Talk:René Lévesque/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nationality (again)

There is disagreement about whether Levesque should be described as a Quebecois or Canadian politician.

AFAIK, there is no relevant policy or guideline.

My suggest is that he be called a Quebec politician. TFD (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Which is how I phrased it: Canadian in the lead sentence, based on citizenship, then "Québécois politician" in the next sentence, stating he was the first Québécois politician to propose separation from Canada. I think that covers both aspects: Canadian nationality, and Québécois political position, to explain as quickly as possible the context for the reader. However, that approach has been reverted. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

He was a Canadian politician. PS - I've asked for input at WP:CANADA, concerning this content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We would not say that John A. Macdonald was a British politician, although he was born in the UK and never took out Canadian citizenship. What's the difference?

I suggested Quebec rather than Quebecois. He only ran for office in Quebec. TFD (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Canadian citizenship wasn't a widespread concept until a generation or more after Macdonald died.

Levesque was a Canadian citizen, a Québécois (ethnic group) politician from Québec. The most neutral would be to call him a Canadian politician, then "first Québec premier", and finally Québécois, I think. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact, Canadian citizenship became a widespread concept after the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946, which bestowed citizenship on all British subjects resident in Canada as of 1 Jan 1947. But even then, it provided no rights. Instead, Parliament progressively removed the rights of British subjects who did not happen to be Canadian citizens.

So Levesque became a Canadian citizen when he was 25. But why should this article explain Canadian nationality law? There's an article for that. TFD (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: We don't use the accent in either the Quebec or Premier of Quebec page titles. So, let's not do so here. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll use accents in my own comments; I don't agree with the lack of them on Wikipedia but I'll respect the MOS in articles. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

To clarify. I was pointing out we shouldn't use the 'accents' on the page, in relation to the province & the premier's office :) GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The MacDonald example isn't really comparable. At the time people would be referred to as Canadians, even though in law they would have been British subjects (who happen to live in Canada). As we write for an international audience, we should also call René Lévesque a Canadian politician. I think the lede is very well written in the circumstances. While it currently calls him a "Canadian politician", immediately afterwards refers to his role in Quebec politics, in seeking "political independence of Quebec" and "as an ardent defender of Quebec sovereignty". The lede is clear. We need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not written for just for Quebec, or even Canadian audiences, but for international ones. We should put readers understanding first, not internal debates or whether "René Lévesque" considered himself Canadian. He was a politician in a Canadian province, in fact, he was the leader of that Canadian province. The first sentence helps an international reader place him and understand, and it does not confuse because the second and third sentences make his Quebecois and sovereigntist roles very clear. We should just leave the lede alone.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:, you're invited to the discussion taking place. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

PS also pinging @The Four Deuces:, @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:, @G. Timothy Walton: & @Darryl Kerrigan:, who've already given some input. Do we need an RFC for this? or was there already one held. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It's more precise to call him a Quebec politician. Maybe we could parenthesize after the statement, "Quebec is part of Canada! My Canada includes Quebec!" Because the only reason for calling him Canadian is to support one side of the Canada-Quebec debate. TFD (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

He was a Canadian politician & that's what should be in the intro. We use "Canadian" politician in the intros of other Quebec separatist. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, GoodDay. It seems to me that your insistence that He was a Canadian politician - as if it would not be equally accurate and well-sourced to say that he was a Quebec politician, or a Québecois politician, or a French Canadian politician - rather assumes the thing to be demonstrated in this discussion.

So I don't have time right now to look into the edit history as I should, but I strongly suspect that this article has received more editorial attention over time than the other premier bios you list below and that therefore the prior consensus made here may have a higher WP:CONLEVEL than that of those other articles - I haven't evaluated the consensus at those other articles in terms of number of participants and policy considerations - nor am I as familiar with the sourcing of those articles as I am with the sources for this one - and those strike me as the relevant factors.

Anyway, the main point I want to make here is to circumsctibe the (strongly held) beliefs of certain editors, who seem convinced of the Westphalian settlement as a social ontology (that is, a "thing that really exists"). In spite of what some of these editors may believe, what MOS:ETHNICITY actually says is not that legal nationality must always be stated in the lede, but rather that it is the context for the notability of the subject that is the deciding factor. It seems obvious to me what the relevant context is, for this article. Newimpartial (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your arguments. Levesque was a Canadian politician & we should be mentioning that fact, in the intro. The province wasn't an independent country, when he was premier. Furthermore, if a majority of editors side with using "Canadian politician", then that's what should be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Lévesque was notable on the national stage, perhaps moreso than any other premier of his time; limiting his notability to the provincial level is very much taking a side in the sovereignty debate. This is not a case of some footnote premier like Peter Veniot, whose notability is that he was the first Acadian premier of New Brunswick. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe the sources support me in saying that Levesque was notable on the national stage precisely as a Quebec and a Québecois politician. This shouldn't be a matter of endorsing (or rallying against) a political project; it should be a matter of following the framing that the best sources - including the best non-English language sources - use. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll give this discussion another week. If it's still in progress? I'll open an RFC on this matter. The question will be of two options - Should we use "Canadian politician" or "Quebecois politician" (don't worry, I'll include the accents, on the latter;), in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You have not provided any policy based reasons for your position.

John A. Macdonald was born in Scotland, was always a British subject, was knighted by the Queen of the UK and his widow was appointed to the House of Lords in recognition of his service. He was influential in promoting the equality of dominions in the Empire. So why isn't he a British politician? TFD (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Bearcat (see below) explains it quite well. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Inviting @TheCelebrinator: to the discussion, as you've also edited this page, recently. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, whether from Quebec or Toronto or Victoria, B.C. Regardless of Lévesque's own views on his nationality, he was born a Canadian (outside Quebec, incidentally), lived a Canadian and died a Canadian. That's the only thing that should matter. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. TheCelebrinator (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It is POV interventions like this that cast doubt on this whole consensus-building exercise, IMO. Wikipedia content is supposed to be based on the highest-quality reliable sources, not the strongly held opinions of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not my POV to assert that Lévesque was a lifelong Canadian citizen and, indeed, only a citizen of that country. Nobody disputes that fact. Should we start referring to Doug Ford as an Ontarian politician or David Eby a British Columbian politician? .

As to my own personal opinion, as a Quebecer, it is perfectly possible to be both a good Quebecer and a good Canadian, but personal opinion aside, Lévesque's nationality, or citizenship, was Canadian from the beginning to the end of his life. That is not opinion, that is fact. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

But Wikipedia policy doesn’t support the inclusion of Westphalian citizenship (or residency) regardless of the context. Instead, it mandates that articles follow the reliable sources as they depict the nation or region relevant to a person's notability.

A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian is an opinion strongly held and expressed with a certain rhetorical flourish, but decidedly a POV intervention rather than being based on either WP policy or source analysis. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You don't think Mr. Lévesque was a lifelong Canadian citizen? TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, of course he was. But the reliable sources do not make this a defining characteristic of his notability, which is much more strongly tied to his being a political leader, and leader of a political movement in Quebec. His notability was defined in relation to Quebec, not to Canada. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Mr. Lévesque's notability is due to his being a premier or leader of a Canadian province. There are plenty of other political leaders who've made their career in more local politics like Jean Drapeau of Montreal or Danielle Smith of Alberta, but they all represent government institutions of Canada. And they're Canadian, that's why they're listed as such on Wikipedia.

Mr. Lévesque's signature political proposal was for Quebec to separate from Canada, implying that a) Quebec and Mr. Lévesque were already Canadian and b) it was Quebec's relation with Canada that was so important to him, so I think this makes his notability very much in relation with that country. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact, Levesque first achieved notability as a war correspondent for the U.S. Army and later as a French language correspondent and finally for hosting a TV show in Quebec, before becoming an MNA and provincial cabinet minister before becoming premier 16 years later. But he is most notable for leading the Quebec separatist movement. TFD (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure.

Mr. Lévesque (the accent is part of the name) was a public figure for years before officially becoming premier of Quebec, but that still remains his main claim to fame, like you said yourself. A bit like Mr. Trump in the States. I don't see how you can deny that. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@TheCelebrinator: If you wish to, your input is welcomed in the related RFC, on this talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, already done. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Other Quebec premier bios, who were separatists

This is a list of the Quebec premiers from the Parti Quebecois

• Pierre Marc Johnson (uses "Canadian")
• Jacques Parizeau (uses "Canadian")
• Lucien Bouchard (uses "French Canadian")
• Bernard Landry (uses "Canadian")
• Pauline Marois (uses "Canadian")
  

GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Bouchard achieved fame as a federal politician before becoming premier, which might explain the different description. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

French Wikipedia refers to all of them as politiques québécoise. Since articles are aimed at an international audience, this seems to be the neutral way of describing them.

That's also the way English Canadians would describe them. Ontarians for example would refer to Rachel Notley and Danielle Smith as Alberta politicians, not Canadian politicians. TFD (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get such provincial & territorial descriptions adopted to all the former & current premiers bios. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We're writing for an international audience here, not for a Canadian audience, so the fact that Canadians would refer to political figures at the provincial government level as "Province" politicians rather than "Canadian" politicians is irrelevant. Wikipedia's readership, for example, includes a significant number of people who probably couldn't name a Canadian province without a cheat sheet even with a gun to their head — so even if a person is in provincial politics rather than federal politics, the introduction still has to describe them as "Canadian" first, and then delve into the provincial nature of their notability second, because not all of our readership knows Canada's provinces well enough to know what "Quebec politician" or an "Alberta politician" would even mean if the word "Canadian" were excised from the introduction entirely.

That's also the same way we handle the nationality of a French Quebecer, separatist or otherwise: regardless of where the person stands on whether Quebec should be part of Canada or not, Quebec is part of Canada as things currently stand, so it's entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia to pretend that québécois and Canadian are mutually exclusive nationalities that cancel each other out, such that a person can only be one or the other and not both. So the appropriate and neutral way to handle it is to ensure that both labels, "Canadian" and "Quebec", are used, and neither their personal opinions on Quebec sovereignty, nor their status as provincial-level rather than federal-level politicians, have anything to do with it.

And what his French article does is also not indicative of international standards either — the French Wikipedia is much more heavily dominated by editors with strong Quebec sovereignty leanings, so what they do there isn't a useful gauge to what British people, Australians, Germans, Italians, Spaniards or Poles would say. If you want to measure international "standards", you need to check what's done in other languages besides English or French — and across the board, every other interlang I just checked does the same thing as what's done here: describing him as Canadian, and then delving into the complexities of the matter once the basic context has been established.

Again, we're not writing this article for the benefit of Quebec sovereignists, we're writing this article for the benefit of readers who may not necessarily even know what Quebec is in the first place — so for a francophone Quebecer both levels, Canada and Quebec, have to be named in the introduction to ensure that the reader has the necessary context, and the question of whether the article subject is a federalist or a sovereignist is irrelevant. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, I did not recommend that we use provincial and territorial descriptions in the info-boxes of all Canadian politicians. Please not that "Misrepresentation of other people" comes under Behavior that is unacceptable. Not only does it require a response from me, but it derails the discussion.

My point about the French Wikipedia is that both Canada and Quebec politician are accurate, but other considerations apply. While identity may be presented as nationality, it can also be presented as ethnicity or region.

I don't see any reliable sources describing Levesque as a "Canadian politician."

Bearcat, while we are not writing for the benefit of Quebec sovereigntists, we aren't writing for the benefit of Canadian federalists either. We don't need to lecture readers that Quebec is part of Canada. And I sincerely doubt that anyone looking for this article cannot name at least one Canadian province. Are they going to say to themselves, "I've heard a lot about Rene Levesque and want to read his Wikipedia article. No idea what province he is from though." TFD (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bearcat. It is quite an assumption that every reader that comes across this page is going to have a good understanding of Canadian federalism and jurisdictions. Outside of the project there are many ways his name could come up. On Wikipedia, his name is mentioned in over 1000 articles many which would not be read only by such an audience. These articles include articles writen about tall buildings (some of which are on a street named after him), Summits of the Americas (which he attended), and Olympic Games (which he attended). As I have said above, there is nothing wrong with the lede. It is quite balanced and immediately after noting that he was a "Canadian politician" it gives a lot of context about his roles in Quebec politics and the sovereignty movement.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

How many of those 1,000 articles do not mention Quebec? My guess is none. TFD (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

TFD, difficult as it may be for you to believe, some of our readers genuinely don't know that Quebec is part of Canada, and won't know what a "Quebec politician" is if we excise the word "Canadian" from the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Bearcat, I'm afraid your argument doesn't seem to have a string basis in enwiki policy. I am aware that some editors believe that - with the notable exception of UK citizens - Westphalian citizenship should be prominently included in all 20th and 21st century biogrphies. However, that opinion doesn't reflect what the relevant guideline - MOS:ETHNICITY - actually proposes that we should do, nor does it represent the consensus of Wikipedia editors. By consensus, we are supposed to follow the context of Notability presented in WP:HQRS, rather than a cookie-cutter approach rooted in passport nationality.

To be clear, I have nothing against mentioning Canada in the lead paragraph, but "Canadian politician" just isn't how Levesque is described in reliable sources, and it isn't our job as Wikipedia editors to make that so. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Assuming you're going to persist in pushing "Quebecois politician", over "Canadian politician" & thus against a growing consensus for the reverse. I'll have to consider opening an RFC on the matter at WP:CANADA. If that's what it will take to put an end to this content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that referring to my reinstatement of policy-backed long-term stable lead content as pushing is, ahem, not a good look for you. But if you can refrain from insulting me this time around I suppose I should count my blessings... Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverting multiple editors creates tension. As mentioned earlier, if this discussion is still ongoing, I'll be opening an RFC at WP:CANADA. Particularly, now that I've discovered more the one Canadian politician bio is falling under the same content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

My reading of MOS:ETHNICITY would suggest that "Canadian" should be used. René Lévesque who was born in New Brunswick (Canada), lived most of his life in Canada, and died in Quebec (Canada), is comparable to the Daniel Boone example in the manual as "someone who continued to reside in their country of origin". In the Boone article, he is noted as an "American pioneer". Similarly, when discussing the example of Isaac Asimov the manual warns against adding "ethnicity ("Jewish-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American")... [as] These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance." The current lede for this article does exactly that: notes Lévesque was a "Canadian politician" followed by his role as "premier of Quebec", as a Québécois political leader, and with Quebec independence and sovereignty movements. The problem with looking only at WP:RS is that they are overwhelmingly Canadian, and as such assume knowledge of Canadian federalism etc., when as we have already discussed above, we write for an international audience, not a Canadian one (unlike most RS covering Lévesque).-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I would point out also that Levesque became a Canadian citizen at the age of 25, whereas he became a resident of Quebec shortly after birth. R.B. Bennett is referred to as a "Canadian politician," although he became a Canadian citizen after his Canadian political career was over and he was living in the UK as a member of the House of Lords.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier is referred to as a "Canadian lawyer" etc. although he had British nationality and Canada did not have international recognition until after his death.

This seems like a pro-Canada bias. British subjects living in the British dominion of Canada are Canadians while people living in the Canadian province of Quebec are Canadians, regardless of what their actual nationality was. TFD (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Lévesque was "Canadian" since his birth (in New Brunswick), notwithstanding the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946 only coming into force in 1946. As discussed above, notwithstanding the fact that "in law" residents of Canada were British subjects (that happened to live under Canadian jurisdiction) there was an understanding that they were "Canadians" long before the Act changed the legality around this. This is similar to the Daniel Boone example mentioned above and in MOS:ETHNICITY. Despite being a "British subject" at his birth in the Province of Pennsylvania, British America, we refer to Boone as an "American pioneer" because he is "someone who continued to reside in their country of origin". I could understand your position on Lévesque, if the rest of the first sentence, and then the second, third and fourth sentences did not make clear his Quebec connections, but there is no shortage of digital ink in this article prominently displaying his Quebec links. This discussion doesn't really seem like one focused on putting readers first, which should be our goal here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The two examples are cases where we can refer to someone by their region of residence instead of their nationality. Thank you! I have been saying that all along and of course it is allowed per MOS.

However, you then reject your own argument and claim that we cannot refer to Levesque as a Quebec politician because after the Canadian citizenship act came into force on Jan. 1, 1947, he became a Canadian national.

Per your reference to the essay put readers first, do you really think that people who want to know more about Levesque who had never heard of Quebec? It's the same with Robbie Burns - you think there are a lot of people familiar with his poetry who have never heard of Scotland? TFD (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I would not put too much stock in the argument that Lévesque was not a Canadian citizen from birth due it only becoming a separate concept from being a British subject in 1947. It was commonly understood at the time that all residents of Canada (including pre-Confederation Canada) were Canadian. People like Macdonald, Laurier, King, Borden, LaFontaine, Cartier were all understood to be Canadian even back then.

.

If they were all rather British instead of Canadian, then I guess Washington and Jefferson should have their nationality changed from American to British as, obviously, the concept of American nationality did not exist until much later in their lives. TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. If we follow your reasoning with Levesque, then we would call Macdonald Canadian even though he was a British subject because his area of interest was Canada. Similarly, we refer to American revolutionaries as American because that was where they operated. In fact, Loyalists, who never became of U.S. citizens and did not renounce their British nationality, were still referred to as Americans until after the war of 1812. TFD (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So then why wouldn't Lévesque be a Canadian when he lived in... Canada? And, unlike Macdonald, actually became a Canadian citizen throughout his lifetime? TheCelebrinator (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

And precisely what high-quality reliable sources claim that Quebecers aren't Canadians? Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Please avoid strawman arguments that are disruptive. TFD (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a legitimate question, given some of the decidedly partisan arguments put forth under pretense of neutrality by more than one editor. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not this question is disruptive, it is undeniably silly.

If what you mean is passport citizenship, Bearcat, there are none - just as there are no HQRS stating that people born in Puerto Rico are not U.S. citizens. But yet, the Wikipedia nationality of such people is "Puerto Rican", not "American".

If what you mean is, essentially, "don't all Quebecers share a national identity as Canadians" then the HQRS to disprove this are quite readily at hand. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is a dependent state and in no way an appropriate example for this discussion. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Puerto Rico is a dependent territory. However, the citizenship/nationality of Puerto Ricans is U.S. in precisely the same sense that the citizenship/nationality of Scots is UK or the citizenship/nationality of Quebecers is Canada. I haven't seen a compelling argument why the Quebec case differs from the other two: all three are minority nationalities within a larger, Westphalian state. And the argument that FIFA recognizes the first two and not the third seems quite absurd to me; I mean, the Olympics don't recognize Scotland, but les Jeux de la Francophonie do recognize Québec apart from Canada - so let's not rely on sporting federations for definitions. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

But it's not, and you're trying to compare two very different things to Quebec/Canada. Scotland is recognized by the UK government as a country. A country within a country, but still a country. That has legal status, unlike the symbolic motion passed by Parliament in 2006. Furthermore, Wikipedia explicitly says that both British and English/Scottish, etc. nationalities are acceptable nationality descriptors to use for UK citizens. There is no such policy or even conventional use for Quebecers. You're trying to invent a new precedent here.

Puerto Ricans similarly are pretty consistently described as Puerto Rican here on Wikipedia. Whether it's Roberto Clemente or Bad Bunny or Pedro Morales, they're all listed as Puerto Rican. That has precedent and is standard policy here on Wikipedia.

No such precedent exists for Quebecers. With the exception of a few politically charged cases, like this one, Quebecers are by and large referred to as Canadians here on Wikipedia. There are no two Canadas, one where you're a Canadian and another where you're a Quebecer. Legally, there is no Quebec nation to speak of. It is purely a sociological concept, so to try and turn it into some kind of nationality, along the lines of American, Chinese, German, etc., is preposterous. Even Catalans are usually referred to here as Spaniards (like with Pep Guardiola).

It's important to put aside your own political beliefs and try to follow established precedent here on Wikipedia, not invent your own. TheCelebrinator (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to invent a new precedent here. For one thing, the stable lead here has said Quebecois for a number of years, so it is those advocating a change who are trying to break with the precedent of prior consensus.

For another, MOS:ETHNICITY reads, on the parallel case of Spain, A 2018 RfC on Spanish regional identity in the lead resulted in consensus to use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most.

It seems obvious to me that, this article should continue to use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most - the relevant Wikipedia precedent - and should not be moved by editors who arrive here to enact their POV insistence that "Québec is not a nation/nationality". Whether it is or is not is supposed to be settled according to sources rather than strongly-held opinions of editors, but what I see here from those insisting on "Canadian" is overwhelmingly the latter, supported by original arguments from legislation and court decisions. This is not how consensus is supposed to be determined on Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Labeling editors in this pre-RFC discussion who disagree with you, as PoV or original research pushers, isn't going to be accepted well by those editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

And what do you think of the fact that virtually every other Quebecer is listed as Canadian? That even Lévesque's fellow PQ premiers are described as Canadian? It seems to me like you're the one trying to invent a new precedent.

We are simply trying to follow established precedent elsewhere found on Wikipedia when it comes to Quebecers and their nationality. Far from being original, I think it is you who is trying to come up with some rather far-fetched theories about how the regional identity should usurp the national one (read: nationality). Lévesque's article stands as the only one, I think, to use Québécois instead of Canadian. Even Jacques Parizeau's lists him as a Canadian.

Also, not that this is important to the issue at hand, I have never stated that there is no such thing as a Quebec nation. Sociologically, if we Quebecers or French-speaking Canadians want to define ourselves as different, as a nation in the classical sense of the word, then that's OK, I'm not opposed to that. There's already an Inuit nation, a Cree nation, a Mohawk nation, etc., but when someone tries to turn that sociological definition into some kind of legal nationality, then obviously that's problematic, because it doesn't exist. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not a US state, but rather a US unincorporated territory. Thus a different entity. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

WikiProjects notified

Along with WP:CANADA, all the provincial WikiProjects & the WikiProject for the territories, have been notified of this ongoing discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)