Talk:Quebec City/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

English name of city

This article gives the misleading impression that the name of the city in English is Quebec City in preference to Quebec. The "City" part is used primarily for disambiguation purposes; when there is no danger of confusion, the name Quebec is perfectly acceptable in English, and I would even say preferable.

Here's how the "Geographical Names" section of Merriam-Webster's Tenth Collegiate Dictionary lists four well-known cities:

Quebec or Québec 1 province E Canada [...] 2 city & port, its ∗ [...]

New York 1 state NE U.S. [...] 2 or New York City city & port SE N.Y.[...]

Oklahoma City city ∗ of Okla. [...]

Panama or Sp Panamá 1 country S Central America [...] 2 or Panama City city & port, its ∗ [...]

(Panama City 1 city & port NW Fla. [...] 2 — see PANAMA)

The name "Quebec City" is not even mentioned. Note the very different treatment of Oklahoma City, which I think we all agree is never called "Oklahoma".

To illustrate the difference, one hears only "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma", but usually "New York, New York". I don't know if "Quebec City, Quebec" is correct, but it sounds terrible.

I think this article should at a minimum give Quebec as the first name listed. The article should probably also be edited to remove the word "City" where it is not necessary.

Also, Québec, in addition to being the French name, is an acceptable alternative in English. The article currently makes it seem as if the name Québec were not used in English, which is simply not true, as both the dictionary and my experience tell me. Quebec differs in this respect from Panama City or, say, Moscow, whose Russian name is not used in English. (The same dictionary says "or Russ Moskva".) 67.150.244.113 (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your post.

First, with all due respect to the folks at Merriam-Webster who publish good reference books, they are hardly an authoritative source for Canadian location names. I would turn to the Canadian Oxford first, which states the exact opposite of Merriam-Webster on this issue.

Just on an anecdotal basis (as you have also done), I would have to say Quebec City is the far more usual term in English, otherwise there is confusion with the province. I think the fact that Quebec City is the most prelevant term in English is shown by the use by some government agencies and some advertisers (all worried about making a wrong step in the linguistic minefield that is Canada) of the appalling term "Québec City" (sic). If Quebec or Québec were the usual name in English, they wouldn't need to resort to such a Frenglish oddity. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with your comparisons with Oklahoma City and New York City, but in any event I am not too sure how relevant they are as comparables as usage various across regions and countries.

Obviously, Québec/Quebec are sometimes used in English texts as the name of the city, usually where the context makes clear that the subject is the city not the province, and especially so because Quebec City is not the official name of the city. However, naming conventions on Wikipedia are pretty clear that, as an English-language encyclopedia, we use the term that an English speaker would most likely recognize as the usual name of the subject in actual usage -- see WP:CANSTYLE and WP:NCGN. And the consensus is that Quebec City is the most prelevant term in English - a consensus with which I would have to agree.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Skeezix1000. Generally English Canadians use "Quebec City" unless it's clear from the context that one is speaking of the city and not the province. I also agree that the Canadian Oxford is a reliable source; their word choices are done with studies of how Canadians actually use the words which is the way we title articles at Wikipedia as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The point I was making with "Oklahoma City" is that the intent of the dictionary entry is clear: the name of the city is Quebec. If the name had been Quebec City, they would have said so, since they do that for Oklahoma City and New York City.

You've conceded at least that Quebec/Québec is also used as the name of the city in English, so this name should be listed in the article, which it is not. Also, Québec should not be presented as being only the French name. I presume your disagreement centres on the name that should be used in the body of the article.

I don't dispute that Quebec City is a commonly used name. It may be most appropriate in passing references to the city, to avoid ambiguity. However, I'm not sure that "Quebec City" is the most common name in contexts in which the name of the city is used over and over. Press style guides deal primarily with what one might find in a newspaper article, where there's a high likelihood that the name will be used only once or twice.

You refer to consensus on the issue, but I haven't found a significant amount of past discussion here or on the pages you mentioned, except on the issue of accents.

I'm afraid I don't have the Canadian Oxford available. Could you quote the relevant portion please? 67.150.247.61 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If we are looking for consensus put my check mark beside "Quebec City". I speak both of Canada's official languages, and in English we most always say Quebec City. Every map I have says "Quebec City" as well. Plus, I would go with what the Canadian Oxford says. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I generally concur with reflecting the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, with embellishment. While it is a reputable source it isn't the only one, including the various levels of government. As such, I've added/restored alternate renditions in the lead, including simply Québec (which is reflected on federal government maps [1][2], and is the official English name of the city indicated by the federal government [3]) and that of the 'Frenglish' Québec City (which may abhor some but is not uncommon, e.g., see Québec City website, Québec City Jean Lesage International Airport). However, for clarity (to easily distinguish the city from province), Quebec City should be used throughout the article. And, if Quebec (meaning the city) must be listed, it should be upfront and only the once. Thoughts? Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that your findings go along with the fact that, although the official name is Québec, the common English usage is Quebec City, except when the context is very clear that one is referring to the city anyway. The Québec City construction is indeed an odd-looking one but goes along with the somewhat increasing bilingual usage in Canada, especially in officialdom. It's reasonable to note the common usages at the beginning and, for the most part, I agree with using Quebec City throughout the article but I would still not object to leaving off the "City" disambiguator when, and only when, the context makes it exceedingly clear that we are referring to the city. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the lead is probably fine now as is. Otherwise, this sounds fine to me. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead currently says:

• Quebec or Quebec City, also Québec or Québec City

I don't think Québec is much less common than Quebec and Quebec City, so I'm not sure it should be listed after "also". Joeldl (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The current version seems equitable. An inspection of other publications and their entries for the city is in order; thus:

• Canadian Oxford Dictionary: Quebec City the capital city of Quebec ... official name of Québec is noted at end of entry. Also note that, for the Quebec (province) entry, the accented version is not listed at all, though they are for related articles (e.g., Québécois).
• New Oxford Dictionary of English: Quebec entry indicates French variant at end of 1st sense; for 2nd sense, Quebec City, with no French variant.
• Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.: Quebec or Québec 1 province E Canada [...] 2 city & port, its ∗ [...]
• Merriam-Websters Geographic Dictionary, 3rd edition: Quebec City. City, * of Quebec prov., Canada ... listed as 3rd sense under entry Quebec \ kwi 'bek \ or Fr. Québec \ kā-'bek / ... (similar to New Oxf Dict)
• Encyclopaedia Britannica: Quebec; Quebec, Canada; French Québec: city and port, seat of Québec region and capital of Quebec province, Canada
• Microsoft Encarta: Québec (city), capital of the province of Québec, Canada, in Québec County, ...
• Canadian Encyclopedia: Québec City, the capital of the province of Québec, is located on the north shore of the St Lawrence River ...

The above sources reflect common usage. I don't believe your 1st edit, whereby all are listed in sequence without any qualification, nor the 2nd (where Quebec was highlighted first, with others in parentheses) are correct, since -- as demonstrated -- all things are not equal. Note that Québec is listed as a typically French variant, secondary (save Encarta), or not at all, whereas we list it twice, both as an English and French variant per the federal government. Québec City was included by me per the municipal website, and is noted once above. Thus, I believe the current version is fine and more equitable than alternates, as it gives primacy to English versions above others as demonstrated. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. I think Québec is relatively common in English. The fact that two of the sources you gave above list it as a primary name is evidence that it shouldn't be treated as a minor variant. The fact that it's the official name also matters. Joeldl (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the above indicates that the English variants are even more common: while one source indicates Québec (the federal government notwithstanding) and another Québec City (the municipal government notwithstanding) as primary, the other five do not (with two not even mentioning them), and I think the lead harks of that. The French variants are not diminished currently, as they are in the lead and are iterated: if they were deprecated, they'd be qualified, suppressed, or excluded from the lead ... as was the case for some other variants previously. In sum, placing arguably undue emphasis on French variants deprecates English ones. The official name Ville de Québec (in French) is in the infobox, but it may warrant additional notation in the lead. Perhaps a footnote should be added to the lead (see note for 'Quebec')? Bosonic dressing (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's useful, but I just read on the Commission de la typonymie du Québec's website (commission that is responsible for the names of cities in Québec) that we usually cannot translate Québec cities names. They say: "Then, in an English text, we must write “in the city of Québec” and not “in Québec City”, not “in Quebec City”, not “in Quebec”, not “in the city of Quebec”" (this is my own translation, official text here). So, according to that, shouldn't we move this article to "Québec (city)" or "Quebec (city)" (same disambiguation as on the French-language Wikipedia)? Sincerely, Jimmy Lavoie^talk 15:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the "language police" of a French speaking government can dictate how the rest of the English speaking world should use their own language. Let English speaking people decide how to use English, and let French speaking people decide how to use French. All languages evolve over time, and no authority can really regulate what people think, say or write. A standard for what is considered correct can be established, but when it really comes down to it, it's the people who use the language that decide what is the norm. Language is influenced by many factors, one of them is proximity to another language, and Quebec English uses a lot of French spelling, grammar, and expressions, and as such is not widely understood outside of Quebec, it does not make that language incorrect, but it does not make it the norm of English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.179.1 (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation note

I've copied the first part of the discussion below from User talk:Skeezix1000. Joeldl (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I changed the hatnote, which read "This article is about the Canadian city. For the Canadian province, see Quebec. For other uses, see Quebec (disambiguation)." My objection was that given that the article is called "Quebec City" and not "Quebec", "for the Canadian province" doesn't make sense. The purpose of the hatnote is to distinguish between two things called "Quebec", and its purpose isn't clear if the name "Quebec" isn't mentioned. Joeldl (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I support Skeezix1000. Indicating 'city of Quebec' is awkward and redundant with the article title immediately above, and noting in the hatnote that there are a Canadian city and province so named makes it crystal clear as to the topic in question. Also see 'Quebec (disambiguation). Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is one of style, I suppose. Say a person reads "This article is about the Canadian city. For the Canadian province..." At this point, since the title of the article is "Quebec City" and not "Quebec", the phrase "the Canadian province" doesn't make a lot of sense. Certainly, everybody will understand what's meant, but the wording is illogical since "Quebec" hasn't been mentioned (except within the name "Quebec City"). I think a good number of readers are likely to notice this inconsistency. Joeldl (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm reading it within the lens of the article title upfront. Starting off with 'Quebec City', the hatnote then iterates that it is about the 'city in Canada', and then proceeds to note the province so named. I believe that saying the article is about the 'city of Quebec' just after the title clearly indicates 'Quebec City' is redundant. I suppose an alternate, less wordy, hatnote is possible: compare with New York City/New York; thus:

• This article is about the city[ in Canada]. For the Canadian province, see Quebec. For other uses, see Quebec (disambiguation).

or, getting rid of the 2nd sentence entirely, though I don't prefer that due to the notability of the topic. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article New York City has the following disambiguation note:

This article is about the city. For other uses, see New York City (disambiguation). "New York, New York" and "NYC" redirect here. For other uses, see New York, New York (disambiguation) and NYC (disambiguation).

It does say "this article is about the city", but it says this to differentiate the city from other uses of "New York City", not from other uses of "New York". Actually, even though New York City can also be called "New York", the disambiguation note doesn't even refer to the state or to other things called "New York". Perhaps the best choice for Quebec City is no disambiguation note at all, since the only things that need to be disambiguated are called "Quebec", not "Quebec City". Joeldl (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm open to alternate wording for the disambiguation, I totally disagree with not including one, as that implies no possibility of error or confusion. It is still often referred to as just Quebec (or Québec): also, many common publications (e.g., the aforementioned Merriam-Websiter dictionary) includes both in one entry. Perhaps a variant of one of the simpler suggestions above is warranted. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The only things it can be confused with are called "Quebec". It's hard to imagine how a person looking for something else could land at "Quebec City". If a disambiguation note is included, the wording should reflect that the things we're disambiguating the city from are called "Quebec" and not "Quebec City". Maybe before going further we should get some more opinions here on whether it's appropriate to have a disambiguation note at all. Joeldl (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything Joeldl wrote is pure logic. It would be a pity if the disambiguation banner of this page was somehow itself "ambiguous", whether for reasons of syntax or semantics. The only thing that needs disambiguation is the word Québec (or anglicized as Quebec) because it can refer either to the city or the province. The expression "Quebec City" is, as far as I know, not ambiguous at all. -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The most common thing people assume is that they know everything. Yes the most common city named Quebec is in Canada's province of Quebec, so falling on this article is appropriate, but because there are other cities in the world that have the same name, a disambiguition is necessary. There are other usages of the word Quebec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.179.1 (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

National Capital

I have removed some unsourced comments about who thinks what about whether Quebec City is/is not or should/should not be called the 'National Capital' and added sources from the legislation passed by the AN indicating that the administrative region is called "La capital nationale" and that indeed there is a statutory reference applying that term to Quebec City itself. Whether Quebec should or should not call its capital 'capitale nationale' is not the question (at least not for this article unless there's a verifiable controversy); the fact is that the city is being referred to by this terminology, at the very least by its government. I think it is important to the article that this be noted. How could it not be pertinent? Whether lots of francophones now refer to Quebec City as 'la capitale nationale' or not I don't know, and until I get a source that says that lots do, or most don't or whatever I will leave that issue alone. If there is a constitutional scholar or a noted political scientist or journalist who has raised an issue about the correctness of this, then a reference to that 'controversy' might be added. As for the POV stuff, please, (begin rant) fellow Canadians --particularly of the English speaking persuasion -- the Parliament of Canada has recognized the Québécois as a nation (etc...). As a nation, the Québécois will have 'national' institutions of their choosing, including a 'national' capital. It is very mean-spirited and petty to gripe about what francophone Quebecers wish to call their seat of government, or to quibble about their right to think of themselves as a nation. Sir John A Macdonald said of the French Canadians in 1856: "Treat them as a nation and they will act as a free people generally do – generously. Call them a faction and they become factious." It is also clear that the 'official' terminology doesn't always match the labels our governments actually use. For many years Canada called itself the 'Dominion of Canada'. Maybe that was legally correct; and maybe it wasn't. But it's what was done; it's what people felt comfortable with and must have made a great many people feel part of something meaningful. Now we don't use the term 'dominion' anymore, because people in English speaking Canada, for the most part, don't need that terminology to feel pride in their country. Things change; even terminology used for things that we think are carved into constitutional stone. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council told us in 1929 that our Constitution was a 'living tree' and extended to women the right to be considered for Senate appointments as 'persons' that our own Supreme Court would have denied because it wasn't 'correct' according to the black letter of the constitution. Our common genius is that we can change to accommodate the evolving needs of the people. (end rant) Corlyon (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To my previous discussion I would add the following quote I have just come across from our English Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson : "While Quebec is a province in the national confederation, it is more than a province because it is the heartland of a people: in a very real sense it is a nation within a nation."[4] quoted from a 1963 meeting of the Canadian French-Language Weekly Newspapers Association, at Murray Bay Quebec. Corlyon (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the usage of national capital is not used by English speaking people, I am not talking about French speaking people who speak English, but native English speaking people. We speak of national things that are Canadian, and Ottawa is the national capital, French speaking people use national in French in a different way, and Quebec is "La Capitale Nationale" and translate it into English as National Capital. It is like the "Prime-Minister" of Québec, instead of Premier. There is no French equivalent for the english term Premier, which is in fact a french word.--76.234.135.47 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good comment. I think the article mentions that the region is referred to as "La capitale nationale" which is obviously a reference to how it is called (by some) in French. It also mentions that there is at least one statute that refers to Quebec City as the national capital, which is also correct, since the statute exists in its English translation. I don't belief that the article suggests that English speaking people in Quebec or outside of it refer to Quebec City, in English, as the 'national capital'. My above 'rant' was an expression of frustration with those who would suppress any mention of the fact that the Government of Quebec has designated the City as the 'capitale nationale' because of an ideological viewpoint that it 'shouldn't' or 'can't' be a national capital. I think that information of what it is called in some contexts (even French language ones) is pertinent to English speaking Canadians (and other English speaking people) consulting the article and should be included. I would however object to referring to Quebec City as 'the national capital' generally in the English article if that is not a term commonly used in English. Corlyon (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it is simply a matter of legislation. Quebec has a legislation on its capital, in fact, just like Canada has one for Ottawa. To my knowledge, Quebec copied Canada in this case.

1. National Capital Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-4 (Ottawa)

2. An Act respecting the National capital commission, R.S.Q. c. C-33.1 (Quebec)

For sure many people in Quebec are not comfortable with the federal Parliament of Canada labelling its institutions as "national", just like many people in the ROC are not comfortable with the provincial Parliament of Quebec labelling its institutions "national" too. That is unfortunate, but it remains, in both cases, the will of the majority through their elected representatives. Both legislations have the same character of officiality and should be respected by people who respect democracy and law. (End of sermon ;-)-- Mathieugp (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is some background info here: [5]

It would seem the government of Quebec answered a proposal of the City of Quebec to create the commission. --Mathieugp (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

name

an IP has just added the name "City of Quebec" using the office of the french language as a reference. I ahve never heard this usage, and I question as to whether the office of the French language is a reliable source for usage of English. What do others think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The OQLF is the Language Police of the province of Quebec. They dictate how language is to be used in Quebec. If a publication is distributed in the province it is required by law to follow the rules established, subject to fines and possible business shutdowns. As far as including it, it is the official name according to the government, so yes it should be included. It does not matter if people actually use the name. Having a French language authority telling English speaking people how to use English is completely silly to me, but the fact is that it is a fact and needs to be included. --76.226.179.1 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the Montreal Gazette, for example, call it the City of Quebec? The OQLF do not dictate how people speak or write. I am no fan of theirs, but you are overstating their role. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not have access to the Montreal Gazette, or any Quebec printed periodicals, but could find out if it really is necessary. I am also not a fan, but the facts are the facts, and it is a correct variation on the name regardless, but I think it is appropriate to show where the variation comes from. And not for any political reasons, just that it is not necessarily used but that it is the "official" english name. BTW they also specify that the accent is required.--76.226.179.1 (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick web search of the archives shows the usage. [6] I used "city of Québec" as the search criteria obtained 83 results in the past 3 years, but am unwilling to pay 4.95$ per article.--76.226.179.1 (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Commission de la toponymie du Québec's website (commission that is responsible for the names of cities in Québec), we cannot translate cities names in Québec. They say: "Then, in an English text, we must write “in the city of Québec” and not “in Québec City”, not “in Quebec City”, not “in Quebec” (note: here, they pretend that "Quebec" needs an accent), not “in the city of Quebec”" (this is my own translation; official text is here). The person who added that on the article didn't correctly understand the rule. You can say "it arrived in the city of Québec", but "city of" doesn't belong to the official name. It's only a disambiguation. The title of the article should follow the same rule than the other Wikipedias: using "Québec (city)" or "Quebec (city)". By the way, it has NOTHING to do with the "language police" (Office québécois de la langue française), it's the commission who "chooses" the official names. And usually, we cannot translate official names. Sincerely, Jimmy Lavoie^talk 22:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes; as such, I've removed this 'variant' from the lead. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion here. First of all, there is no "Language Police" in Quebec or anywhere in Canada. Quebec has a language policy like the majority of States in the world, including the federal State of Canada. Among the things which the policy of Quebec addresses is place names and other names in everything over which the government of Quebec has responsibility or influence. Obviously, inside Wikipedia, which has its own rules and guidelines, the policy of Quebec does not apply. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions instead. If anyone does not agree with the common sense guidelines found in these, then this is where they should be arguing, not here :-)

One thing that is maybe not (yet) properly addressed is how to deal with official and unofficial naming of things in Quebec. For a lot of things, only French is official. Quebec City for example, is how English-speaking people generally name the city which only exists officially in law as Ville de Québec. Maybe we ought to precise that somehow in the article, all the while respecting Wikipedia's naming convention to prefer the name by which English speakers will tend to recognize the city. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If this needs to be dealt with additionally, perhaps the footnote specifically dealing with the numerous variations is as good a place as any? Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a footnote ought to do it. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article does not matter in this particular discussion. But all "Villes" in the province of Quebec include ville as their official name, and the Quebec language police dictate that in English French names have to contain that same wording. Yes the OQLF is a language police, they can shut down businesses who do not follow their language rules, they can fine people and business for not following their rules, they have agents that go around and make sure that businesses follow the rules. That is what a police force does, it makes sure people follow the rules. People who speak French as a primary language, and only use English as a business language are not qualified to come and tell English people how to use English. The article it's self should follow Wikipedia naming conventions. But the "Official" English name according to the government where the city is needs to be listed, whether I agree with the government or not, whether I agree with the policy or not. It is what it is. The link "showing" the justification for removing the official name was in French and therefore had no bearing on English naming of a city. IP Comment.

Side not to the Lavoie guy, if you aren't supposed to translate a name like they say then why should you remove the accent? If you are not supposed to translate a name then you don't translate the name. Removing the accent would be translating. --76.234.135.47 (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is no dictation in Québec, neither in Canada and in North America. There is no language police. There are laws, but all of them have been voted in a democratic way. Second, you're right: you should not remove the accent from Québec (personally, I don't), but it seems popular in English (as accents are not always easy to be find on a keyboard). For example, René Lévesque becomes, a lot of time, “Rene Levesque”, etc. But you're wrong on the other subject: according to Québec's government, the official name of “Quebec City” - in English - is Québec. So, the article's name should be "Québec (city)" (as on other Wikipedias) — or, at least, "Quebec (city)". But there are rules in EN Wikipedia that say that the most common English term should be used as title. So, we have to accept that name. But officially, Québec City is, in French and in English: Québec. (P.S. "Ville de Québec" refers - in proper French and English - to the city's administration (the mayor and his team). It should not be used to refer to the city itself. Jimmy Lavoie^talk 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you talking about the title of the article when what is being discussed here is the content of the article. It is very common to have and list alternate names in the lead section. According to the province of Quebec government the English name is City of Québec, that is what is being stated in the lead section that keeps getting removed. You could call the article Capitol of Quebec as all I care, that is not what is being discussed in this section. Yes the OQLF is a language police, do some research. No the laws have not been voted in a democratic way, if they were voted in a democratic way, than there would have been a referendum throughout the province. Laws are passed in a chamber and voted on by elected officials, the only thing that the citizens vote on is who they want to represent them in the legislature. The provincial assembly is a republican (not the political party) type of government, if it were a democracy then we the citizens would vote on every bill ourselves. Please do not confuse one with the other. The choice to secede is the only thing in recent history that has been voted on in a democratic way, as you say.

I do not see the problem with specifying that there is another way of translating something, and it is actually the official way. But maybe that goes against the propaganda that is shoveled out by the Quebec government?

Before reverting an article and removing factual and sourced information, perhaps it should be discussed? --76.234.135.47 (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

76.234, before adding something perhaps it ought to be discussed. There is no consensus for the change, there is you. (You might consider signing up for an account by the way). The 'language police' discussion and the rant about referenda/secession has nothing to do with improving this article, this is not a forum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you even read things before you contribute? Or are you one of those wikinatsis that believe that your way is the only way. I have provided a source for the material that I have added. I quote from Wikipedia : "You do not have to log in to read Wikipedia. You do not have to log in even to edit articles on Wikipedia — almost anyone can edit almost any article at any given time, even without logging in, and many long-time contributors do not log in.", So why are you suggesting that I do differently than I have for over two years? I was simply answering the Lavoie guys post. I am sorry that you do not believe in the free flow of ideas and thoughts. So why not criticize him for bringing the subject up,oh no that would not be a good idea to criticize people who are of the same mentality as you. And yes I have signed every post I have put up, if the FLQ really needs to come and censure me they know where to find me.--76.234.135.47 (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

please be civil. I suggested signing up for an account so we editors know who says what. IPs change, and it may be that the IP that changed the page today is the same user as the (differetn) IP that did the change a week or so ago. There is no way to tell. I will not get in to a 3RR situation here, and will leave it to other editors. The question here, is, is this a reliable source for English usage. This has been pointed out above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am being civil, I did not vandalize anything, I did not abuse anyone, I did not claim anything that is untrue. I did not know that the government of the land where this city is located was a questionable source for facts. We do not put things in articles only if they are used by a large number of the population, we put facts. Or are we supposed to dumb everything down to a 4th grade level like US newspapers? An encyclopedia tends to give information about the subject at hand, and this is information about this subject. I personally think that the OQLF should worry about French and leave English to English speaking people, but after having been fined 7,000$ because my English signs were .01% too big in comparison to my French signs I have learned to make sure I know every small rule pertaining to the Language Police Rule book.--76.234.135.47 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. First of all, you say "According to the OQLF...", but the reference you bring is from the Commission de la topographie. Second, they do NOT say that the official English name is "City of Québec", they say it's incorrect. See above, I've already explained what they meant. Stop adding controversial content, and discuss here. I repeat that there is NO language police in Québec and that the government is elected in a democratic way. There is no dictation. Stop trying to bring false facts like those ones, it does not help your cause... Jimmy Lavoie^talk 06:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In sum, we have one user (it seems, the IP range is similar, as is the writing style, hard to tell without a person signing up for an account) misunderstanding a reference and consistently adding the same material. We have the other editors happy with a footnote. 76.234, please read WP:CON and WP:SOAP Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a precision in a ref. You may correct it. Sincerely, Jimmy Lavoie^talk 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry perhaps my French is not that good it says on the website: "on doit écrire « in the city of Québec »" which is translated as: we must write « in the city of Québec », then it goes on to say not as Quebec city, nor as city of Quebec etc... But I don't know maybe you can explain your interpretation of the French language. I stand by the fact that the Quebec government states that the city name must be in English as City of Québec. Please enlighten me as to where this is wrong?--76.234.135.47 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Quote from the law creating the city:"A city is hereby constituted under the name “Ville de Québec”." That tells me that the official name of the city is Ville de Québec, and not just Québec.--76.234.135.47 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the hypocrisy demonstrated by the French Québécois contributors here. Stop trying to hide facts that put your government in a bad light. The facts are what they are, the laws are what they are, and saying that it is a law of a democratically elected government has nothing to do with the fact that it is still the law. There is never any justification for discrimination, and just because a lawfully elected parliament creates laws that discriminate does not make those laws any less justified. Wikipedia is supposed to show all information about a subject, and by hiding (deleting) the facts that one group feels might be bad for their image it is the same thing as having a bias.--76.234.135.47 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you here to contribute to Wikipedia or to do politics? You seem to be here, in the talkpage, only to show how much you hate Québec government. You contradict yourself: “"on doit écrire « in the city of Québec »" which is translated as: we must write « in the city of Québec » [...] I stand by the fact that [...] the city name must be in English as City of Québec.”

Yes, you read on the page that we say "in the city of Québec" when we want to precise that we're talking about Québec (the city). But where did you got the "City of Québec" (as you change "city of Québec" → "City of Québec" and it's not the same thing)?. They never said it. What the page says is that: we cannot translate city names and that if we want to talk precisely about the city of Québec, we can say, for example, "it happened in the city of Québec" as we do in French "c'est arrivé dans la ville de Québec". But here, "city of" does NOT belong to the official name as "City of" would. The terms "Ville" (administration of the city) and "ville" (generality) are not the same thing, as "City of" and "city of" are not the same thing. You are trying to falsely interpret what they say. I'm not here to do politics, so stop telling things like "Québec gov. is..." or "OQLF is..." or "French Québécois are..." like you do for each of your intervention. I'm here to contribute to Wikipedia, so do the same. By the way, if you go to Québec (the city) one day, check when you'll arrive for a sign saying: "Bienvenue à Québec! / Welcome to Québec! / <Japanese-language welcome message>". Your hate messages tarnish your contributions, as you seem here to do some politics and not contribute neutrally to the encyclopedia. Jimmy Lavoie^talk 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

76, contributors' ethnic backgrounds are immaterial. How do you even know the background of each of us? Please take your discussions of politics elsewhere. This page is for improving the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP user has been blocked by an administration for 24h due to his repetitive wrong edits. Sincerely, Jimmy Lavoie^talk 18:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So what you are all saying is that we are to ignore the law that states that the city is "Ville de Québec" and ville de "Québec", and the we are supposed to ignore the laws that say it must be said City of, or city of Québec. So we are to ignore laws made by the democratically elected parliament that specify that the city name is in french "Ville de Québec", this fact and reference was brought by one of you, yet you chose to not put it in the article. Mr Lavoie, you even stated it yourself that it is city of Québec, (officialy City of Québec when translated corectly), but then go and contradict yourself and say that the governmengt is wrong in saying to use the accent. The only other people that are contibuting here are two sepratist Québécois, (Mr Lavoie, and mt Matieugp, whose personal pages even show that they are québécois seperatists. Mr Lavoie claims to speak English at a professional or near native, yet can't grasp simple English grammar and imposes french grammar onto his articles, yes I looked at your edit history), and one English Canadian. Do not include the whole history of the article to try and justify your suppression of the facts.

Fact: The law that created the City of Québec states that it is called "Ville de Québec", which is the cities name, and has nothing to do with the mayor and city council and any of that other unrelated nonsense that you try to push mr Lavoie. Fact: The law states that in Québec French language Grammar has to be used in English, there fore the legal City of Québec has to be used, and in referring to the city in conversation city of Québec has to be used.

Those are the facts. Therefore it needs to be included in the article, regardless if you think people use that or not.

If you argue that the legal name of the city does not belong in the article than why are aticles like Cuba contain the legal name of the country [Republic of Cuba]]. I do not need to spend time teaching English to Mr. Lavoie, as he does not want to learn it.

What a welcome sign at the boudries of a city is not relevant to what the legal name of the city is. There are signs at the border to the US, they say Welcome to the US, not welcome to the United States of America, so I do not see what relevance a welcome sign has to do with the legal name of the City of Québec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.245.235 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop censuring facts just because you do not want outsiders to see what is really going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.245.235 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

you said 'Fact: The law that created the City of Québec states that it is called "Ville de Québec", which is the cities name, and has nothing to do with the mayor and city council and any of that other unrelated nonsense that you try to push mr Lavoie. Fact: The law states that in Québec French language Grammar has to be used in English, there fore the legal City of Québec has to be used, and in referring to the city in conversation city of Québec has to be used.' This, to me, is WP:SYN, as well please check out WP:SOAP and WP:CON. Finally, I implore you, take the politics elsewhere, it is immaterial and not appropriate for this page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And, here we go again.... user UnQuébécois just changed it to City of Quebec without any discussion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

user UnQuébécois cited http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/ct/toponymie_expliquee/regles_8.html as "legally" enforcing "City of Québec" as the English translation but, leaving aside the province of Québec's or anyone's ability to make English words legal, the page actually says the translation is "Québec" and should be referred in text as "the city of Québec". DoubleBlue (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also arrogant of French Speaking people and government agencies to impose rules of speech/writing on English. But the OQLF will, and has, fined people and organizations for not using "correct" "frenchisized" terms, even in English. DoubleBlue seems to have a better grasp on what the Québec Government website says than any other "opponent" of including the official and legal translation, which states "city of Québec". I do not see why contreversial, yet accurate, information is being left out. It does not degrade the quality of the article, it simply states a fact, that the Québec government agency that deals with names of places, says that in English you are supposed to refer to the Quebec city in English as such, but as the city of Québec. I am sorry that it shows to everyone in the world how English people are really treated in the Province of Québec, but it is a correct and accurate fact, and Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial, and show all information without prejudice. Comments follow-> I have heard all the arguments from the French that seem to think that they treat their minorities better than anyone else in the world, and in my experience that is completely untrue, it resembles more the situation of an abusive husband who tells his wife that he treats her better than she deserves. --UnQuébécois (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Still arguin' on that? First of all, why are you always talking about the Office québécois de la langue française? I mean, the source stated above is the Commission de la toponymie du Québec which has nothing to do with the OQLF. It's normal for a government to make rules for their cities' name. I think you should try to avoid contributing to this article as you are really not neutral on the subject. You seem here only to seek revenge at Québec rules and Québécois people. Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of things. Do not interpret rules if you're not a judge, only state what the rules say. So if your only goal in contributing on this page is to (I cite yourself) “show to everyone in the world how English people are really treated in the Province of Québec”, please do not edit this page anymore. If you continue in that way, you may hit a block for using Wikipedia as a tool for militating on a personal cause. Sincerely, Jimmy^talk 03:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy is correct. This is not a directive from OQLF, it is a style guide on translating place names by the Commission de la toponymie du Québec. The Wikipedia rule is the English rule: we reflect how English is actually used by English speakers. Secondly, the style guide does not even say what you allege it says. It says: generally, do not translate place names. Québec should be translated as Québec; in context of the text one would write "in the city of Québec". Notice the lowercase "c". Except, of course, that English-speakers and writers do not speak and write "city of Québec", they say Quebec City. At any rate, this article is about Quebec City not the name. If more detail about the name and its translation is to be written about, it should be at the Name of Quebec City article not here. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What Mr Jimmy does not seem to realize realize is that the OQLF is the language police of Québec, and they will and have gone around and fined and closed businesses who do not follow the rules of the language, and that includes the rules set fort by the Commission de la toponymie du Québec and any other government agency that decides that some or other language issue should be one way or the other. Wikipedia is supposed to be true to the facts, and the fact is that the Québec government says that in English we need to say "City of Québec" or "city of Québec". The city is the city, and it's name as legally translated by the government. In wikipedia it is customary to show all variations of a name, and not just the ones that aren't objected by people that make them look silly. I am and always will be a Québécois (or Québecois, or Quebecois, however you feel you want to spell it, as they are all equally acceptable) and am proud to speak both languages, to live here, and to call it my home. --UnQuébécois (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

1. This article is about the city not about the OQLF or provincial politics or your personal history with unfair fines. 2. The Commission de la toponymie page is hardly authoritative and, regardless, what it does say is the translation of "Québec" is "Québec", which is already the first word in the article. The Quebec toponymy commission uses an example for people to follow the style of on that webpage (i.e., saying the "city of Québec" in a sentence, to match the French construction of "ville de Québec") but I see no evidence that English people say that or that the OQLF is harassing those who do not. The article on Quebec City should not be overburdened with discussion of its name. There is an article for it: Name of Quebec City DoubleBlue (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We have (what looks like) one editor (one username, and the IP, who seem pretty much to be one and the same editor) that keeps doing this, until others come around to this way of thinking, it strikes me that this discussion ought to end. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Article about the name is to demonstrate the difference between the province and the city, and how one can tell which one is being talked about. Has nothing to do with this. I gave Dbrodbeck the usage examples he wanted to justify the use, but he refuses to acknowledge, and Lavoie can not be trusted as a source, as he does not want his people to be viewed in a bad light, he has also very often mist-translated things in the past. The use of City of Québec or city of Québec needs to be in the article as it is an alternate and correct variation on the name.--UnQuébécois (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It already does say that the name of the city is "Québec". The page you cite does not claim that "city of Québec" is a correct variation of the name. It asks that in a sentence you phrase it that way rather than as Quebec City; i.e. the name is "Québec". DoubleBlue (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

City of Québec

After reading the whole Charter of the city in both languages, it does state that the city is incorporated as "Ville de Québec", it does not make the distinction between Québec City, like mentioned above, it simply states that the city is incorporated as "Ville de Québec". To state that "Ville de Québec" is the administration of the city and not the city is incorrect. --76.249.45.196 (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The "national capital of Quebec"

I don't understand why the last edit has been reverted by Dbrodbeck with the reason "this has been discussed previously, please get a consensus first." I understand and I know how Wikipedia works, but how could we "get a consensus" to know if the law is right or not? This is POV-pushing, as Wikipedia is based on facts. When you bring the facts and that you explain it in a neutral form, there is no reason to revert it. Nobody can change a law value. If Quebec City is legally the national capital of Quebec, why Wikipedia EN, an encyclopedia, would not talk about this fact because it's a topic which Canadians don't want to talk about? By not talking about it, this is POV-pushing. The way it was inserted was clearly neutral (quotation marks, a lot of references, and talking about the two sides (Quebec/ROC)). So, as it seems we are all judges to decide if a law is valid or not and to let Wikipedia be a real encyclopedia, do you agree to put back this edit as it is written? Jimmy^talk 22:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I also asked a "non-Canadian person", for an international point of view on this edit, and the American person didn't see anything wrong, by the way. Jimmy^talk 22:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections before Saturday, August 8, I will put back this content on the article as it was written above. Sincerely, Jimmy^talk 04:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a well-written sentence that properly explains the idea but there are significant problems with what you've put. This is the English-language Wikipedia so if it's called the national capital of Quebec in English, let's have a source for it; all your sources are for the French language. I also have a problem with the word "legally". Who makes a phrase law? I think the sentence should explain, with sources, how the city is described as the capital in both in English and French. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto DoubleBlue. What the Quebec government calls it in a statute doesn't have any bearing on our needs here. Whatever connotations the phrase "capitale nationale" may have in French, in English the phrase "national capital" always conveys "capital of an independent country", and our core responsibility here is to English readers, not to the government of Quebec. It's appropriate for an article about the city to mention the phrase and potentially discuss the controversy its use causes — but it's absolutely not appropriate for us to simply state that Quebec City is a national capital. And I'd stress that the problem isn't fundamental hostility to Quebec — the phrase just doesn't have the desired meaning in English. Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both DoubleBlue and Bearcat. I have been away for a few days and have not replied here, but, those two replies sum up my feelings. I beleive we have had this, or similar, discussions previously. This is why I posted this. I have no hostility towards Quebec BTW, just ask my francophone spouse from Quebec City... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The only official language of Quebec being French, I believe it is not really fair to require English language sources. If they do exist however, they should preferably be used over French-language ones. Assuming only solid French-language sources, then a translation of the passages being quoted should suffice.

""National+Capital+of+Quebec" in google.ca shows several references to this phrase, not only on Quebec-government related sites, but on cbc.ca, theglobeandmail.com (though they put quote around it with their usual disrespect).

"Capitale+Nationale+du+Québec" in google.ca shows an innumerable number of references from quantity of credible sources.

-- Mathieugp (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Mathieugp, would you let me run an English phrase through Babelfish and post it on fr:Wiki as a "legal" French phrasing? I don't think so. Give us a good sentence with a good source for how to say it's called a "national capital" and we'll work with it. I frankly think it could use better explanation in the article but sourcing is extremely important on potentially contentious issues. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And are you so sure it is "disrespect" or is it showing it is a translation and not the English meaning of "national"? DoubleBlue (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I never mentioned using machine translation. There are more than enough people competent in both French and English here to do a professional-level translation. Second, in the French Wikipedia, for everything related to Saskatchewan politics, what other choice will there be but to cite English sources with a French translation? And Alberta, and British Columbia, etc.? French translations will not necessarily be available: should we simply not write anything about what is going in these Provinces because they are primarily English-speaking?

Concerning the meaning of "national", it is entirely the same in both languages. It refers to a "nation". Unfortunately, this is not a well-defined concept for it sometimes means a "country", or a "people" or a "State". In the case of Quebec, as with Scotland and others, the nation is part of a larger entity also defined as a nation, which makes things more confusing, but we are here in Wikipedia precisely to clear these things up. Are we not? ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

One normally does one's best to interpret the meaning of it and say so but on a contentious and confusing issue like using the word "nation", which definitely connotes a state in English, it cannot simply be stated, "it is so" we need some reliable sourcing for the interpretation. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Natonal capital" and "Capitale nationale" are not necessarily interchangeable, so I agree that we need good, reliable English language sources of relatively widespread, not isolated, usage of the English-language term. Some of the sources alluded to by Mathieu above would suffice, be he should post the actual references so that we can consider them. Otherwise, I don't think there is anything wrong with stating something along the lines of "the provincial government has designated the city as the capitale nationale of Quebec". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The English translation of the legislation concerning Quebec City's status as the national capital of Quebec says:

"the city of Québec is the national capital of Québec" [7]

It would be difficult to be clearer than the preamble of this law. The city of Québec is lawfully given the status of national capital of Québec by the Parliament of Québec and a "Commission de la capitale nationale du Québec" was created in 199x to promote and support "the city of Québec in its role as the national capital and for ensuring, in the manner provided by law, that the functions arising from its status are recognized;" -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the phrase doesn't have the same connotations in English that it has in French. In English it cannot mean "the capital of a sociological nation that exists within a larger country" — it can only mean "the capital of an independent country". It's legitimate for this article to discuss the usage, but regardless of what designation Quebec law uses, we can't just use the phrase "national capital" on the English Wikipedia as an unannotated and uncontextualized descriptor of the capital of something that isn't an independent country in its own right. And again, not because anybody's being hostile to Quebec in this discussion (I think you know me, for example, far better than that), but simply because the phrase inherently connotes "capital of an independent country" in English.

While Edinburgh and Cardiff are certainly valid analogues to Quebec City in the sense that the Scots and the Welsh constitute distinct nations within a larger one, I'd note that neither of those articles use the phrase "national capital" either — they're both just described as capitals. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia cannot invalid a law, as it's not its role. Second, it has the same connotation in English and in French; there are senses that are less known than others, but it has the same connotation: it's legally the "national capital of Québec" because of the willing of Quebecers to be recognized as a nation. Also, in the article, we are not telling that Québec City is the national capital of Québec, we are citing the law (using the quotation marks). Wikipedia must presents the facts. Québec's government recognized Québec City, by law, as its national capital (but it's not replacing the national capital of Canada, which is Ottawa). Even if this is a controversial fact, it must be stated, showing both POV (Canada/Québec) as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not stating that fact is POV pushing, as it is clearly showing ONE point of view. If Canada government would decide to make English the sole official language of the country, and as it is controversial, we would not want to state it. What would you say/do? Whatever, EVERY facts must be stated to be neutral. And I repeat that Wikipedia is not a judge. It cannot judge if a law is valid or not. Jimmy^talk 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's saying Wikipedia can invalidate a law. But we're not bound by any requirement to follow it, either. It's a ceremonial designation, not a criminal law. And nobody's saying that the article can't discuss the phrase or its usage — what's being said is that we can't just say that Quebec City is "the national capital of Quebec" without providing context for what that actually means. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But the law does make Québec City the legal national capital of Québec. It means the same thing that Canada's one. Of course, if you want, we could precise that the government of Québec made this because of the willing of Quebecers to be recognized as a nation, for the context. The way it was written when I added it was correct, as it specified that it may be confusing in the rest of Canada. I think we should also ask non-Canadians to have an international view on the subject. We're too close of it to be completely neutral. I respect your point of view, and you seem to be someone who knows Québec, etc., but the way it looks right now is the way it looks everyday when talking about "national" things in Canada: Canada vs. Québec.Maybe Canada is not seeing it as a neutral statement as it doesn't want to split the country, but internationally, it is. A law is a law, and Québec City is the national capital of Québec (don't forget that we always precise "of Québec" since the debut of the discussion, to not confuse with Canada's national capital). If we cannot state it on Québec City's article, then we should not state it on any national capital. Wikipedia presents the facts, don't forget it. The fact is that Québec City is Québec's national capital. Jimmy^talk 20:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I try this one more time? I did not say we can't use the phrase in the article. All I said is that because the phrase has a high likelihood of being misunderstood by most readers, we need to use it in a way that provides context for it. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Then, I agree with you. Context for non-Canadians is required to understand why the province has a "national capital". Do you have any suggestion? Jimmy^talk 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy, your statement "there are senses that are less known than others, but it has the same connotation" perfectly illustrates why there must be elaboration of the phrase. Using a word that has multiple meanings renders the phrase ambiguous. You must provide explicit context for that usage. The fact that the government of Quebec does not do so is irrelevant. (Need it be mentioned that its done for political reasons?) If you use the word nation(al), explain which definition is being used - to not do so is to mislead readers, and introduces a bias, contrary to the principles of WP:NPOV. Nobody here is arguing to completely remove the phrase, only to provide context for it. Mindmatrix 23:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I typed all that before you posted your replies, and submitted it afterwards. You've clearly accepted this point already, so consider this a recap of the discussion... Mindmatrix 23:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It does connote, in French, the same as in English. To the minds of millions of French speakers, it indicates clearly that the people who live in Quebec consider that city the capital of their nation, regardless of the current political status of Quebec as a province of Canada. BUT, I do not agree that it only connotes that idea. The fact that the National Assembly of Quebec is generally referred to as such in English to me shows that it is just a matter of getting used to.

I do agree that, in English, if only for the sake of avoiding endless and pointless battles, we need to put some context. I have already mentioned it above. I do not see the point in even trying to state this in the very first phrase of the opening paragraph, as is done in the French-language Wikipedia. The sub-section of the History section that tells of the city's status as a capital, past and present, seems like a good place for that information. -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

On the French-language article, I think it's important to state it in the introduction. But here, on the English one, it has never been question to add it to the introduction; the place where I formerly added the content was under the "Capital" section. Jimmy^talk 22:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we all agree that it needs better stating in the article but that it also requires clarity and context with reliable sourcing to be completely V, NPOV, and NOR. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)