Talk:English-speaking Quebecers

Quebecer vs. Quebecker

What's the rationale for the use of the former spelling over the latter; the latter seems far more common, and historically much more what was used in the heyday of this group. Why no 'k' in the chosen title? Looks odd....maybe it's only because of my beingh Oof a certain age" (52) but it's odd not to see, also the alternate spelling even mentioned.... is this ia p.c. choice?Skookum1 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is the former spelling that is always used in Quebec and it's the spelling with a K that looks odd to me. We anglo-Quebecers always spell it without the K. As for the media, the local Montreal Gazette style is to spell it "Quebecer" although I know the national Toronto-centric press (Globe&Mail, National Post) style is to spell it with a K. This strikes me as being foreign usage however and I believe local usage should predominate in an article about the population in question. 67.71.190.146 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Only seen it spelt Quebecer ("Kwebesser"?) on this website. Quebecker is the standard spelling. 91.85.181.14 (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I grew up in Montreal, and until I traveled abroad I'd only seen it spelled as "Quebecer". "Quebecker" seems to be only prevalent outside of the province, but this is WP:OR so...64.244.102.2 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that Michael Ignatieff spells it "Quebecer" -- "I sincerely believe that the new dream Quebecers should be a part of is a dream shared with their fellow citizens in other parts of Canada." -taken from "Dear Quebec," Macleans.ca, February 19, 2010. Yet, his own party in Quebec spells it "Quebecker" -- History of the Liberal Party of Canada (Quebec). Macleans frequently (if not consistently) uses the spelling "Quebecers," which seems to go against the standard practice outside of Quebec (Macleans' head office is in Toronto). An example can be found at Is the era of fighting over Quebec language laws officially over?.

Now let's consider the standard English rules. According to a Curriculum Guide for Grades K - 2, the syllables Que-bec-er would be pronounced Kwi-bees-er because a consonant like 'c' followed by 'e, i or y', in order to protect the short e in front of it, needs a 'ck' in its place, while the 'c' also needs the 'k' in order to remain a hard 'c'. Without the 'k', the pronunciation would be as I stated it above. So, the proper way is "Quebecker." Those Anglo-Quebeckers are not reliable for the proper usage of English, as they have probably been influenced by their Franco compatriots.

--Skol fir (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote to Macleans and their explanation for using the spelling "Quebecer" was that they use the Canadian Oxford Dictionary of English for all their spelling. In that dict. the word Quebecer is given first, followed by Quebecker. So, one assumes that "Quebecer" takes precedence there. However, The Globe & Mail uses "Quebecker" (see: Quebeckers' mental Bloc - article by Jeffrey Simpson after the 2008 election; Oct. 18, 2008).

I personally prefer "Quebecker" for the reasons above. My viewpoint is supported by both Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged ©2003 and The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000. In the Oxford Dictionary, "Quebecker" is the first choice of spelling offered (see Oxford Dictionary Online). --Skol fir (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that neither of these references is even Canadian, so they can hardly be considered definitive sources of information on standard usage in Quebec. You are free to use your preferred spelling, and should if you don't live in Quebec. But the primary spelling in the article should be without the K, noting with the K as an alternative spelling Phytism (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

2006 stats on language

I think it is time to update this article with the statistics from the 2006 census, which, among other things shows an increase in the English-speaking population of Quebec. After all, we are nearing 2009 and many studies have come out already. This short analyis by StatsCan gives an overview of the basics concerning English in Quebec:

• The Evolving Linguistic Portrait, 2006 Census: Evolution of the language situation in Quebec

I believe the attribution of the increase in the anglophone population to "much fewer Anglophones leaving the province between 2001 and 2006 compared to the seven previous five-year periods" is accurate.

The new SVOLM has also been out for a while:

• Minorities Speak Up: Results of the Survey of the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities

Obviously, updating the stats implies changing much text in the article and that is the main reason why I have not done it myself already. I believe someone should take the time to do it in early 2009, maybe as a new year's resolution. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the statistics should be updated. The decrease in the population from ca. 1970 to 2000 is still an important fact, and the recent stabilization should be mentioned too. Joeldl (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Typical...Someone lists the English, Irish and Scottish "English speakers", but forgets us THE WELSH. We are majority English ONLY speakers...How come your 100% figure without including us.....???? Could have perhaps listed as British & Irish to avoid this insult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.230.142 (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Quebec Identity Flag

To the Wiki Gods, there have been far too many editors removing reference to the Anglo-Quebec Identity Flag. Yes, this flag was created from input from a mere 100+ members that the flag has on a Facebook page. I believe the flag should remain listed because:

- The flag exists. It is not a flag graphic drawn up by someone. A number of actual copies of this flag exist and a photo of one of them was posted. This same flag was used by members of Quebec's Anglophone community in recent protests against Bill 101.

- The "Association Des Francophones Du Nunavut" (Francophone Association of Nunavut) is run by only 8 people and their flag is posted on the Wikipedia! My source is the following link:

http://www.manta.com/ic/mt67z7m/ca/association-des-francophones-du-nunavut See also (Canadiens français - Wikipédia), French Canadians

To top this off, there are only 370 French speakers in the whole territory per Wikipedia's Nunavut entry.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Nunavois

There are thousands of Anglophones still living in Quebec.

- Micronational flags from small interest groups are posted on Wikipedia. Sealand's flag represents about 10 people living on a gunboat platform and its posted up.

- There is bias against the English population in Quebec from politicians and even local media. I won't even bother to go into all the details. Consequently, there is a very small chance of this flag ever being recognized on a government level due to this discrimination. By removing reference to it in Wikipedia, the editors are unwittingly participating in this bias.

Ben Van Gak Montreal, QC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.7.126 (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that you sign Montreal QC, but your IP address identifies as Telus from Bunraby BC. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Has Peter Trent voiced support for this flag? Howabout Robert Libman? Or is it just a bunch of flag fanciers who came up with a flag in their spare time, and expect to impose it upon the rest of Anglo Quebec without any sort of support? 70.24.251.158 (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The article, Franco-Nunavois is on the French language Wikipedia. This is the English language Wikipedia and we have different rules about things than they do which is why Franco-Nunavois is a redirect to List of people from Nunavut. Yes the flag of the Principality of Sealand is on Wikipedia but there is a huge difference between that and this in that Sealand has multiple references. All the Anglo-Quebec Identity Flag has is a Facebook page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Once the flag has been reported in reliable sources, of course it will be included in this article. But not yet. The English Wikipedia should never be one of the first places something new is reported to the world. That is not our mission. Wikipedia is supposed to be a convenient summary of information that can be found elsewhere. You will have to promote this new flag through other channels, and once it gains notability, then it can be included in the article. Indefatigable (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ask my IT department why my computer’s IP is in BC. I can assure you I am physically in Montreal where I was born, raised, and lived all my life.

The English language Wikipedia entry for “French Canadian” shows the Franco-Nunavut flag. Only 8 people work in the organization that created their flag, and yet theirs is posted. I am sure that most of the roughly 370 Francophones in that area, all did not give their blessing to have the Franco-Nunavut flag represent them. The fact is that no one cultural flag will get the blessing from all members of its group, period.

Over 100 people from Quebec’s Anglophone community worked on this flag creation. Yes, they did not do it all under one physical roof but from their respective computer locations. Is this really that different from 8 people working in an office who get their flag recognized on Wikipedia? There is no law that stipulates a certain member of a community must tout it as the prime goods. Not all of the flag’s supporters are on Facebook either. Actual copies of the flag have been made and have already been used in political protests by members of Quebec’s Anglophone community, which should be grounds for keeping a reference to the flag under this Wikipedia entry.

Those of you who espouse 3rd party references, from who I ask? Politicians shy away from promoting anything English in Quebec as to not upset sovereignists and lose their vote. Local news media won’t touch this stuff. Even Alliance Quebec, formerly an organization that protected/promoted English Quebec’s rights and culture, doesn’t exist anymore. Don’t expect to see anything official on this flag anytime soon as the fact is that no “official” will promote an English community Quebec flag. It is left up to the community to do this. Facebook is one of the few media places where this flag can be mentioned. Unfortunately, it looks like Wikipedia is not an avenue where all topics on a subject can be covered. What really gets me is that most who are removing reference to the flag are likely from outside la Belle Province themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.7.126 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It certainly can be argued that some of the flags on French Canadian shouldn't be there, but on the other hand Other stuff exists isn't a valid argument for including something similarly questionable in another article. As for the flag in question, you illustrated the problem in the preceding comment - there's no organization that the flag in question represents. I can't think of a valid reason for including it in this article. PKT(alk) 22:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You should also consider that English Wikipedia is maintained by people from pretty much everywhere, right around the planet, and we welcome that detached view. The content of the encyclopedia has to rely on what the reader can go verify for themself elsewhere, in a reliable third-party source. That is how we can all contribute to a global resource, by using the same global standard to judge content. If your grassroots organizing gets some decent attention from the press or TV, then we will be able to include the information. Franamax (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"there's no organization that the flag in question represents" - This is a False statement. Organization is defined as a social group which distributes tasks for a collective goal. That group is on Facebook (under "Anglo-Quebec Identity Flag") which Wikipedia chooses not to recognize because in its narrow view it is not an "official group". - knight1970ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.127.215 (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

100 Anglos from Quebec are very few Anglos from Quebec. Has this received any coverage in Hour, or Voir or Mirror? I don't remember seeing any. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hour and Mirror focus on arts, nightlife, cultural/alternative events. I highly doubt Voir would cover news on Anglophone interests. Attend a polical protest involving Anglo rights and you'll see them. Go onto Youtube and look up recent Bill 101 protests.

Groups that were relatively small compared to their overall population created Francophone flags for their respective provinces and they are posted. Two people created the Franco-Ontarian flag. 8 people work in the Franco-Nunavut office and even their flag is listed on Wikipedia. 100 is not enough to list an Anglo Quebec flag, okay what about 1000, 10000,...? What is Wikipedia's criteria???... Exactly, there is none. Double standard is the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.7.126 (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Upon reading this discussion, I think 207.134.7.126 has made a strong argument that the flag does not meet notability criteria for inclusion. The argument is that for reasons reasons beyond the control of its enthudisasts, the flag has no impact beyond their Facebook page.Phytism (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The number of people involved with the flag is completely irrelevant. The threshold is one -- one reliable source. And Facebook and personal experience of editors do not count. We need a newspaper or magazine article to cite. In this case, I would even accept the web page of a flag store that shows that the flag is for sale. Indefatigable (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been two Bill 101 political protests downtown Montreal that I personally know of where this flag was flown. A video of one of them is posted on YouTube where copies of the Anglo-Quebec Identity flag can be seen. I am hesitant to reference it though as I don't think all the participants gave their permission to be filmed. One of the participants in the same video has been receiving threats (including a death threat) from radical separatists. This person was actually interviewed on local CBC news and it is posted on CBC's website, but the flag is not shown in the interview. Gives you taste of what Anglophones face in this province when they try to stand up for their rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.7.126 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why some very small Facebook group should dictate it's very minor proportional opinion of what is the flag to the rest of us. It's dictatorial and undemocratic. I can see that that flag represents the Facebook group, And No One Else. Did you or any member of your group ever meet some prominent Anglo Quebecer and get them to endorse your flag?

If I showed up at a protest with the Union Jack, it wouldn't make all the protesters supports of rejoining Mother England. If you show up with your flag, it doesn't make the protest a group of supporters for your flag. Showing up with the flag only proves it exists, it doesn't show support beyond the people holding the flag up.

Hour and Mirror cover quite a bit of politics. If you didn't notice, you don't read the columns. And there's an anti-anglo bent to some of the opinion pieces that show up in Voir from time to time. Getting a flag for Anglos would be a good target.

Did you even get coverage in one of the university newspapers?

Further, why don't you just create a new article for just your flag, if you're so adamant it's notable?

65.94.77.11 (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To repeat myself, I am adamant because of the Wikipedia double standard whereby French Canadian flags can be put on French Canadian related topics without having to be isolated on a page by themselves. However the same doesn’t go for English speaking people’s flags in Canada.

Did you ever give your blessing to Canada’s flag design? What about the town you live in, did they get your blessing for their town flag? Reality is that most flags don’t get democratically selected by the population at large. They are typically selected by small groups to represent something larger. The Anglo Quebec flag was selected the same way as all these other accepted flags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.7.126 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the flags you mention were approved by people elected to represent the people in their constituencies. As far as we are aware, you weren't elected to select the flag in question nor to represent anybody. PKT(alk) 20:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, per my exact words, the flags I mentioned were not "democratically selected by the population at large". Did you vote for a flag lately in a refendum? A politician gets votes, not flags. Additionally, there are politicians out there that myself and the majority of others didn't vote for but represent me regardless. Same analogy for the flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.7.126 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not buyin' what you're sellin'. PKT(alk) 22:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Same applies here to you since you obviously can't debate facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.7.126 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, now. We both presented facts, and not surprisingly, we each prefer our respective perspective. PKT(alk) 23:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's not selected by the group you claim it represents, then it's not representative of that group, therefore it does not belong in this article. Here, why don't I just invent a flag, post it and claim that its a flag for all Anglo-Quebecers ? It's exactly what you guys did. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

An Anglophone group chose the flag. No one else stepped up to the podium. What you are suggesting is that the entire Anglophone population or some politician with an over-inflated ego give his/her blessing to a flag. The opposition's comments to the Anglo Quebec flag do not address the Wiki double standard whereby Francophone groups get their flag posted but the Anglo ones do not. Francophone groups don't seem to have to jump through hoops. Please kindly advise all who read why 8 people get their Franco Nunavut flag posted but not 100 for an Anglophone flag? Hmm? Or will you all dance around the question again like politicians. Anyways, we don't expect an straight answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.160.102.242 (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Jump through hoops? I don't like it when people dictate things to me. You are dictating things to me. It makes me want to burn your flag, since you don't represent me, or my fellow Anglo-Quebecer friends. As far as Facebook groups go, 100 people is very small. As far as Anglo-Quebecer groups go, 100 people is smaller than a PTA meeting at an Anglo-Quebecer school. You think you're better than the rest of us? Stand for office, revive the Unity Party, prove that you represent anyone except 100 Facebook users who signed up to a group. Did you guys even bother to go door to door to sign up anyone? Standing up and not doing any work means you represent no one except yourselves. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unity Party? They never got any seats. Revive the Equality Party and let's talk.

I did not choose Quebec's flag, but yet it supposedly represents me. Same with Canada's and my home town. Read above. These arguments go around in circles. BTW, the last post seemed waaay over the top. "Dictating, stand for office, do I think I'm better, burning flags, PTA meetings, etc..." You forgot the kitchen sink. Thanks for lighting up a boring day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.7.126 (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

This is the current lead paragraph:

English-speaking Quebecers (also known as Anglo-Quebecers, English Quebecers, or Anglophone Quebecers, all with the optional spelling Quebeckers; in French Anglo-Québécois, Québécois Anglophone, or simply Anglo) refers to the English-speaking (anglophone) minority of the primarily French-speaking (francophone) province of Quebec, Canada. The English-speaking community in Quebec constitutes an official linguistic minority population under Canadian law

This is rather awkwardly written and messy, thus I suggest we discuss paring it down to the essentials and move any necessary details to a section on the etymology of the term. Thoughts? Laval (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Laval: Agreed, I cleaned up this section. Safyrr (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on English-speaking Quebecer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050217195517/http://www.veq.qc.ca:80/enter/pages/portrait.htm to http://www.veq.qc.ca/enter/pages/portrait.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of low quality and POV pushing portions

I took the liberty to remove a portion in the article's introduction, as well as reverting another portion which had been changed. In both cases, the content was either unsourced, POV pushing or outright lying, never mind the poor phrasing. This article is about English-speaking Quebecers, it isn't a platform to complain about francophones or the OQLF, and it would be appreciated if it remained that way. Akesgeroth (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I took out a third section, which consisted of a single sentence. Though less problematic, it was little more than a weasel sentence, so I removed it. Akesgeroth (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't come to this page in a while and I noticed someone has again tried to sneak in some inappropriate changes. Again, this article is not a platform to complain about the OQLF. Akesgeroth (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on English-speaking Quebecer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080503022540/http://www.cslf.gouv.qc.ca:80/Publications/PubK101/K101ch1.html to http://www.cslf.gouv.qc.ca/Publications/PubK101/K101ch1.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on English-speaking Quebecer. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&Page=ActionPlan&doc=ActionPlan/chap4_e.htm#S4.2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.acs-aec.ca/Polls/Quebec
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.qcgn.ca/files/QCGN/a20070409_demographics.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712232855/http://www.morrin.org/pages/anglos.php to http://www.morrin.org/pages/anglos.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/legislation/ola_llo.asp?Lang=English
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209161455/http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/readings/langlaws.htm to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/readings/langlaws.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.qcgn.ca/files/QCGN/a20070409_demographics.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrma-agrh.gc.ca/ollo/reimplementation-reapplication/MP-PM200102_e.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rrsss17.gouv.qc.ca/en/main.aspx

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) 13:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, no opposition — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

---

English-speaking Quebecer → English-speaking Quebecers – WP:PRECISE correct spelling Alexander Iskandar (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.