Talk:Quebec/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Quebec. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

René Lévesque BAnQ P243S1D865.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Religious demographic numbers - citation and vagueness

What appears to be the main source for the provided religious demographic numbers is no longer available on the main site page provided, and there appears to be no archive.org page available. Moreover, the distinction given here between 'Orthodox Christian' and 'Greek Orthodox' is impermissibly vague. If the cited page explained or attempted to explain this distinction, it is, again, no longer available (At least in the provided form or as an archive.org page), and it really should have been cleared of vagueness within the section itself, if cited at all. The section should be revised with or without the original citation, although the actual availability of this citation is important for the character of the revision. Zusty001 (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

English and Indigenous Languages should be included in a Common languages section

English is a widely spoken language in Montreal, Rigaud, Northern Quebec, and the Eastern Townships while Indigenous languages are spoken in First Nations communities across Quebec. Such a section should be created since these ethnic groups are an integral part of Quebec society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhaetianlombard (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Dispute about Infobox content

An issue has come up: should the infobox to this article contain the field "government_type", filled in with "Parliamentary constitutional monarchy". Since this issue affects all ten provinces and the three territories, a Request for Comment has been started on the Canadian Wikipedians Notice Board. If you interested in this issue, please come to the Notice Board and contribute to the discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, the question as presented in this notice is not the same as in the RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Oldest parish church?

The article says: "The oldest parish church in North America is the Cathedral-Basilica of Notre-Dame de Québec". Is that really true? The article Cathedral-Basilica of Notre-Dame de Québec doesn't include this claim, only that it is the oldest church in Canada (founded 1633). The Catedral Metropolitana Basílica de San Juan Bautista founded 1511, is much older. Maybe that doesn't count as North America? Sources I google refer to Puerto Rico as part of the north american continent. The San Miguel Mission in New Mexico was founded in 1610, and this is unambiguously in North America. Does the term "parish church" have a specific meaning that excludes San Miguel Mission? Staecker (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I've looked into it for you. What this passage is refering to is not that the building itself is the oldest church in North America, but that the parish that runs it is the oldest parish in North America. Churches with parishes are usually called "parish churches". Maybe it should be re-written to be clearer? idk Safyrr 22:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Add "the only majority Francophone province in Canada" in the lead

It makes sense IMHO because the history and language debates are in large degree shaped by this fact. The lead does not make it clear.

Cf. New Brunswick: It is the only province with both English and French as its official languages. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of term "Quebecois"

In French, the term "Quebécois" just refers to anything pertaining to Quebec. In English, however, it's more of a cultural term: it can refer to anyone in Quebec whose first language is French, anybody in Quebec who is descended from the inhabitants of New France, or sometimes to anybody from Quebec, or just the Francophone culture of Quebec generally. It's a term with a lot of ambiguities in English, and if not used carefully can be misleading, especially for people from outside Quebec who are unaware of its complicated meanings.

This article uses the term "Quebecois" to describe everything - all people from Quebec, all companies based in Quebec, the territory of Quebec... in French that would be fine, but in English it just makes the text sometimes confusing. So I'm revising the article's use of the term to be clearer. I'm going to leave usages intact where it refers to identity, culture, or community that is normally described as "Quebecois," but change it when it refers to concepts where culture isn't really relevant. So "Quebecois territory" will become "the territory of Quebec," "The median Quebecois age is___" will become "the median age," etc. I won't touch the "Quebecois nation" line in the intro however since there seems to have been a lot of debate about that. theBOBbobato (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I have mentioned this before, which got ignored and is now safe in the archive: the opening section should be changed from:

Quebec (/kəˈbɛk/ kə-BEK, sometimes /kwəˈbɛk/ kwə-BEK; French: [Québec] Error: {{Lang}}: invalid parameter: |link= (help) [kebɛk] ^ⓘ)...

to:

Quebec (/k(w)ɪˈbɛk/ k(w)ih-BEK;^[a] French: [Québec] Error: {{Lang}}: invalid parameter: |link= (help) [kebɛk] ^ⓘ)...

Reason? No sources are given to justify the current version. CEPD gives UK: /kwɪˈbɛk, kwəˈbɛk, kɪˈbɛk, kəˈbɛk/, US: /kwɪˈbɛk, kwəˈbɛk, kɪˈbɛk/, plus /kɛˈbɛk/ as an as if French pronunciation. COD gives /kwəˈbɛk, kəˈbɛk, keɪˈbɛk/. First, following MOS:DIAPHONEMIC, if there is variation between /ɪ/ and /ə/, it is generally enough to only give the pronunciation with /ɪ/ (unless, perhaps, the schwa is significantly more common, even among speakers who do not generally have the weak vowel merger, as in item /ˈaɪtəm/, rarely /ˈaɪtɪm/); we can ignore the fact that /kəˈbɛk/ is for some reason used in Britain but not in America, according to CEPD. Second, even if /keɪˈbɛk/ is not mentioned in CEPD, it is worth taking note of, since Quebec is located in Canada, and COD includes this variant (albeit placing it last, hence its inclusion within a footnote, not the main text). Third, there is no reason to place the pronunciation without the glide second or, the more so, to amend it with the adverb sometimes. This seemed to be a result of Quebec nationalist agenda of some sort and the desire to reflect the French pronunciation; there were no pertinent arguments to back it. Before being changed by User:Safyrr, this article contained the transcription /k(w)ɪˈbɛk/. This should be reason enough to go through with my edit, and, as I feel there is not much to discuss here, this is what I am going to do. Maciuf (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

References

[1]
Barber, Katherine, ed. (2004). "Quebec". The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195418163.
[2]
Jones, Daniel (2011). Roach, Peter; Setter, Jane; Esling, John (eds.). "Quebec". Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary (18th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-15255-6.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)

Notes

[a]
Also /kɛˈbɛk/ ke-BEK in imitation of French. Some Canadians say /keɪˈbɛk/ kay-BEK.^[1]^[2]

So, I understand that you want to include a certain pronounciation, which is "Kwee-Bek", in the lead paragraph. I don't have any problems with this personally, I know some people say it that way. What I don't get is why you want to remove the other pronounciations -the most common of "Kuh-Bec" and also alternative "Kwuh-bek"- to replace them with only this one and why you think other pronounciations are the result of a Quebec nationalist agenda? Safyrr 02:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you know how MOS:DIAPHONEMIC works for weak vowels? You probably do not if you allege that I 'removed the other pronunciations'; as a matter of fact, /k(w)ɪˈbɛk/ is synonymous with /kwɪˈbɛk, kwəˈbɛk, kɪˈbɛk, kəˈbɛk/. It is nice that you want to help out, but it is recommended that when doing so you refer to reliable sources, which do not happen to include your personal fancy. I would also much rather you had undertaken the task of educating yourself (onerous as it may be in certain cases) before endeavouring to waste my time on this pointless discussion. If you have any cogent arguments against my edit, be kind enough and put them forth (why should we not follow standard brevity procedures in this case; on what basis do you deem the pronunciation with /w/ rare enough to justify supplying it with the preposition 'also'?). So far you have not presented any line of reasoning whatsoever for me to dispute. I am to assume good will, but it must nevertheless be admitted that your hypocrisy is astounding: when I introduce an edit backed by multiple reputable sources, it turns out I ought to have waited for consensus; when you throw away a claim sustained by the OED, favouring in its place your own fanciful notion, it turns out no consensus is necessary. I do not want to start an edit war; I am trying my best to be patient, but please acknowledge this: your edit was not evidence-based, you have no valid rationale. Try not to be difficult. Maciuf (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Safyrr, please acknowledge the above. Maciuf (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Omg, dude, you need to calm down and learn how to talk to other people! All I'm asking is why you remove other pronouciations and why you think some ways of saying Quebec in English is related to Quebec nationalism? That literally makes no sense, and you didn't answer why. There are plenty of ways to say the word "Quebec" in English. There is only an official spelling. Using spellings in a dictionnary is also not an end-all-be-all because wikipedia articles are also about reflecting how things are said in real life, not just what an obscure dictionary says. I don't know, in fact, know how MOS:DIAPHONEMIC stuff works. Sorry for being a normal person. I also did not respond to you the day after because I have a life lol. Anyway, not gonna bother to continue talking to you or to correct you. You obviously just want to win a fight and "how to say Quebec" is just not that important to me. Safyrr 20:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I have re-added |k|w||ə|ˈ|b|ɛ|k| , it is a very common pronunciation in Canada. Here it is used by a TV reporter and an interviewee in Montreal: . Perhaps the guy/gal at the top should have asked a Canadian before edit-warring and making personal attacks. Rapido (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Largest province

"Dissatisfied with the many rights..."

There's been a bit of an exchange between @Safyrr: and @Amaaretz: on this page, with deletions and restorations and questions about whether a statement is properly sourced. I would like to comment on it, as I think there is a misunderstanding about what the cited source says.

The dispute is over this paragraph, currently in the article:

Dissatisfied with the many rights granted to Canadiens and wanting to use the British legal system to which they were accustomed, the Loyalists protested to British authorities until the Constitutional Act of 1791 was enacted, dividing the Province of Quebec into two distinct colonies...

Safyrr says that this paragraph is supported by the cite at the head of the paragraph: Loyalistes, but Amaaretz disagrees.

I think that the passage which Safyrr is relying on is this one:

Le Gouverneur Haldimand incite donc les nouveaux venus à s’établir dans le Haut-Canada, ce qui deviendra, plus tard, l’Ontario. À l’époque ce vaste territoire est considéré une partie du Québec et le droit français s’applique aux nouveaux arrivants, de même que le régime seigneurial classique. Les nouveaux colons d’origine britannique en sont mécontents, parce que ce droit laisse moins de place à l’initiative des individus.

I do not interpret this key passage the same way that Safyrr does, avec égards. The passage does not say that the British colonists were dissatisfied with the "many rights" that the French-Canadians had. It talks about "le droit", not many "droits"; that is, it's referring to the "French law", not to "rights" of French-Canadians.

The second sentence says that the same law from the seigneurial regime, which applied to French-Canadians, also applied to the new British colonists: "le droit français s’applique aux nouveaux arrivants, de même que le régime seigneurial classique." I would translate this sentence as "the French law applied to the new arrivals, the same as the classical seigneurial régime." That's what they didn't like, the application of the seigneurial régime. They were "mécontents", "parce que ce droit laisse moins de place à l’initiative des individus." I would translate the phrase as they were dissatisfied, "because this law did not leave as much to the initiatives of individuals." Again, "ce droit", singular, means in this context "this law", i.e. the seigneurial régime. It's not a jealousy of the rights accorded to the original habitants.

Based on this analysis, I would suggest re-wording the passage in the article as follows, which I think is more consistent with the cited source than is the current wording in dispute:

"Dissatisfied with the legal rights under the French seigneurial régime which applied in Quebec, and wanting to use the British legal system to which they were accustomed, the Loyalists protested to British authorities ..."

How does that sound? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and your analysis. I think this conversation belongs here, and I am unsure why it was initiated on my personal talk page.

While I do not object to the substance of your language, I object to the notion of substituting one acceptable language with another, for the sole purpose of placating a specific editor. The only acceptable reason for a change would be the credibility of a fact or source.

I also think that your language, while factually correct, is a bit reduntandt. The British were "Dissatisfied with the legal rights under the French seigneurial régime which applied in Quebec" because they were accustomed to their own and didn't like having to adhere to a foreign one under their own rule. I'd also rephrase it to read: "Dissatisfied with their legal rights under the French seigneurial régime which applied in Quebec".

Beyond the 3 small objections I've made, I don't have any issues with your language and I thank you for your insights! Amaaretz (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That change sounds good to me. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz wording and support this replacement. I disagree with what Amaaretz has suggested as it adds nothing that has not already been said. I would also like to remind @Amaaretz that the only reason we having a discussion here is to placate a single editor, them, since they have an issue with the current text and have never submitted any sources to support their claims at any time. Safyrr 20:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I've put in the new suggested phrasing. Safyrr 20:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Why doesn't the native name of Quebec in French appears at the top of the article ? "Québec"

So i'm asking the question like it's the main and official language of the province. Axtoche2002 (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Native name parameter was removed from the template after many talks. Moxy-

02:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Because the people who control this page are oblivious to and uncaring about Anglo-colonial imperialism, just as most Anglophones are. It is ABSOLUTELY Québec and those who assert it is kwee-back or kwuh or kwi-beck are ignorant delusionals. It is offensive that Wiki editors continue to do the bidding of the conquering English (now Anglo-Canadians) who ultimately lost in Québec as a result of the Quiet Revolution. Québec is a unique FRENCH-speaking place that is only called "Qwuh-back" by ignorant anglos and Francophone and Anglophone politicians looking to score cheap political points.

Wikipedia is a joke if it's bar for factual info is "how is everyone else doing it" in the pseudo-facts space that is often modern media. Ridiculous. Change the flipping spelling to Québec on ALL references other than those explaining the use of "Kwuhbeck/Quebec" to readers, including the FACT that French language "qu" is never pronounced "kw" Wow! It's like French is an entirely different language, with different pronunciation rules! Get a clue Wikipedia. 24.17.89.145 (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll try altering this passage to be more inclusive and to not take up so much space first thing Safyrr 17:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia for an English-language readership, which means we write our content in English. We do not privilege the spelling in the "main official language", we preference the spelling seen in English — because our responsibility here is not to the government of Quebec, it's to English-speaking readers. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

However, the infobox has a field for "other name" which has "Québec", but that is not displaying in the infobox. Why is that? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Because that parameter no longer exists in the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

So we should bring it back, every english wiki page of another ethno-linguistic region has its native name in second line.

Same for New brunswick. 2A01:CB01:104E:3C86:0:5E:ACE:DA01 (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Like it is sort of offending to have twice the english name in the first line as well as being useless. 2A01:CB01:104E:3C86:0:5E:ACE:DA01 (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone update this or should we have to wait 2050??? 2A01:CB01:43:708D:0:14:1B12:AE01 (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"Lower Quebec" listed at Redirects for discussion

Seni-protected edit request

What the hell is up with the missing accent?

Unfair removal of my edits

@Nikkimaria Why have you been deleting my edits? Wrobeli (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Wrobeli, your edits introduced many grammatical errors. For example, you wrote that "The traditional Quebecois cuisine descend from 16th-century French cuisine, the fur trade and a history of hunting. Quebec's cuisine has also been influence by learning from First Nation, and in addition to that by English cuisine and by American cuisine." "Cuisine" is a singular noun so "descends" as previous is the correct form of the verb; the cuisine has been "influenced", not "influence"; and "in addition to that" is unnecessary in the middle of a three-item list. Similar issues occur across pretty much all of the changes you proposed. Additionally you proposed the insertion of an image demonstrating clog dancing, but the image does not well illustrate that concept - the dancers' feet are not visible. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria. The article is written in Canadian English according to Canadian conventions, since the topic at hand is related to Canada. Indeed, that appears to be the standard upheld across all Wikipedia articles, the word "Center" as it would appear in an article about New York would appear as "Centre" in an article about Alberta.

With that being said, this is the Wikipedia article about the province of Quebec. The edits I proposed conform to the way that English is often spoken in Quebec, I am not from Quebec although having spent a great deal of time there I can confirm. Endings like "nds" and "ced" are often replaced by "nd" and "ce". It would be more fitting for the article on Quebec to be written in the Quebecois dialect of Canadian English. Wrobeli (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's appropriate for the article to be written in formal Canadian English rather than trying to replicate a spoken dialect. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, Quebec English doesn't throw basic grammar out the window - especially in written English. If there's a particular conjugation that's of debate, let's see a source of the usage from something like the Montreal Gazette. Nfitz (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Atlantic and Arctic Oceans???

@FrancSoisD and Freshacconci: I'm not sure Quebec is "flanked by" any oceans. Am I missing something? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the changes strictly because of the note about discussing changes. Better to keep things as is until consensus is found. Otherwise, I'm not certain. Does being flanked by Ungava Bay mean it cannot also be flanked by the Atlantic which is just right there. The article on Labrador for example states that it is on the Atlantic Ocean, but between the Atlantic and Labrador is the Labrador Sea. For a general introduction, positioning Quebec geographically along the Atlantic makes more sense to non-specialists than just the more obscure Ungava Bay. Not sure about the Arctic Ocean, as that seems to be further way. In either case, this is outside my area of knowledge. freshacconci (✉) 20:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Freshacconci & @Magnolia677, by many geographers' views, Quebec isn't flanked by / adjacent to any actual oceans.

Regarding the Atlantic Ocean, Quebec's eastern maritime regions are contiguous to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, yet separated from the Atlantic by the islands of Newfoundland, St. Paul and Cape Breton. For a ship leaving the province, the ocean is only accessible through the straits of Belle Isle, Cabot and Canso (small vessels only). The north-eastern Quebec part of the Labrador peninsula is also separated from the Atlantic Ocean by the Labrador side of the peninsula, as well as Nunavut's Resolution Island, which somewhat "encloses" the strait at its eastern end, hence separating it from the Labrador Sea. From the north of the province, a ship would have to go through the Strait of Hudson to access the Labrador Sea (which could effectively be considered as part of the Atlantic Ocean, since it isn't enclosed on its south side connecting with the ocean).

Regarding the Arctic Ocean, a widely accepted definition is that its southern limit lies on the Arctic Circle. Yet other definitions exist, but some of them can be contested as they're not coherent with how oceans are usually defined. For instance, no geograph would ever consider the Caribbean Sea to be part of the Atlantic, since a barrier of islands marks the separation between both bodies of water. Same shall apply to the Arctic archipelago. FrancSoisD (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 2025 March 19

Discovery of Quebec

Detail

@Safyrr: This article is meant to provide a high-level overview of Quebec - the level of detail here is overall excessive, and in particular discussion of what motivated the Age of Exploration is better discussed at a different article. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You finally posted on the talk page! I agree that this is not an article meant to focus on the details of European exploration. But, it also doesn't? This is only a single sentence. If you remove it, it would seem that France begins to explore New France and colonize it for no reason. Also the British and Spanish are involved later, also for no reason apparently. This is what I've been working on in recent edits, to improve the flow so the events leading into one another connect a bit more and make more sense instead of just seeming like "this random thing happened in 1834". As for detail, well Newfoundland's history section is more detailed and long than this one. Safyrr 18:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you on that last point, but that's not a reason for this one to be the same. We have multiple other articles, not to mention a standalone article on the history of Quebec, to talk about all of the motivating factors for European involvement in North America; that just isn't the purpose of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You seem to not be addressing what I said and just repeating your opinion...

1) This is a single sentence so you really gain nothing by removing it, like shortening the article. What is actually harmful about this sentence?

2) This sentence improves flow by providing context. Readers should not need to click to multiple different in-depth articles in order to understand why something in the one they are reading now is happening. Especially if only a single sentence is all that is needed to provide that understanding. Maybe you believe that the Age of Exploration details is common knowledge, and that is why you think it should be removed? You seem to be suggesting that the History of Quebec article is why the sentence should not be included. But, then, if we extrapolate this logic, why include a history section in the main article at all? Why not just redirect to that article and be done with it? And its not like 21 words is excessive detail that needs to be moved there.

3) Taking your logic, if Newfoundland's length and detail doesn't matter, because Quebec's has no reason to be the same, then why would other articles' omissions or shortness matter either? Safyrr 18:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

1) I don't agree with your contention that this sentence belongs here, and removal of misplaced sentences is a benefit, even if a small one individually.

2) We cannot explain everything in a single article. If readers don't know anything at all about the Age of Exploration, they are unlikely to know why the Byzantine Empire mattered to trade routes, meaning that this sentence introduces confusion rather than clarity. Also see next point.

3) What I'm referring to here is our guideline on summary style, which describes how for a high-level article like this one, details are deferred to more specific child articles. This allows the main article to provide an accessible overview while providing a pathway for readers who want more detail on this subtopic. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)