieugp 21:14, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

À propos de l'encyclopédie

 * Voici pourquoi le terme État québécois ne devrait pas être un article. Les arguments, qui ne sont pas les miens mais ceux établis par la communauté wikipédienne il y a belle lurette, se trouvent ici :

What Wikipedia is not

Au point 2. :

''Dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so please do not create an entry merely to define a term. But of course an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic. If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you're interested in working on a wiki dictionary, check out the Wiktionary (http://wiktionary.org) project. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.''

Il y a quantité d'articles qui n'ont pas lieu d'être. L'information qu'ils contiennent peut être très valide, mais ces articles sont squelettiques et finiront par être intégré à d'autres articles qui englobent le sujet dont ils traitent. Les exemples que tu m'as donné sont de cet ordre.


 * History of the Quebec sovereignist movement n'est pas un terme. C'est (ou plutôt c'était) un article qui était appelé à devenir plus riche, donc plus long avec le temps. À l'intérieur de Quebec sovereigntism, l'espace finira par manquer éventuellement.

Pour Opposition to the Charest government et Quebec general election, 2003, il y aura beaucoup de travail à faire pour leur donner un style encyclopédique, et, comme tu l'as mentionné, beaucoup de recherche à faire. Il faudra, par exemple, transformer cette phrase :

Helped by the ideas of the ADQ becoming more and more unpopular as its conservative nature was uncovered, by social democratic measures taken by the PQ government like the passing of the Law against poverty, and the unpopularity of PLQ leader Jean Charest, the Parti Québécois succeded in gaining back popularity in the beginning of 2004 to become again number one in polls.

En quelque chose comme :

''In the beginning of 2004, polls indicated that the PQ was regaining its former popularity. Commentators of the Quebec press suggested that the uncovering of the ADQ's political platform and the unpopularity of Jean Charest among francophones contributed to the repositioning of the PQ.''

La phrase encyclopédique est neutre. Elle évite de dire ce qui ne peut être établie comme une certitude. La phrase journalistique est engagée, elle fait trop souvent passer des opinions pour des faits! attention!

Pour l'instant, je pense que la meilleure chose à faire pour faire connaître le Québec aux anglophones c'est de continuer à améliorer les articles qui traitent de son histoire. Effectivement, il faudra bien attaquer History of Quebec un de ces quatres. Mais si nous allons trop vite, nous allons encore une fois nous retrouver avec un 'Edit War'. Il sera important de bien donner les dates, les lieux, les personnes impliqués. C'est pour ça que j'ai commencé Timeline of Quebec history, qui ne contient que des événements datés.

-- Mathieugp 14:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Irish Quebecers
Salut, Liberlogos: I'm glad to see an article on the subject, since it's a part of Québécois history many people don't really know much about...I didn't know that 40% of Québécois have part-Irish ancestry, or that the Montréal St. Patrick's Day parade is the oldest in North America. I did know about the Johnsons, Ryans, et al.... What about Jean-Pierre Blackburn (is that his name?  I think he was a federal Tory in the 80's???)? -Sewing - talk 00:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Act respecting the exercise etc., etc.
C'est gentil d'être passé faire un tour par ma taolque peïdge, merci. Je crois en effet qu'il y aurait effectivement une certaine pertinence, et même une pertinence certaine à spécifique dans l'article sur la loi C-20 que celle-ci est « invalidée » par la loi E-20 du Québec, cela dit ça ne faisait pas partie de mes projets d'écrire ce nouvel article, et pour tout dire j'essaye de ne pas trop mêler Wikipedia et la politique... ;-) Crée déjà un stobe, j'y ajouterai ceci et cela au besoin. --Valmi 00:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dynasties
Salut, Liberlogos: I think "dynasty" is an appropriate word for the Johnsons. It's different from the word's original meaning ("Ming Dynasty," etc.), but the media often use "dynasty" to describe any situation where two or more generations of a family run a company or lead a country. Anyhow, the list looks good...keep up the good work! -Sewing - talk 12:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Canadian TV shows
See: talk:List of Canadian television series. I believe that it should be understood that Quebec shows are made in Canada, as Quebec is a part of Canada. However I have listed English language shows separately from French language ones to make it clear that Quebec is different culturally. WhisperToMe 07:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Boucher
Je ne crois pas que "Quebecois musician" sonne très anglais. C'est pour ça que j'ai mis french canadian musician. Peut-être on pourrait dire "a musician from Quebec"? --Jcmaco | Talk 23:26, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * On pourrait dire préférablement "Quebec musician", mais on pourrait dire aussi "Quebecois musician" en anglais. --Saforrest 16:06, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Acadia Flag.png
Is it public-domain?


 * It seems like Liberlogos is not available to answer right now. The image is not public domain. It is used on Wikipedia by permission. Updating Image page to reflect this fact... --Valmi[[User_talk:Valmi| &#10002;]] 22:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prérogatives du peuple québécois, suite
Juste te signaler que je me suis finalement décidé à écrire un stobe sur l’Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State, puisque personne d'autre ne le faisait. Par contre, WP est très lent ce soir, dont je ne l'ai wikilinké qu'à Clarity Act. --Valmi[[User_talk:Valmi| &#10002;]]

List of Quebec television series
I've reverted WhisperToMe's redirect. Bearcat 08:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Roosevelt's 1942 Letter To King
Hello,

I'm seeking to confirm a statement that is used on both the Wikipedia articles for Rene Levesque, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The statement on the Rene Levesque page that to my knowledge you updated is:

"He has also stated that, if there had to be one role model for him, it would be American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This is somewhat ironic: Roosevelt's 1942 letter to Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King about Quebecers showed little sympathy to the Québécois people."

The related statement that is on the FDR article is:

"On Monday, May 18, 1942, Roosevelt wrote a private letter to William Lyon Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, in which he discusses that the USA and Canada agree on an unwritten plan aiming to disperse French-Canadians in order to assimilate them more quickly."

I'm seeking to find an additional source, or reference for these statements. Can the private letter in question be viewed in any archives? What was your source for mentioning a 1942 letter from Roosevelt to King? Thanks very much for your time, I had never heard of this letter existing before! Take care, Dave  Kurieeto Nov. 7th 2004

Update: Great, thanks very much for your help in providing additional sources. I greatly appreciate it!

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Unverified images
Hi. You uploaded Image:Jacques Parizeau, La Question de 1995.wav but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Image_copyright_tags for more info. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 17:10, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Also:
 * Image:Jacques Parizeau, On recommence.wav
 * Image:Rene Levesque, Fier d'etre Quebecois.wav
 * Image:Rene Levesque, La Question de 1980.wav
 * Image:Rene Levesque, Si je vous ai bien compris.wav
 * Image:Rene Levesque crowd.jpg
 * Image:Rene Levesque farewell.jpg
 * Image:Rene Levesque honored by Landry.jpg
 * Image:Rene Levesque newspaper.jpg
 * Image:Rene Levesque people.jpg
 * Image:Rene Levesque radio.jpg
 * Image:Rene Levesque speech.jpg
 * Image:René Lévesque, Rendez-vous.wav

And, found by User:Quadell:
 * Image:ONQ Bouchard Jospin.jpg
 * Image:ONQ Bouchard Vigneault.jpg
 * Image:ONQ Chevalier.jpg
 * Image:ONQ Grand Officier.jpg
 * Image:ONQ Landry Depardieu.jpg
 * Image:ONQ Landry Deschamps.jpg
 * Image:ONQ Officier.jpg

Plus, found by Squallwc:
 * Image:Lucien Bouchard, Le concert des nations.wav
 * Image:Lucien Bouchard, Plus que jamais.wav

Quebec sovereignty movement
As a past contributor to this page, can you take a look? There is an editing dispute with User:JillandJack. In my opinion he has made a lot of POV changes. Perhaps you can offer useful suggestions. -- Curps 21:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have now been informed that User:JillandJack has been banned as a reincarnation of a previous banned user named "Angelique". -- Curps 01:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I checked and JillandJack is blocked indefinitely (banned) at this time. -- Curps 05:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quebec stubs
Is currently on TfD. While the idea has potential, it lacks actual support. You might want to come and make your point. Circeus 12:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in setting up a Quebec Wikipedians Notice Board (which we could certainly use), I'd definitely be collaborating. Circeus 03:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
N/P just onr of those things that I do, as for blcoking him that has been taken care of but if you see vandalism in progress by any useer just go to WP:VIP, follow the instructions, and "hopefully" an op will take care of it. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * More then likely just some random jerk, or somone youmight of pissed off under an anon acct or another user acct.

Quebec Wikipedians notice board
You are hereby cordially invited to join the Quebec Wikipedians notice board.

Vous êtes cordialement invité à collaborer au Quebec Wikipedians notice board. Circeus 19:12, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Clitoris envy
Thanks for the tip re. the vfd. I've added a keep. --Lee Hunter 11:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Quebec actors is up for deletion
This was depopulated by JillandJack, and now it's nominated for deletion... -- Curps 22:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Quebec musicians
Even Gilles Vigneault was under Category:Canadian musicians. This category probably needs to be re-populated too, from the Canadian musicians category and List of Quebec musicians. -- Curps 23:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Montreal meeting
Hi, I have an interest in Quebec-related topics (and a few others including astronomy and some Chinese-related topics), but it's unlikely that I'd be able to go to the Montreal meeting. -- Curps 20:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Livre noir
however you put it, saying there is "Quebec bashing" from English Canadian press and a "propaganda offensive of Ottawa against the Quebec sovereignty movement that would later develop into the Sponsorship scandal" is POV. Especially, IMHO, the second part, and would have to at least be specified as "perceived by the author" ("perceived by some" would be a weasel term). Circeus 22:15, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Then the "culminating in" is ambiguous to me, for I read it as if the scandal was a specific pillorying of Québécois people by English ones, rather than the campain being demonstrated in. I think this should be more explicitly explained. Circeus 01:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

vandalized categories
What do you mean by "vandalized?", "depopulated?". Depopulation is slightly expectable in this case (nomination for deletion requires depopulation) but if that's what you call for remedying, then please specificly say so(not wanting to be rude).

When I see "vandalized", I expect to see clearly anti-policy text on the page (blanking, nonsense addition, flagrant POV etc. etc.) Circeus 00:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Quebec Collaboration of the week created
The QCOTW has been created over at WP:QCOTWCirceus 17:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Seperatist vs. Sovreignist
Bon jour, Liberlogos! Une questione, s.v.p. --

You recently edited Unibroue, changing the word "separatist" to "sovreignist". You claimed that "separatist" is a biased word, and asked whether this was still news to English Canada.

Frankly, yes! English CBC uses the term "separatist" freely, perhaps exclusively. What is the bias you think this term reflects? That is, what is the difference? The terms appear to be virtually equivalent in this context, to me. (As such, I have no problem with "sovreignist" being used in Unibroue, especially if that is the word preferred in Quebec.)

Viva Québec! Somegeek 20:13, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for your insightful response. I am convinced!  May I never again say "Quebec separatist" when I mean to say "Quebec sovereignist".


 * But, if I may play devil's advocate, I still wonder how much is bias and how much is merely dialect. There have been many English-speaking Canadians who referred to themselves as "separatists" (for instance, the Separation Party of Alberta).  One could argue that they were merely attempting to draw on the negative, frightening connotations you suggest the word has, and that their arguments about sovereignty are disingenuous.  However, I don't think that would be taken very well by one of the "separatists".


 * You make a very good point that I agree with when you say that "the vision that others have of a society should conform to its reality inside," and I guess I am to suppose that the language of a society does or should reflect its vision. I think its obvious that language can be a very effective social engineering tool, I just don't know whether it should be used that way.  I don't really want to strew either of our tongues with verbal landmines for well-intentioned people to step on.


 * I guess your point is that in Quebec, "separatist" has already become one of those loaded words, that it's a landmine with a bright orange flag on it, and so should just be avoided. Your original comment seemed to indicate that it's been out of fashion to say for long enough that English Canada should already be aware of this.  But, I'm still not sure the word is reflects bias when used outside of Quebec.  For instance, I don't think that the CBC is expressing a bias when they use the term.  (Which is not to say they may not be biased, I cannot say.  I'm just not sold on the idea that using the word reflects an anti-Sovreinist position.)


 * One has to be especially careful with these sorts of issues. I think this sort of semantic arguement often has more to do with keeping the issue on TV and in newspapers than it does with a genuine desire to find the best possible tools for discussion.  Dire warnings of external threats and oppression are the standard fare of those who would motivate others to vote for them for no good reason.  For example, the word "survivance" seems quite quaint now that it's clear that Quebec culture is thriving, while most of the rest of Canadian culture still struggles to be perceptable over the noise.


 * Just for the record, I believe (somewhat religiously; that is, I take it on faith for now) that a truly free society needs to provide a peaceful mechanism for seccession. (I am surprised you find "sécessioniste" to be a combative word.)  Thanks to the Parti Québécois, Canada may now have that peaceful mechanism, but it's not really certain.  Because of my belief, and because they are otherwise compatible with my politics, I am a pretty rare thing: a vocal (if uninformed) supporter of PQ in Ontario.  If we had an election next month, and I had the option, I would vote PQ.  However, I don't want to see Quebec leave our federation any more than I would BC, or my home town.  I'd much rather see the PQ work towards reducing federal power all across Canada.


 * Thanks for the reply! I do agree that "sovreinist" is the mot juste, I just like to argue.  Somegeek 14:59, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Circeus 01:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project
You voted for Decolonization, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

COTW Project
You voted for History of Quebec, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Bloc
Benoit, I am responding here because of the Wikipedia poicy against using talk pages as chat rooms.


 * What I wrote above would have to be formatted, but also altered, since it analyses the left-wing aspects only while the aspects that do not fit in the left-right spectrum are not treated, since this was not the object of the work. I'll probably start working on adapting it when I have the time.

I agree. Some work will be needed to adapt what you wrote to the article.


 * Please don't hesitate to ask me if you want to know about another aspect of their platform, or any Quebecois party platform.

You may have noticed that I have done a fair bit of work on articles about minor political parties in Canada (as "Kevintoronto"), of which Quebec has had more than its fair share. In particular, I am fascinated by the trials and tribulations of the various social credit parties (Ralliement créditiste du Québec, Parti National Populaire, Les Démocrates) and their leaders. (If I recall correctly, I created those three articles.) I recognize that this is probably not within the intention of your offer as you probably mean current parties, but I'll ask anyway.


 * About all that, I would like to ask this: how aware are Canadians... that he Bloc is social democratic?

I cannot speak for all English Canadians, only for myself. I pay more attention to politics than the average person, and you know now that my view of the BQ's economic policy was not well-informed. On the other hand, there may well be a lot of people who assume, as Earl did, that the Bloc's policies were similar to those of the PQ, and therefore social democratic.


 * ...that the sovereigntist movement is overwhelmingly progressive & pacifist; that its major figures are labour unions, poets, artists?

I would point out that, in the past, there has been a strong conservative element to the nationalist tendency in Quebec, as expressed by the UN, the SSJB and by créditisme. Of course, the side of sovereigntism represented by the PQ, the trade unions and artists is quite different.


 * ...that while the very idea of independence has the support of around half of the population, the idea that Quebec is a nation is endorsed by a comfortable majority of the population AND all parties and leaders of the National Assembly of Quebec, including Jean Charest, a former federal party leader?

I think that Quebec as a nation is understood by English Canadians who have read about history and politics. You may not be aware that the proposal that the PC Party adopt a policy of deux nations (always expressed in French) almost tore the party apart in 1967 (see Progressive Conservative leadership convention, 1967, an article that I researched and wrote). The dispute centred around whether deux nations meant "two nations", as its opponents argued, or or it meant "two peoples" as its supporters argued. This highlights the difference in understood meaning between "nation" and nation.


 * ...finally, that sovereigntists don't eat babies for supper? ;-P --Liberlogos 22:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, not all of them. But I am sure that there would be some who would quite happily pull up a chair at Stephen Harper's table and dig into a nice tarte aux bébés if given the chance (see Pierre Laporte). I think what you have to keep in mind is that many English Canadians are passionately attached to the idea of a Canada that includes Quebec, one that is a marriage of English and French. People who are trying to destroy that ideal are, of course, not going to be well-received.

In addition, I think that it is fair to say that there is a sense that the sovereigntist side does not always play fair. From my perspective, the 1980 referendum asked a fair question in that it did not promise association with the rest of Canada, it only sought a mandate to negotiate association, subject to a second vote on the outcome of theose negotiations. The 1995 referendum, on ther other hand, promised an association that had not been negotiated. It is clear that what sovereigntists believe would be fair terms of association would not be seen to be fair by English Canadians. I have seen various proposals over the years with regard to post-separation arrangements that I have thought to be absolutely ludicrous. I agree that an association would be in the best interests of both sides, and, in fact, would be necessary to maintain economic stability in the short and the long run. But I think we have to be very careful in assuming that it will be easy to come to an agreement when what is considered to be 'reasonable' by each side will be very different.

Of course, it would also be fair to say that the federalist side has not played fair, as the Gomry enquiry is showing.

As well, I think that many English Canadians would share my view that the sovereigntist side has often unfairly portrayed English Canada and English Canadians. While English Canada has visited great sins on French Canada in the past, it has also treated French Canada very well in recent decades, and Quebec has received considerable benefits from confederation. I think that the sovereigntist side dwells on the past sins, and fails to acknowledge the benefits.

As far as individual sovereigntists go, I have no problem with them. I had a roommate and friends when I lived in Ottawa who voted "oui" in 1995 (when they were living in Quebec), and I respected their decisions even if I disagreed with them. I hope this answers your questions. Regards, Kevin Ground Zero 18:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Benoit, thanks for you message. I will respond in more detail at a later time. For the moment, I will note a couple of things:


 * 1) By profession, I am an economist, so I cannot possibly explain social credit. I will nonetheless try in order to understand it better myself. I don't think that the Wikipedia article explains it well.
 * 2) I hope that you have noticed the quotation from Camil Samson that I put into his article:
 * In the 1970 Quebec election campaign, in an unfortunate moment of rhetorical transport, Samson delivered this line in reference to the government against which he was running: "Ladies and gentlemen, the Union Nationale has brought you to the edge of the abyss. With Social Credit, you will take one step forward."
 * Regards, Kevin, Ground Zero 20:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "the rest of my message, I did not want to start an argument and if it seems so, I did not intend to... Let's not get into anything bitter. ;) " Oh no, I didn't think that at all. I read your message as meaning that you want to engage in a discussion, not an argument, and I look forward to that. I will reply soon. Ground Zero 12:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Social credit
Here is an attempt to explain social credit, starting with a passage from a C.H. Douglas text that I lifted from a New Zealand social credit site some time ago:
 * A factory or other productive organization has, besides its economic function as a producer of goods, a financial aspect - it may be regarded on the one hand a device for the distribution of purchasing power to individuals, through the media of wages, salaries and dividends, and on the other hand as a manufactory of prices - financial values. From this standpoint its payment may be divided into two groups.
 * Group A. - All payments made to individuals (wages, salaries and dividends).
 * Group B. - All payments made to other organizations (raw materials, bank charges, and other external costs).
 * Now the rate of flow of purchasing power to individuals is represented by A, but since all payments go into prices, the rate of flow of prices cannot be less than A plus B. Since A will not purchase A plus B, a proportion of the product at least equivalent to B must be distributed by a form of purchasing power which is not comprised in the description grouped under A.
 * - (C.H. Douglas, The Monopoly of Credit, 1951 edition p.140)

The "A - B Theorem" seems to be at the root of social credit ideology. It was a remarkably simlpe approach to economics, which is a notably non-simple discipline. I think that that is why it was so attractive. The Theorem was used by William Aberhart and others to explain the Great Depression -- consumers did not have enough money to buy the good that they made. This explained why the shops were full of goods but had no customers, and people wanted to buy goods, but did not have the money to do so. "Poverty amidst plenty" was a social credit catch-phrase.

The social crediters' solution was for the government to print money equal to A - B and distibute it to consumers (see prosperity certificate), and balance the economic equation again.

The fact that the economic conditions described above all changed as the Depression ended, and that we have not seen a return to those conditions in the last 70 years does not seem to have deterred modern social crediters like John C. Turmel.

Where this theory falls apart is the assumption that Group B payments do not return to consumers. These other costs do return to consumers in some way. Raw materials must be extracted or harvested, using labour and machinery made by labour. Interest costs return to consumers when the profits of banks are paid out to the shareholders of the banks as corproate dividends. Taxes fund government services including income redistribution and the salaries of civl servants. All this money returns to consumers.

The beauty and fallacy of social credit was its simplicity. It was so simple that the average person could understand, and so simple that it failed to illustrate how the economy actually works.

Does this help? Ground Zero 18:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Quebec election map
Bonjour, I have placed the map there, due to consistency. If someone comes to the page and notices there is no map like for all the other provinces, they may be tempted to create one, without checking the rest of the article. Perhaps it could be moved to the next paragraph, but it shouldn't be near the bottom. Merci, -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:2003 Quebec general election, Le Devoir.jpg
Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 09:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Image Tag
Thanks for uploading Image:Ceinture flechee.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as no source. Could you add a better tag to let us know its copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add gfdl if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding NoRightsReserved. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add &#123;&#123;fairuse&#125;&#125;. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks so much, Superm401 | Talk 20:52, May 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are a bunch above from others as well. Superm401 | Talk 20:52, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK pour lundi
Ça va pour le lundi 13 juin. Est-ce toujours à l'Utopik ?

-- Mathieugp 16:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Va pour le 15 alors. :-) -- Mathieugp 11:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Va pour le Laika... -- Mathieugp 16:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin
Bonjour - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Merci. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging
Can you please tag Image:Parizeau and Landry.jpg? If you have questions, ask on my talk page. Superm401 | Talk July 4, 2005 17:00 (UTC)

Re: Les Patriotes
Hi. With regard to the link between Patriot (American Revolution) and Lower Canada Rebellion, I do not think there is a direct relationship. If someone wanted to learn more about the American Patriots, they wouldn't find anything about them in the article on the Lower Canada Rebellion. Perhaps an article could be written about patriotic struggles throughout the world; and perhaps this article could mention how several patriotic movements got inspiration from each other. Then, perhaps, a "see also" reference to that article would be appropriate. &mdash; Fingers-of-Pyrex July 5, 2005 14:42 (UTC)

Greetings
A page that you joined to help with associate with other members of the Wikipedia community is on VfD. Please see Votes for deletion/Wikipedian citizens of the world, and the related page Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. In solidarity with an independent, REPUBLICAN Quebec!!!, Cognition 09:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Birthday
--User:Jenmoa 03:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
I am giving you this barnstar to let you know that I too feel your Wikistress. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)



French Canadian
Liberlogos, with all due respect, this en wikipedia, and FC is the term that has overwhelming currency in the English-speaking world. The term Québécois, for instance, is virtually unknown in English-speaking countries outside of Canada. I'm sorry if your srongly pro-Québec nationalism POV obscures this reality for you. The term is widely used everyday in newspapers, academic proceedings, books, colloquial speech, etc., so I find that your assertion that many people have never even heard the term simply incredible. Sorry if you don't like the term, but it is not going away anytime soon. Just look, for example, at how many wikipedia articles point to "French-Canadian", or see how many more Google hits there are for "French Canadian" there are than for "Québécois". Besides, there are a lot of francophones in Canada that have no or only a slight connection to Québec that would take exception to your Québec-centrism. And certainly, hardly anybody in the wider world uses or even knows some of the province specific-terms. In any case, there is no call for italicising what is a perfectly good &mdash; and certainly not obsolete &mdash; English-language phrase. Regards, Fawcett5 06:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Prochaine rencontre
Je ne peux pas dimanche le 4 sept. -- Mathieugp 13:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Image tags
Greetings. In case you haven't seen, images that have been uploaded without proper source and licensing information are now candidates for speedy deletion. I noticed you have uploaded several images that are not tagged. Also, fair use images must be tagged with a fair use rationale as per Fair use. Just wanted to give you the chance to tag them before they got deleted; I deleted one of yours that would not be fair use but have left the rest for now. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which, as I didn't look at all of them, just picked a handful at random after noticing one tagged as having no source given... probably best if you go through all of your contribs from the image namespace that you're not sure of and double-check. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is a list (generate by Beland) of the un-sourced images you've uploaded. - Image:Assemblee_Nationale_du_Quebec_la_nuit.jpg, Image:Bloc_Crowd.jpg, Image:Bouchard_and_Chirac_in_Paris.jpg, Image:Bouchard_&_Chretien_Divided.jpg, Image:Bouchard_&_Parizeau,_Referendum.jpg, Image:De_Gaulle,_Vive_le_Quebec_libre.jpg, Image:Duceppe_looking_up.jpg, Image:Gilles_Duceppe.jpg, Image:Jacques_Parizeau,_Portrait.jpg, Image:Landry_and_the_bust_of_Levesque.jpg, Image:Lesage_Johnson_and_Levesque.jpg, Image:Opposition_to_Charest,_Arret.jpg, Image:Opposition_to_Charest,_Buses.jpg, Image:Opposition_to_Charest,_Mask_of_Charest.jpg, Image:Opposition_to_Charest,_National_Assembly.jpg, Image:Referendum_1980,_The_Flag_and_the_People.jpg, Image:Rene_Levesque_honored_by_Landry.jpg, Image:Rene_Levesque_smile.jpg, Image:Rene_Levesque_speaks.jpg - sorry they are not wikified; you can see the wikified versions at User:Pearle/by-author-Category:Images_with_unknown_source.txt. Good luck. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

L-J Papineau Image
I see that you found a public domain image of Louis-Joseph Papineau. Can I ask where, as it might help me with a current project. Thanks. Jkelly 06:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging
First, I recommend that you read Image copyright tags for complete information on how to tag your images. For this particular one(I'm assuming you mean Image:Parizeau and Landry.jpg), we would need to know the exact source of the image. You may have found it thorugh Yahoo, but the real source was probably an external news agency, such as AP(Associated Press). I'll look and see if I can find an archive indicating the true source. If not, I'll have to nominate the image for deletion. Also, correct me if you weren't referring to the image I mentioned. Superm401 | Talk 03:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't find it. I'll give you some time to look, but I'm tagging it no source, which means it can be deleted in 7 days if you don't provide an exact source.  P.S. Can you take another look at Parizeau Affair.  You're vague about a lot of details, which makes it hard for an outsider to get a good grasp of what happened.  For example, what did the web site say, and what was accurate and what was exaggeration.  What was said during the debate, exactly?  Some background on the refrerendum would help too. Superm401 | Talk 03:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, someone recommended that I refer you to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use regarding the AP photo issue. It's an ongoing discussion. Superm401 | Talk 13:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Liberlogos
The page "Liberlogos" was deleted. Under our criteria for speedy deletion, "Redirects can be immediately deleted... They redirect from the main article space to the User: space". Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)