Talk:Quebec nationalism

"Quebec Nationalism" or "Quebec nationalism"?

"Quebec Nationalism" or "Quebec nationalism"? I'm thinking the latter. "Quebecois nationalism" may be even better. -- stewacide

Lower case would be better, yes. "Quebecois nationalism" would not be appropriate because, if in French "Québécois" simply means an inhabitant of Québec, in the English language it seems it refers to the French language culture of Quebec, not the whole of Quebec. Since "Quebecan nationalism", "Quebecian nationalism", or "Quebecer nationalism" either don't exist or sound improper, "Quebec nationalism" is the only choice left. This is how it is referred to in English. -- Mathieugp

My point was that the nationalism in question is restricted to the old-stock French speaking majority (the English usage of "Quebecois" as you correctly pointed out), and since that's what this article is about (right?) it would seem to be more acurate than just "Quebec".

"Quebec nationalism" would have to include all the nationalisms in the province of Quebec (not only the Quebecois majority, but the English, various indian and Inuit groups, etc.), but I don't beleive that's the intent of this article. -- stewacide 23:28, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not really. There is only one nationalism that is based on the territory of Quebec. Native american nationalisms are numerous all accross the Americas and should be treated separately. Most Native American nations do not recognize the borders created by the colonizers of Europe. :-) There is no English nationalism specific to Quebec. There are indididuals who identify to the Canadian nation inside Quebec. Canadian nationalism is not based on the territory of Quebec. When a nationalism is territorial and civic, it has to include all its citizens, even those who do not identify to it. Some Quebec nationalists currently discuss creating a true citizenship for Quebec, inside Canada like in Switzerland. I think this would only make things more complicated, but hey, people have the right to their opinions. ;-) In the Questia Library, they call it Quebec nationalism.

Maybe we can link to other pages dealing with the First Nations and Canadian nationalism? -- Mathieugp

p.s. you should have moved the talk page with the article.

Good idea. -- Mathieugp

Scotland was misplaced on the list alongside Ireland, Germany etc as nations which had 'failed' republican movements within them. The only event i can think of which could be misinterpreted in this manner are the jacobite rebelions which were not scottish nationalist in character and were not motivated by ambitions of independance or republic (rather obvious considering they were wars in support of a deposed monarchical line.) -n Siarach

Why is Quebec nationalism a word used for other places too? "is the subject of many international studies together with the contemporary nationalism of Scotland, Catalonia and other non-sovereign regions of the world." I think this sentence needs to be changed. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt the many criticism of Quebecois nationalist theory be added as well. Many anti-nationalists in Quebec who support the theory of multiculturalism argue that Quebec is just as divisible as Canada when it comes to language and ethnicity. If Quebec is a nation, than what about the Eastern Townships and West Mount with an English speaking tradition and British heritage centuries old, or the Mohawk and Innu of northern Quebec who most certainly do not see themselves as Quebecois either??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.97.241 (talk • contribs)

I realize this comment was added quite some time ago, but I will respond anyway. If you feel something needs to be added to the article, and you can cite facts from reliable sources, than by all means make said changes. If, however, you want only to add opinions and/or conjecture, please refrain. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please respect wikipedia guidelines. Editors (anonymous or not) are allowed to make comments that are based on opinions or ideas on the talk page. That is the point of a talk page. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 01:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In Canadian Universities, we title "Quebec nationalism" using "French Canadian nationalism", denoting all French-rooted Canadians. Quebec is not considered an outlier, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.198.254 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is unecyclopedic

The tone, the wording, the general course of the article strikes me as unencyclopedic. I don't know anything about Quebec though so while this should be rewritten, I'm not the one to do it Jztinfinity 08:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC) You are right. It is very biased, the person who wrote is obviously a nationalist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.214.92 (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article starts with : Canada was first a French colony What about the indigenous people before 1534? Canada was not first a French colony, it was a territory with its own inhabitants with their habits and traditions. The French came after and colonized a territory that was already inhabited. This is a big error to start an article with. Many quebecois nationalists like to think the French were there first, so they can claim Quebec as their country. Unfortunately, what many of them seem to forget is that the British did to the French what the French did to the indigenous people, that is to take away from them a land they controlled.(The person who wrote that clearly doesn't know anything about Canadian history. The French didn't take the native's territory, they had no intention to take their land. They simply lived on the lands the natives allowed them to live on, and treated the natives as trading partner, not as conquered people. Champlain himself told the natives : Our men will marry your women and we will become one people.) So basing nationalism on the idea that French were there first (before the British) is a big mistake. Claiming a country on the fact that French colons were the first inhabitants of Quebec, is also a big mistake. Modern Quebec is not the legacy of some French colonialists. It is the result, or the fruit of many invasions and imigration, starting with the indigenous tribes wars bringing together tribes from many places in North America, then the French and British invasions, the immigration from Europe (Britain, Ireland, China, Germany, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, etc) in the 19th century and the modern immigration from all over the world.96.23.204.67 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Jose 96.23.204.67 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I agree entirely. The use of "non-sovereign region" in the introduction is unencyclopedic as it implies that sovereignty is something that Quebec has been denied, yet lays claim to, which is false. Also, there was no clarification of the Quebec nationalism movement as one that is also within a very small part of English Canada as there is a minority of Anglophone Canadians who have supported the movement from time to time. When the British Conquest of the 1760's is discussed, there is no reference to the 7 Years War, or the fact that France voluntarily surrendered Canada in favour of Guadeloupe at the Treaty of Paris, or the highly influential and controversial Quebec Act. I have cited these three issues with a footnote to the Blackwell Encyclopedia. Others include references to post-1960 Quebec nationalist movements in the section concerned with 1534-1760! What's more, in the discussion of the contemporary debate, there is a noticeable lack of sources for such a complex and ever-changing issue. I have tried to rectify some of these flaws, but encourage others (who aren't editorializing with an obvious agenda) to provide more objective, historically accurate, and well documented editing to other parts of the article which may be lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.11.139 (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

People who have not the faintest idea of the subject have been adding/removing their two cents to this article for quite some time. Most of the history-related stuff is completely off-topic not to mention inaccurate. For example, reading the Quebec Act article itself contradicts the much propagated belief that it succeeded in appeasing the discontent in the colony. Even the colonial administrators of the time knew it was a failure, and the Congress' Own existence and military success becomes hard to explain otherwise.

I have added many references to this article, many which can be consulted (partially or fully) online, hoping people would at least bother to skim through before messing up the article further. Was I wrong?

No other topic, except maybe an ongoing civil war or military conflict, is more likely to attract ideologues of all sorts who will wish to point out this aspect and this aspect, deny this aspect or that other one. It is going to be quite the task to bring this article to be neutral and informative. But it is doable. :) -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing the Quebec Sovereignty movement as the main article relating to contemporary Quebec nationalism is inappropriate as Quebec nationalism exceeds much more than simply the discussion of sovereignty. As far as the Quebec Act goes, the Colonial administrators of the time viewed it as an extreme failure with the Thirteen Colonies but a slight success with Quebec, so I agree with you. I tried to clarify that with a couple edits. Also, the Treaty of Paris rhetoric needed to be toned down. It's a strange article, with bias from both sides. Also, I think we can all agree that Quebec nationalism is not second to civil war and ongoing military conflict in regards to the diversity of opinion... let's not try to inflate the importance of our little article too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guevaira (talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Québec Nationalism vs Québec sovereignty movement

The section on Contemporary Québec Nationalism link to "Québec Sovereingty Movement" as its main article. This is highly inaccurate ; Québec nationalisms exist outside and beyond the independance divide. (Or, in other words, nearly all independantists are nationalists, but many nationalists aren't independantists)

Contemperary Quebec nationalism contains far too much POV

First of all "Anglophone Canadian nationalism"? I think most Francophones outside of Quebec share the same Canadian nationalistic sentiment and there are still (believe it or not) many Francophones in Quebec who see themselves as being Canadian! So I do not think that Canadian Nationalism should be described as being strictly "Anglophone", because it is not.

Also when it came to the argument of Quebec nationalism being ethnic oriented as opposed to territorial I felt that again far too much POV dominated the presented thesis. The fact that study after study has shown that the vast majority of non-Francophones in Quebec, groups whose roots in the province go back just as far as the Francophones do not see themselves as being part of a Quebecois nation was ignored. So I made reference to it of course.

"There is little doubt, at least, that the post-1950s era witnessed a remarkable awakening of Quebecers' self-identity. The rural, conservative and Catholic Province of Quebec of the 19th and early 20th centuries has given way to a confident, cosmopolitan society that has many of the attributes of a modern nation. Regardless of their political leanings, Quebecers have come to see themselves as a unique people with a culture worth preserving. In recent years, however, this has often manifested in the reasonable accommodation debate, even or especially at official levels"

This seems like a huge amount of POV, but I'm not sure how it could be edited to sound less biased, or too at least make it clear that while Quebec's society has changed dramatically over the last half century (as has Ontario's, Newfoundland's, even Saskatchewan's, not too mention Canada in general) the idea that the geographic province of Quebec stretching from the Bay of Gaspe to the Arctic Coast constitutes a nation is not shared by everyone in the province itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.85.176 (talk • contribs)

What you have added here, as well as to the article itself, are a series of opinions. Please cite facts from reputable sources if you wish to counter what you see as inappropriate POV. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's funny...this article cites nothing. So, your argument is moot, Jake. Half the things I've found here, while informative, aren't credible in any way. If you tell me to go read a book, I'll ask you which one, and you'll fail to give me an answer. I'd agree with Anon. 70.50.198.254 (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Joe

I have to agree with the anonymous editor in certain ways.

a) Canadian Nationalism is not unique to white Anglophone Canadians, and isn't explicit to the provinces outside of Quebec. I know many Quebecois that can be considered Canadian nationalists/federalists/pro-United Canada, and how is that referenced?

b) I also know many people within the borders of the Province of Quebec who do not consider themselves part of the "Quebecois nation" and thus do not consider the province to be a nation. That also cannot be referenced. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 01:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments have some contradictions. First, you say that canadian nationalism is not unique to white anglophones canadians and then you say that Quebec nationalism is ethnic because anglophones, allophones and first nations living in Quebec do not consider themselves as being a part of the Quebec nation. That sounds like a double standart to me. A lot of non "Québecois de souche" backgrounds also identifie with Quebec nationalism.65.94.163.139 (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

References

While there is an appropriate bibliography listed, the footnotes within the text don't link to anywhere, and it is unclear where particular facts are referenced from. Better referencing may assist in reducing POV/bias issues discussed above? Helgz (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality problem regarding the Charter of Values

In the article, I stumbled upon "In recent years, however, this ethnocentrism has often been manifested in the "Charter of Quebec Values" debate, especially at official levels."

The idea that the said Charter ought to be ethnocentrism is maybe almost unanimous amongst anglophones, it doesn't mean it's neutral. A lot of supporters of said Charter were refering to the French laïcité, that is more universalist in the opinion of its promoters rather than ethnocentrist. The wording should avoid seeming like taking an opinion.

A glimpse about the difference of point of view : http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/08/29/jackson-doughart-secularisms-two-solitudes/

--ThoMiCroN (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quebec nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080528173230/http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/jan00/venne.pdf to http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/jan00/venne.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vigile.net/spip.php?page=archives&u=archives/auteurs/s/seymourm.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706201748/http://cgi2.cvm.qc.ca/glaporte/1837.pl?out=article&pno=analyse18 to http://cgi2.cvm.qc.ca/glaporte/1837.pl?out=article&pno=analyse18
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706201827/http://cgi2.cvm.qc.ca/glaporte/1837.pl?out=article&pno=5526 to http://cgi2.cvm.qc.ca/glaporte/1837.pl?out=article&pno=5526

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quebec nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219164901/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060201/sovereignty_support_060201/20060201? to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060201/sovereignty_support_060201/20060201/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Spelling

Please clarify,

There are several occurrences when nationalism is described as ethically based. Don’t you mean ethnically? Sir John Falstaff (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sir John Falstaff: You're right. I have fixed those easy-to-miss mistakes. Indefatigable (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)