Talk:French Canadians/Archives/2015

French Canadians and Acadians are separated peoples

Corrected numerous mistakes based on a fallacious interpretation of historical data. French Canadians and Acadians are separated peoples. The first Canadians were the Canadiens who renamed themselves Canadiens-français and later again québécois during the Quiet Revolution. The Acadians became inhabitants of Canada in 1867 and therefore cannot be considered Canadians before that time. -- Mathieugp 20:52, 26 November 2003 (UTC)

What about people from Magdalen Islands? Havre-st-Pierre, Baie-des-chaleurs? Are they acadian? French Canadian? or both?? Being acadian and French canadian is not mutually exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.218.253 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said "mutually exclusive". Nationalities can blend of course. We are all humans at the start. There are about 1 million Quebecers who can trace an Acadian ancestors, yet most of these people to not identify as "Acadian" at all. How many English with Scottish ancestors? How many Germans with French ancestors? It is the same idea. Most of the time, it is not the origin of your ancestors which explain who you culturally are: it is the social milieu in which you were brought up into and the education you received. It you wish to refer to French Canadians in Canada and Acadians in Canada as a single group, you can simply say Francophone Canadians. -- Mathieugp (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Strongly. My French-Canadian ancestors first arrived in Acadie in 1605. I don't know when the term "Acadien" was first used. In 1755, the British depopulated the area of all French-speakers who would not swear allegiance to the British king (I'm quite sure all of them gave the British the 18th-century equivalent of "the finger".) They loaded them onto converted slave-trader ships. I don't think there were any first-class or second-class accommodations. Those who survived two ocean crossings settled in Louisiana and became known as "Cajuns". Others quietly moved back across the border, such as it was before the American Revolution. What's all this about 1867, anyway? I seriously doubt it was a special date where French-speakers suddenly started moving in. Cbdorsett 08:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If your ancestors are Acadian, then they're not French-Canadian; French Canadians and Acadians are two different things. The thing about 1867 is that prior to Canadian Confederation, the Acadians did not live in any geographic or cultural entity that was called "Canada" or "Canadian" — the issue isn't about the Acadians alone, as it would be incorrect to refer to any resident of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island as "Canadian" prior to 1867. Prior to 1867, the name "Canada" only referred to what are now Ontario and Quebec. Bearcat 10:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Today, the Québécois and the Acadiens see themselves as distinct nations. In 1885, the Acadiens gave themselves their own national flag. During the convention which decided on the flag, some people wanted the incorporation of the Acadiens population as part of the Canadiens français, blurring all distinctions, claiming that both were children of New France and would be stronger under one flag. But the majority voted for the keeping of this historical distinction. It very well could have been that all French speaking populations of what is today Canada (or even all of North America) come to see themselves as one united continental nation, but it didn't happen. To write it would be to write fiction, not history. Spanish colonial history also produced multiple nations in South America. They all speak Spanish, but different varieties of Spanish, and they will all vigourously defend their own individual differences, past and present. -- Mathieugp 13:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New France and Acadia were separate French colonies, both settled by small numbers of French colonists in the 1600's and early 1700's. New France was popularly called "Canada" and the settlers who grew up there called themselve "Canadiens" to distinguish themselves from more recent French arrivals. On the eve the "Grand Dérangement" or expulsion of the Acadians, there were approx. 60,000 "Canadiens" in New France and 25,000 Acadians around the Bay of Fundy area of modern-day Nova-Scotia (see the Canadian History Atlas, volume 1). During and after the expulsion, roughly 1/4 of Acadians died or disappeared, 1/4 fled to the forests mainly to northern New Brunswick, where they became the ancestors of the Acadians of today, 1/4 fled to New France where within a generation they were assimilated by the "Canadiens", and the remaining 1/4 fled to France and to France's caribbean colonies, where after 30 years of living as refugees the Spanish allowed them to settle in Louisiana, where they intermarried with catholic Germans, Spaniards, Irish, and became the "Cajuns". Later in the 19th Century Quebec's Gaspé Peninsula and the Îles-de-la-Madeleine were settled by large numbers of Acadians moving up from New Brunswick, then in the 20th Century Quebec's Lower North Shore was also settled largely by Acadians and Gaspesians. Today, there are only around 300,000 francophones in the Atlantic Provinces, who generally identify themselves as "Acadians", and have a distinct language and traditions. Approximately 10% of French-Canadians in the rest of Canada are of Acadian descent, which means that if the average French Canadian does their geneology, they will find on average that 10% of their ancestors have Acadian roots, althoug the proportion will be much higher in the Gaspé, Lower North Shore, or in some areas settled by Acadian refugees such as the town of L'Acadie, located between Laprairie and St-Jean, near Montreal. This means that that if all francophone Canadians are considered together (around 7 million people), maybe only 4% identify themselves as "Acadians", although the number of Acadian descent is much higher. For statistical reasons it's often simpler to include the "Acadians" with French Canadians, especially if you are using the term "French-Canadian" in the sense of "Native-born Canadian of French mother tongue". AlexPlante (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"New France and Acadia were separate French colonies". This is wrong. Acadia was a part of New France (as Canada - The St. Lawrence Valley + great Lakes area, as Louisiana and as Newfoudland) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.166.165 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The English-language term "French Canadian" means something different from the French-language term "Canadien". The history of the term "Canadien" is explained well in the current version of the article Canada (New France), under the "Legacy" section. When an anglophone says "French Canadian", they probably don't mean to refer to the original habitants in Quebec. The English-language term "French Canadian" refers to anyone in Canada who is a francophone Canadian. The English usage is similar to other ethnic compound terms used for other groups in Canada (such as Italian Canadians, Lebanese Canadians, and so on). OttawaAC (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That's all very well and good, but "francophone Canadians" are not what this article is about. While obviously there's a high degree of overlap between francophone Canadians as a language group and "descendants of the original habitants of New France" as an ethnoculture, they're not identical sets: the francophone set includes Vietnamese and Senegalese and Maghreban and Lebanese and Haitian immigrants, Acadians and français-de-France immigrants who came over in the 20th century, while the descendants set includes a considerable number of people who were raised speaking English and are thus not francophones. And this article is about the latter set, not the former. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfounded POV quote

Quote from the article: "One of the motivations for the union was to limit French Canadian political power." What kind of POV unfounded rubbish is this? Angelique 23:33, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Do you prefer "One of the primary motivations for the union was the complete assimilation of French Canadians for their own good."? I thought this would pass as non-neutral, although that is what the Durham report clearly states as an objective. If you want to quote the Durham report, you are free to do it, but I garantee you that someone will eventually try to tone it down with something like "limiting French Canadian political power". -- Mathieugp 03:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

flags all aligned vertically

For me the flags all show up in a single right-aligned vertical column. I'm not an expert in wikipedia editing, but is there anyway they could be organized into multiple columns dependent on the width of the browser? I could table them into a fixed number of columns, but it would be nice if the number of columns could be window-size-dependent. Willhsmit 02:21, 30 September 2004 (UTC)

Semantics

Recently, someone moved this article form French-Canadian to French Canadian. This action resurrected the semantic problem that we need to fix with regards to Francophone Canadians. Here is what we need to distinguish:

Francophone Canadians: Canadian citizens who speak French. This denomination includes French Canadians (2), Acadians, Metis, or immigrants from any part of the world. This definition excludes all people who are not Canadian citizens. In French, this would be Canadiens francophone.

French Canadians (1): Canadian citizens who have some French ancestry. This denomination can include actual French (from France), French Canadians (2), Acadians, Metis, Cajuns etc. This denomination excludes Canadian citizens who may be Francophone, but are not of French descent. It is somewhat equivalent to "Franco Americans which include Americans of French, French Canadian, Acadian (and others) descent. In French, this would be Franco-Canadien or Canadiens d'ascendance française.

French Canadians (2): People who are French Canadian by birth or adoption. This denomination includes individuals of French Canadian descent (on either side of their famility tree), or Acadians, Irish, Scots, English etc. who were brought up as French Canadians or accepted as such by their community. Such communities existed in French Canada (Quebec) and then from there some migrated to all parts of North America. This denomination excludes French, Acadians, Cajuns, Metis etc. and other distinct Francophone cultural groups. In French, this would be Canadiens from the time of New France up to the Union Act, then later on Canadiens francais when the Canadiens became a minority ethnic group inside a federal Canada with different borders. After the 1960s, the Canadiens francais of the province of Quebec started to refer to themselves as Québécois (citizens of Quebec).

Considering the current contents of this article, I think we should move this article from the ambiguous French Canadian to Francophone Canadian or create an disambiguation page with French Canadian. What do you all think? -- Mathieugp 00:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Last week, I added a subheading to Franco-ontarian in order to clarify almost exactly this kind of issue. I think, realistically, there does need to be something at the title French Canadian, since it's unquestionably a common historical term and one that still gets used by many today (even if it shouldn't be). I think it's probably possible to resolve the issue by adding something similar to what I wrote up at franco-ontarian (under the heading Franco-ontarian identity). Bearcat 17:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Does that mean you favour a disambiguation page? Because I can't imagine including a disambiguation paragraph into each article dealing with the broad subject of French Canada. It would, in the long run, lead to a lot of duplications. I think a disambiguation notice at the top of the current French Canadian article would be appropriate. The disambiguation page already sort of exists in French Canada.

Personnally, I think it is essential that this encyclopedia informs its readers of the distinction between "Canadian citizens of French descent" which lumps everyone into one meaningless ensemble and "Canadian citizens of French Canadian descent" which specifically refers to a national group that is distinct from the French, the Acadians and the others francophones. I mean, if people don't even know that Quebecers are to the French as the Americans are to the English, how could they possibly understand anything about our culture? -- Mathieugp 21:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another good reason to solve this issue: Franco Americans. Where do they fit in this? They are certainly French Canadians (2) but not French Canadians (1). Considering that there are many more people of French Canadian (2) heritage in the United States than in Canada outisde Quebec, there is no way we can avoid the subject in the long run. -- Mathieugp 15:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All I can say is that these observations are correct, however, when referring to the US or the UK, most people don't even use the "-Canadian" suffix or noun, depending on how you choose to view it. They think that there's some sort of enclave of French citizens living in North America. Oh, and the same (mis?)understanding goes for the hispanophone and lusophone Americas. So, for roughly a billion folks, French Canadian = those who speak French in Canada, i.e. francophones or as I mentioned above, some enclave of French citizens in N.Am.

What this translates into is that if you mention "Québécois" most people have no clue of what you mean. And by referring to "Quebecers", one would convey, regardless of his or her intention, simply the residents of the province and not their heritage or first langugage. -- CJ Withers 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see you folks have a vigorous discussion going here, but thought I'd interject. Re: "Franco-Americans..." my family (descended from one of the oldest and most prolific in New Brunswick) would certainly be categorised as "Acadian" by the criteria given here. Yet from my own admittedly subjective experience, my parents and grand-parents always referred to themselves as "French-Canadian," and not "Acadian" or "Franco-American."

My grand-parents came to the US in the 1920s, and spoke French until they died, as do my living aunts and uncles. I've never once heard any of them refer to themselves as "Acadian." What's more, I grew-up in a thoroughly French-Canadian (notice I didn't write "Acadian," though in this academic sense, it was) enclave in Massachusetts, among Babineaus, Thibeaults, Legers, LeBlancs, Cormiers, Boudreaus, Arsenaults, etc, and no one I knew - neither my friends, nor their parents - any of them - ever referred to themselves as "Acadian" in my presence. If one were to try to instruct them that they were Acadian, they'd regard that person as a pedant. Likewise, if one were to suggest to anyone in my family that they were not of French-Canadian extraction, they'd object.

Such considerations might be cogent only to people of my specific background, i.e. French-Canadian (there I go again) Americans who grew-up in certain French-Canadian communities in the US, but they're worthy of mention. -- Bileman 16:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning indeed. It should be noted that about 1 million francophone Quebecers have Acadian ancestry. Many Acadian families just assimilated as Canadien or Canadian français. The generations born in Quebec for sure called themselves Canadian français in the 1920s. My understanding is that the "Franco-American" expression came from the generations born in the USA. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I grew up in Fitchburg, MA, in the 1970s. My grand-parents came directly from Shediac, N.B. Virtually all of my friends' parents and grand-parents had immigrated from the Moncton area between the 1910s and 1950s. I find it interesting that nearby were similarly homogeneous enclaves of Quebecois, in Leominster, MA, and Manchester, NH, none of whom had (or to this day, have) the faintest idea how to make proper poutines. Bileman (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

ACADIA

Although the history of Acadia, noted in the separate discussion of Acadia in another article, is valid, one CANNOT seriously list present-day French-Canadian groups without some reference to Acadia and Acadians. The article on French-Canadians has a glaring hole in it and is of little use to people using this document to learn about Canada and its french-speaking population. It should be fixed by someone more knowledgeable than I. User: 234561

I understand. The confusion around the term "French Canadian" is a big problem. Historically, Acadians are NOT French Canadians, for the simple reason that the French colony of Canada and the French colony of Acadia were separate colonies. The people of French Canada (today Quebecers) and the people of Acadia are quite isolated from each other geographically speaking. What is today called Canada just happens to include both the historical homeland of the Canadiens (French Canadians) and the Acadiens (Acadians). The result is that there are two different French language nationalities in present day Canada. See the semantic problem I discussed just above (under Semantics). -- Mathieugp 21:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hyphenation

I disagree that "French-Canadian" should not be hyphenated. I am in the middle of editing this article and am finding that we are hyphenating the provincial groups (Franco-Manitoban) but not the umbrella group, which is grammatically inconsistent. In addition, I am French-Canadian and have always seen and used the term primarily with a hyphen, just as one would write Italian-Canadian or African-American. I propose the page be moved back. Was there a prior discussion about this before it happened? Mona-Lynn 21:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These expressions fall into two different groups. (1) Terms that start with combining forms, like Anglo-, Franco-, Russo-, Sino-, and so on. These are always hyphenated. (2) Terms containing two national adjectives, like French Canadian, Italian Canadian, and so on. These take a hyphen when they are adjectives: "French-Canadian town", "Italian-Canadian newspaper", "Irish-Canadian woman", "Mona-Lynn is French-Canadian"; but not when they are nouns: "He is a French Canadian", "Italian Canadians have been around for generations". It's a bit tricky till you get used to it. The Wikipedia naming convention is to have titles in noun form, with adjective forms as redirects, so that's why the article is "French Canadian" and "French-Canadian" is a redirect. Indefatigable 21:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So do we need to remove the hyphens from Franco-Manitoban, Franco-Albertan, etc. when being used as nouns? Mona-Lynn 00:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, those belong to group (1) above, and they always have hyphens. Those combining forms that end in with an o never stand alone. They have to be joined to the word they modify with a hyphen, whether they are adjectives or nouns. Isn't English grammar grand? Indefatigable 01:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First Europeans to colonize Canada?

Is that true? What about Newfoundland? The St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador article claims that it was founded in 1497, although I'm not certain that is accurate.

Funnyhat 06:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Newfoundland was discovered in 1497, but the first permanent settlement wasn't founded until 1610. Quebec was first settled in 1608.Since Newfoundland was discovered first, and Quebec settled first, they both get bragging rights. Vary 04:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is with the definition of Canada. Newfoundland was a separate colony of Great Britain until 1949 when it was annexed to what is today called Canada. This means that, for a very long time, Newfoundland could not have been where the first settlement of "Canada" occured.

Worst than that, Canada currently refers to a federation in which what used to be French Canada is now a province called Quebec. For a great many Quebecers, the current Canada is a distinct political and geographical entity from the historical Canada (a colony of New France, itself a province of the Kingdom of France) which was founded by their ancestors who used to called themselves "Canadiens" long before their country was annexed to the British Empire. It is not uncommon in Quebec to say that in reality Champlain founded what is now Quebec, since Canada is today a word that conveys a different meaning than 242 years ago. So were the French first Europeans to colonize Canada? Well, it depends on which Canada you are refering to. Did you mean "le Canada" founded by Champlain, renamed the province of Quebec in 1763 or the younger Dominion of Canada, founded by John A. MacDonald and friends in 1867? -- Mathieugp 20:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What did Jacques Cartier according to you???17:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Quebec nationalist bias

I removed parts prescribing how to refer to French Canadians. I think each person can speak for themselves on the issue of identity, including Céline Dion. I know Quebec nationalists might dearly love to get rid of the word, but that does not apply to everyone. I somehow doubt that Americans in Montana will ever adopt "franco-saskaskois" to refer to their French-speaking neighbours.

It's not a Quebec nationalist bias. Celine Dion does identify as Québécoise rather than French Canadian. Franco-Ontarians do identify as Franco-Ontarian rather than French Canadian. And on and so forth. The section was added by me (and for what it's worth, I've never lived in Quebec in my life, so I can hardly be accused of harbouring some Quebec nationalist bias) to clarify an objective reality. It's a fact that most French Canadians identify with their provincial subgrouping, and it's a fact that Wikipedia has to respect the right of people to self-identify rather than simply imposing a label that a group doesn't use for themselves, even if that's the more common term among outsiders. Bearcat 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of a francophone outside Quebec or Ontario object to the term "French Canadian" or "Canadien-français", nor have I heard Celine Dion object to the word. I do remember her going ballistic when she won an award for "best anglophone recording artist" at ADISQ a few years back and claiming that she was not "anglophone" but "Québécoise", an indication that anglophones as a whole are not considered "Québécoise" outside the politically correct circles of Quebec intellectuals.

In any case, French Canadians outside still strongly identify as French Canadian. This is very clear when they name their national pan-Canadian and provincial cultural organizations. All you need to do is google "Canadienne-française" and you will get 269 000 hits leading to these organizations. Among hundreds of others, these include:

- Fédération culturelle canadienne-française (Cultural organization) http://francoculture.ca/fccf/

- Association canadienne-française pour l'avancement des sciences (Science Organization) www.acfas.ca/

- Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française (Youth organization) http://www.fjcf.ca/

- Alberta (Association Canadienne Française de l'Alberta (ACFA)) http://www.acfa.ab.ca/default.asp

- Ontario (Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario (ACFO)) http://www.acfo.ca/

- Regina (L’Association canadienne-française de Regina (ACFR)) http://www.scfpa.ca/

So your whole point about French Canadians outside Quebec no longer self-identifying as French Canadian is completely unsubstantiated. At best, it is annecdotal. It is clear that "franco-ontarian" is used interchangeably with "French Canadian from Ontario". It is not offensive to anyone.

- the following peer-reviewed article,it's clear that outside Quebec, they continue to speak of their French-Canadian identity, particularly in literature:

http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=product/utq/634/634_hayne.htm

The article also reviews the nationalist political context behind eliminating the word in Quebec.

So until you come up with some of examples of organizations outside Quebec that have specifically negated the use of "french Canadian" or "Candien-français", I think your point on modern usage is just plain wrong. Every Francophone organization outside Quebec refers to itself as French Canadian in some context, and French Canadians outside Quebec, be they from Ontario or Saskatchewan, have no problem with it. There may be a few Quebec nationalists living there that disagree, but they are about as marginal as Alberta seperatists.

As for the point that the Quebecois no longer identify as French Canadian, that point is made clear earlier in the article. You do not long, belaboured personal annecdotes to make this point. I think the whole section on "modern usage" should be removed pending revisions of the factual errors.

And to clarify, I am not vandalizing the site and making arbitrary changes. I'm removing content that cannot be substantiated beyond anecdotal evidence. I've added links to Pan-Canadian "Canadien-français" organizations that clearly identify as just that, and made reference to several provicnicial and local organizationes as well. I apologize if I have violated any wiki protocols.

Franco-Ontarians, for example, identify strongly as Franco-Ontarian. They retain the Franco-Ontarian identity even if they move to another province. They do not identify as "French Canadian" — in fact, the official name of ACFO was changed within the past few years from "Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario" to "Association des communautés franco-ontariennes", precisely because "canadienne-française" is problematic and not representative of how the community identifies. The article also needs to make clear that a Franco-Ontarian who moves to Quebec does not magically become Québécois; the identities are not interchangeable. And, for the record, your evidence is not supporting your claim — every one of the examples you posted is a national group which is using "French Canadian" as a collective term for all francophone groups in Canada, which is precisely one of the contexts where the section you're disputing says the term is still perfectly valid and correct. You have not provided any proof that groups exclusive to Saskatchewan would identify themselves as "French Canadian" rather than Fransaskois; you've provided evidence that "French Canadian" is used as a collective term when something applies equally to Saskatchewan and Ontario and Quebec. Bearcat 08:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Newfoundlanders maintain their Newfoundland identity when they move to Toronto or Calgary, and Montrealers maintain their Montreal affection for bagels and the Canadiens when they move to Toronto, so why is it worth mentioning that Saskatchewan francophones maintain a soft spot for Saskatchewan when they leave? And none of that prevents them from identifying as Canadians. And in Quebec they make a huge fuss about making sure that Algerians and Haitians are "Quebecois", that it's just silly to consider that francophones moving from Saskatchewan aren't considered "Quebecois". The whole subject is silly and not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.

You might perhaps want to try reviewing the edit war that took place some time ago at Michaëlle Jean, regarding whether her last Québécois predecessor was Jeanne Sauvé or Jules Léger.

As for what is "politically correct", that has no place in an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is here to describe words and ideas as they are used, not how you would like them to be.

I am describing the word as it is used. It has jack-all to do with what's "politically correct"; I'm describing what's actual. You're the one engaging in wishful thinking here, not me.

You decribed how the word is used, and then went into how it should be correctly used.

Moreover, I still haven't come across any Franco-Ontarian or Fransaskois having a problem with "French Canadian". I know lots that would have a problem with "Quebecois" if they are not living there, just like an Albertan might have trouble if you called him a Nova Scotian. You are going to have to provide proof that individuals identify more with their provincial identity than with their national one. You will have to go one step further and show examples where someone has taken offense at being called "French Canadian". That is obvious in Quebec, but not elsewhere in Canada.

And I've never come across a Franco-Ontarian who did move to Alberta and decide that having moved suddenly made him now a Franco-Albertan rather than a Franco-Ontarian. It is not an identity defined solely by the province one currently resides in; a Franco-Ontarian remains Franco-Ontarian throughout their lives no matter where they may subsequently move to. And I'm sorry, but when disputing how Franco-Ontarians define themselves, I think the actual lived experience of an actual Franco-Ontarian counts for a hell of a lot more than you seem to believe.

My main point is that it is not insulting to call anyone French Canadian. And from personal experience, I know several ex- "Franco-Ontarians" and Franco-Manitobans who move to Quebec and consider themselves Quebecois for the same reason that Michaelle Jean does. Multiple identities are not unusual in Canada.

"Fransaskois" like Carmen Campagne live their lives in a French Canadian milieu whose cultural life is centered in Quebec (Montreal to be exact). That is the reality of those who choose to live and work in French.

You're still using French Canadian as a collective term for groups across Canada, and then claiming that the usage invalidates the reality of the provincial subgroupings. IOW, you're still basing your claim on evidence that undermines it rather than supporting it. Bearcat 19:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and I'm saying that the cultural life of francophones all across Canada revolve more around a this national culture (music, literature, television, etc.) than around local institutions. That is precisely what my "Carmen Campagne" example illustrates.

Sources tag

Like most of the articles here about Canadian English, this one doesn't cite any sources for its assertions, which like any other assertions about usage are debatable. I think it's a good stab at defining the term, although I don't agree with it completely. Anyway, it would help if some sources were provided to back up the assertion that the term is most often used with this meaning in Canadian English. For example, I would think that people born in Quebec of immigrant parents who speak French as a first language are French Canadians. I can't provide any source to show that that's the implication of common Canadian English usage, but then I haven't made the claim in the article.

Oh – don't want to imply guilt by association. this article is better than the other articles about Canadian English I'm familiar with. John FitzGerald 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Article improvement

To be more along the lines of other articles describing ethnocultural groups, there should be a template made like the one found on the articles Acadian people, French people, Irish people or English people.

As for sources on the subject, there are a lot on-line. On the French Canadians living in what is today Canada, a lot of sources are unfortunately heavily politicized. For French Canadians in the United States, it is still politicized but better in average. However, resources are more scarce in this case.

Good Internet sources for French Canadians (and Franco Americans) in the USA:

• Franco-American History, Marianopolis College in Montreal
• Marianne Fedunkiw, French-Canadian Americans, in the Website "Countries and Their Cultures"

-- Mathieugp 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Further improvements

Can someone find the number of Francos who settled in Northern and Eastern Ontario during the late 19th and first half of the 20th century? The Franco-Ontarian population being half a million today, I suspect it must be at least some 100 000 people.

I think the "History" section should, much like the other articles about ethnocultural groups, talk about the history of the population (settlements, growth, emigration, development of the core institutions (parishes, schools etc). Since the scope of the article is now on "the French Canadians" and not "all the people of French ancestry living what is today Canada", the section must be adapted to consider the whole population, especially the important part of it living in the USA. Right now, the "History" section is a bad rehash of the usual discourse on Canadian/Quebec history. -- Mathieugp 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, I think while French Canadian populations in the U.S. are worth mentioning, I think details should propably be left for a seperate article on Franco-Americans similar to Franco-Ontarians and Acadians. --Soulscanner 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be inconsistent with the other articles about peoples, such as English people, Scottish people, Irish people, French people etc. An article about the French Canadians is of course about all French Canadians, not just those who reside is what is currently named Canada. Articles focussing on Franco-Americans and Franco-Ontarians are already existant. Same for the one on the Acadians, which of course talk about all Acadians, not just those who reside in what is today Canada.

This is true to certain extent. However, more French Canadians identify as such in Canada. Franco-Americans identify more as Americans. French Canadians in Canada identify more as French Canadian, and your undue emphasis on American is part of a deliberate and politicized attempt to diminish the importance of a Candian identity among francophones. --Soulscanner 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In your rewrite of the intro, you wrote that most French Canadians (of Canada) identify as Québécois, which is true. Now you say they identify as French Canadians in Canada. That is a first class contradiction. Of course Franco-Americans identify as Americans: they are an ethnic minority in something called America. If according to you "undue emphasis on American is part of a deliberate and politicized attempt to diminish the importance of a Candian identity among francophones", then is an undue emphasies on Canadian a deliberate and politicized attempt to increase the important of Canadian indentity among francophones? I doubt you will admit this since you are a partisan. The article, to be consistence with the other articles about peoples will talk about all French Canadians, those who are still francophones and those who are not, those who live inside their historical homeland and those who do not. There could be no undue emphasis on the major part of the Quebec diaspora which just happens to live in the USA. You are the one refusing to see this for political reason. -- Mathieugp 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a contadiction. Seperatists (and many other Quebecers) who identify with their French Canadian roots refer to these as Quebecois (for obvious reasons). Hence, as I said before, when Celine Dion says "Je suis pas une artiste anglophonie ... je suis Quebecoise" she is obviously using this sense of the word. In English, we distinguish between this sense of Quebecois and Quebecker. --Soulscanner 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how your contradiction is not a contradiction? How is your political use of an annecdote about Celine Dion changing anything to the fact that the article is about all French Canadians, not just those who live inside the current borders of the Canadian federation? Where are your arguments? -- Mathieugp 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

French Canadians are not people "who can trace their ancestry and cultural identity to colonists from France who settled the Saint Lawrence River Valley during Canada's 17th and 18th century French colonial period". This is a narrow definition that only corresponds to a subgroup of the French Canadians. Ethnic French Canadians are many to have Irish, Scottish, English, German, Italian etc. ancestry or mixed ancestry going back to 18th, 19th, 20th century. Ethnicity is socially transmitted, unlike "race" which has to be passed down biologically. One common, probably the most frequent way a person will come to identify and/or be identified as a member of a given ethnic group is to be brought up as a member of that group. A confusion arise I think because a great deal of people (this would be my case for example) are both member of a given ethnic group and also member of the main community(ies) of biological descent that make up the bulk of the said ethnic population. Like most nations of with populations of many millions, different communities are at the origin of the nation's culture and social frabric. -- Mathieugp 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The French Canadian people were founded by French Catholic settlers. Aboriginals, Irish, Germans, etc. were assimilated by the descendants of these settlers. African Americans also have as many elements of Scotish, Irish, English, German and Italian ancestry and culture, indeed, as much as French Canadians. However, they identify primarily with their African ancestry and culture. That is what makes them African American. Similarly, French Canadians identify primarily with their French ancestry and culture (language, culture, ancestry, etc.). They do not identify as much with their German, Irish, Scotish ancestry, culture, and language. Race usually implies a visible difference, which is why African Americans also can be categorized as of African race. Ancestry does not neccessarily cannotate race in modern parlance. --Soulscanner 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are almost making sense. First, you do not "found a people", you found a country which gives birth to a new society and the new society allows for the birth of a new people. Second, there are Black French Canadians. Third, French Canadians do not identify with their French ancestry the way you mean it unless they were assimilated to Anglo-American or Anglo-Canadian culture. It is within this context, that of a minority group inside a larger group, that such identification is possible. Those who are francophones and tend to live in Quebec identify with a language and culture that is still alive and that is, because the political institutions are there to make it possible, dissociated from ethnicity, as are the American or Canadian cultures. One can thus be Franco-Québécois, Anglo-Québécois, Sino-Québécois as one is Anglo-American, Franco-American or Chinese-American. When Franco-Québécois identify with their ancestors, they very much indentify with their ancestors in the New World, the Canadiens, or the Acadians, like the Anglo-Americans who identify with their Yankee ancestors. This does not exclude also identifying with their ancestors on the Old Contient, but it just happen that it is much less important to them. Nothing of what you wrote invalidates or even contradicts what I wrote, but it confirms that you are not qualified to write on the subject. -- Mathieugp 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I do not contradicts these points. You make good analogies. As many New Englanders identify with the first English settlers of New England and the culture they spawned, so do French Canadians (including the Quebecois) identify with the first French colonists. You are wrong, though, that language is dissociated from ethnicity in Quebec. Indeed, shared language is an intrinsic component of most ethnicity and ethnic groups, and so it is especially with the Quebecois or French Canadians in Quebec. This is a key component of Quebec nationalism. They in fact identify much more strongly with their ancestry because they go through the trouble of preserving the language associated with this ethnicity. In order to perpetuate that ancestral culture, it is entrenched in Canada's and Quebec's civic structures, often to the exclusion of others. The Fet nationale is another example: the "national" holiday of ethnic French Canadians is made the holiday of the state, imposing ethnic culture on the entire population. Certain ideologues may pretend that all this has nothing to do with identifification with their ethnicity, but that doesn't change the facts: you don't have to be minority to identify with your ancestors; it is just that with the ideology of nationalism, it is just assumed that the majority ethnic group may use the state to dominate the others. Don't get me wrong, their's nothing wrong with preserving your culture: Jews do it, Muslims do it, and it would be inhuman to deny it to French Canadians. But unless you recognize it for what it is you will have the type of difficulty with minorities that we see today in Quebec and (even worse) France. The need to dominate others culturally, as we learned in Canada with Durham, will always bring resistance. --Soulscanner 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you able to go even more off topic? How is anything you wrote supporting your definition of the French Canadians, as a community limited to those people who can trace their ancestry to the original settlers of Canada, New France? What about those French Canadians whose ancestors are not French at all, or mixed? You have yet to make a valid point on this. -- Mathieugp 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The French Canadians are undisputably a nation, as are the Acadians. The only thing that makes the concept of a French Canadian nation controversial, unlike that of an Acadian nation for example, is the political "debate" going on over the secession of Quebec. An encyclopedia has to be above the biases of the political conflicts. If people want to argue that the French Canadians are not a cultural group and nation, they can present their arguments here. I and others will be happy to refute them. -- Mathieugp 07:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It IS disputable. It depends on your definition of nation. The Civic Nationalism link explains it quite well. French Canadians do not form such a civic nation, and many (especially Americans) use that definition for nation in academic political discourse. If you wish to use nation, you should specify "ethnic nation", which comes with it's own loaded meanings. Hence the assertion that French Canadians form a nation is clearly dependent on which definition you choose based on POV. That will be based on your political view.

No it is not disputable. We are of course talking about a cultural nation here. The civic or political nation would be Quebec, as the associations of citizens cannot strech beyond the borders of States. Do you seriously believe you could possibly teach me anything about the subject of nation and nationalism? Do you have any idea how much reflexion the people of Quebec, over the course of the past two centuries, has given into these? Read the articles about the other peoples inside Wikipedia. This is what we are talking about here. -- Mathieugp 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right. We are talking about a cultural or ethnic group; those are the words that should be used to avoid ambiguity. Refering to it as something was as imprecise a meaning as a nation will confuse things and lead to ambiguities unless it is qualified with "ethnic" and "cultural". Quebec seperatists do this intentionally, ad\nd the fact that you attempt to use this word clearly indicates a political agenda. Quebec is not a civic nation. Not anymore than Newfoundland or Texas, anyways.It is a province. That is the civic entity. Those are objectively different. That is my point. You may want Quebec to be a civic nation, but it is not. Canada is a civic nation, as is the U.S. --Soulscanner 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Go on the talk page of English people. Convince the contributors to this article that the English are not a nation and that any mention of it should be removed from the article, as it could be controversial. If you win your argument, repeat the process for the other articles about peoples, including French Canadians.

Quebec is a civic nation in fact and in law. Like most civic nations that welcome a great deal of immigrants, it is made out of a majority ethnocultural group and minority groups. There is not much difference between Canada, the US and Quebec in this regard, other than Quebec not being sovereign, which is precisely why there is an independence movement in that state. Anglo-Americans, being a majority, tend to identify as simply Americans and generalize their perception of reality to all citizens of the USA. Anglo-Canadians, being a majority, tend to identify as simpy Canadians and generealize their perception of reality to all citizens of Canada. Franco-Quebecers, being a majority, tend to identify as simply Québécois, and generalize their perception of reality to all citizens of Quebec. That is perfectly natural as they, being the majority, are setting the social norms and usually come into contact with the Other through their own language and culture. When Joe Canadian says, "we Canadians say hey", he is generalizing to all Canadians something which only ethnic Anglophone Canadians and people assimilated to the culture of this group, could possibly relate to. Is anyone accusing the Anglo-Canadians of rejecting the other citizens of Canada? Of course not, that would be dishonest and vain. Yet, this dishonest and vain process you apply to people who, identifying as Québécois generalize this to all citizens of Quebec. What is your justification for this unequal treatment of the evil ethnic Franco-Quebecers? -- Mathieugp 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely because the encyclopedia has to be free of political biases (in this case yours iis highly politicized and that of a hard-line Quebec seperatist; the emphasis on nation is clearly used to justify the legitimacy of Quebec sovereignty, which is also disputable). It should be specified that "French Canadianess" is a question of identification with French ancestry and culture and ethnicity, as being African American is of identification with African ancestry and culture. They are different of course, as are all diaspora identities. it's a fact that very few French Canadians identify with their German heritage as much as they do with their French ancestry, language and culture (that is why they speak French instead of German). --Soulscanner 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My political opinions never leave the talk pages, unlike yours which you pour into all the articles you touch. Again, read the articles about the other peoples inside Wikipedia. The French Canadian article is going to be similar to those. I doubt that your contribution will be significant in the end. -- Mathieugp 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have clearly shown here, the very fact that you attempt to get away in the article with not qualifying the word "nation" is evidence enough of your political bias. Anyone here can read that. --Soulscanner 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly shown? Through what argumentative process did you invalidate the reasons that I have put forward? Where are your logical inferences? Where are your facts? -- Mathieugp 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite clearly. The majority of Canadians reject the notion of French Canadians being a nation because they see them as the cultural group that belongs to the Canadian nation. The fact that you ignore this clearly indicates that you are advancing your own political agenda. I am not saying that they are or they aren't, but if you make a claim like that you need to show references showing who is making that claim and who refutes it. It's better that we use terms that are commonly agreed upon. --Soulscanner 05:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not for other Canadians to decide. That is for French canadian to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.138.195 (talk) 19:28, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Quebec is a civic nation in fact and in law. Like most civic nations that welcome a great deal of immigrants, it is made out of a majority ethnocultural group and minority groups. There is not much difference between Canada, the US and Quebec in this regard, other than Quebec not being sovereignThat is a HUGE and important difference that is not made clear by how the word nation is used in this article. However being a ardent federaliste and anglophone Montrealer I probably have a bias so I have tagged this article as POV and weasel words. Ideally someone who isnt Canadian (or French Canadian/Quebecois) and therefore have no vested intereste will resolve the dispute. Mathieugp you clearly ahve a political bias which is colouringyou views on this subject as indeed to I, which is why I believe a more impartial editor should dela with this issue. -Mathieugp.

First, this article is about the French Canadian nation, not the Quebec nation. The best comparision here would be the Jewish or Irish peoples (including all diaspora members disregarding territory) versus the body of citizens of the States of Israel or Ireland.

Regarding the use of the word "nation" to qualify French Canadians, the challenge is, if you succeed at getting the word "nation" removed from the English people article, than for consistency's sake it should be removed everywhere else in Wikipedia including here. In the end, ambiguity over words can be resolved 1) by disambiguation pages or 2) proper definitions but not by ideological censorship. You are welcomed to work on improving the nation article if you master the subject. -- Mathieugp 03:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not work on that page as I do not know much about the English. I do know about Canada. In Canada, nation is a highly controversial word and should hence be avoided if you are interested in consensus as opposed to advancing a political agenda. I also find it interesting that you compare the Quebecois to the Irish here, whereas on the Quebecois page you deny the parallel. Very interesting. --Soulscanner 05:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "French Canadian" is easily defined as a Canadian of French descent, culture and heritage whom may speak French as their mother tongue and lived in Canada for many generations preceding the British annexation of New France in the 1760's. It can also be anyone of any degree of French ancestry who may be Anglophone or bilingual (i.e. Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau) and claims other ethnic/cultural heritage (i.e. Eastern European Jews in Montreal) in addition of being "French Canadian" or "Quebecois", the other term is either came from or lived inside the province of Quebec. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Omission of Acadians

I understand that Canada and Acadia were separate French colonies. Still, both were settled by people of French origin, and outsiders often lump them together. If this article is to not discuss the Acadians, it really should make that explicitly clear, preferably in the introduction. Funnyhat 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How do you propose we make it more clear? -- Mathieugp 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How about turning French Canadian into a disambiguation page like this:

1. For Francophones of modern-day Canada, see Francophone Canadians

2. For the French Canadian people, see French Canadian people

3. For the Acadian people, see Acadians

-- Mathieugp 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The article already says right in the first paragraph that the Acadians are discussed separately. Bearcat 22:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I added this just now. We could have the disambiguation link at the top of the current article which deals with the French Canadian people proper, and not all individuals of possible French ancestry inside what is called Canada right now. Here is a tentative disambiguation page for French Canadian : French Canadian (disambiguation). -- Mathieugp 00:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am realizing now that the same approach had already been taken for English Canadian, although the said article redirects to English Canada. Maybe we should do the same since we have French Canada already? -- Mathieugp 00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Map

Does anyone else think the map of French Canadians in the United States is greatly compromised by the fact that it has no key? Marsman57 18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to add that I think the map of French Canadians in the United States doesn't agree witht the article itself because in the Article it says that Broward County, Florida has the largest population of French Canadians and then the map shows Browar County white like it has a very low percentage of French Canadians. What is up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.219.98 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as B class, although it needs inline citations, and of top importance, as this topic embodies a part of what Canada is about. Cheers, CP 03:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Images, Chosen Personalities

I was apalled by the choice of the pictures and the people in the image gallery. Yes they are all French Canadians, although Pierre Elliott Trudeau, when PM, dissociated himself from French Canadians, saying "they" speak a "lousy French" and are nothing more than "hot-dog eaters". I found his presence here insulting, regardless of his position on the national question. Furthermore, putting other figures such as Mario Lemieux and Céline Dion is irrelevant compared to the very important people that are not shown here. Why put a hockey player and a pop singer? Are we a fastfood culture?

Many other great French canadians would deserve to be presented instead, not only from Quebec but from coast to coast. Where is Louis Riel, from Manitoba, who embodied, as a Métis, both French and Native opposition to ruthless British imperialism in the Great Plains? Where is La Sagouine, who kept alive Acadian culture with theater, humor and songs for over 50 years all across Canada? Where are Michel Chartrand, Jean Lesage, Jacques Hébert, René Lévesque, Pierre Bourgault and Gaston Miron? All of them, poets, writers, journalists and politicians, sovereigntists and federalists, who led the Quiet Revolution in Québec? Where is Germaine Guévremont, the award-winning writer who portrayed the Franco-Manitobans for the world to see?

Well, I could name many more who would deserve a presence here, way ore than the guy who spat on Quebec for most of his political career, an English-singing pop icon and a sports profesional.

What say you?

JoceB (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC) JoceB

First a technical problem. The copyright on the Lévesque picture might allow fair use on a subject like René Lévesque or Parti Québécois, but here we might need to say something about him in the article for the use to be allowed - it can't be totally tangential to the subject.

Second, I think that Pierre Trudeau and Wilfrid Laurier are just as legitimate as French Canadians as René Lévesque is. I don't really want to get into an argument about who got spat on, but I do disagree with you. I think it would make sense to have one major federalist figure and one major sovereigntist one - that wasn't the case before either. I suppose Jean Lesage would do as a federalist. But weren't they in the same government once? Having a federal politician might be good. Joeldl (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We can only use photos that we actually have on Wikipedia, for which we have appropriate copyright licensing. This severely limits the number of options that are available for photos. And never mind that Acadians and French Canadians are two different cultural groups, which rules out using Antonine Maillet (and how on earth would you suggest that we even begin to look for a photo of La Sagouine, a fictional character?) Out of all the people you suggested, JoceB, Riel and Lesage are the only two for whom Wikipedia actually has pictures that could be used on this article under current copyright law — and Lesage's is not a photo of him, but of the Lesage statue on the grounds of the National Assembly. Which would, needless to say, look weird. The Lévesque photo is fair use, which means it can only be used in articles specifically about Lévesque, and for everybody else you named we have no photos at all. Though if you know where we could get some, we're all ears. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Trudeau should be removed even though I do not like his personnage nor the political actions he accomplished in relation to Quebec. 1) I think it is obvious that the faces that will be shown will be so because they are widely known. Artists, politicians, scientists etc. who were present on the international scene or at least known throughout North America. 2) There is not much space so we are limited in the number of portraits we would like to show and therefore need to clearly justify the choices we make. Since we are talking about all "French Canadians", we should be careful to include at least one person out of each of the historically important out-of-Quebec regions: New England, Ontario and Manitoba at least. In fact, if we were to respect proportionality to population sizes, then it would be more like 3 for New England, 1 for Ontario and 1/2 or less for Manitoba, but this would be impractical and we need to represent Manitoba with at least 1 person. However, we can and should have 50% men and 50% women. We just need to have an even number of pictures. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with the 50% women stance, and may retract my statements about W. Laurier. In Manitoba's case, I wouldn't see anybody else than Louis Riel and concerning Pierre E. Trudeau, I maintain my position that he excluded himself, with is own statements and by is own will, from the French Canadian community, notably by stating that French canadians (especially Quebecers) are "Hot Dog eaters" and speak "lousy French" and are prone to "tribalism" (Trudeau's qualification of nationalism), among many others. Being federalist is one thing, a completely acceptable one that is, but being outright despising is definitely another. So if I would be fine with the idea of Trudeau being listed under "great statesman", "prominent prime ministers of Canada", I completely object the idea of putting him as a figure to represent French canadians, in any manner. -JoceB

Stereotypes and cultural slurs are made of French-Canadians, from "smoking in church" to "drinking pepsi mixed with maple syrup liqueor for breakfast", "gas station attendants or usher-janitors" and "Canada's version of rednecks or ghetto-dwellers", therefore the Trudeau POV on French-Canadians from Quebec is harsh to say and how can a politician generalized an ethno-cultural group for being too low-class or not authentically French without being widely condemned for cultural insensitivity. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Acadiens and Canadiens?

The question comes back once in a while: Why are the Acadians (Acadiens) not French Canadians (Canadiens)? Because they evolved separately in two separate territories at a time when British North America was not yet a federation going by the name of "Canada". Following the confederation of 1867, which they had massively opposed, the Acadians decided that the distinctiveness of their national character was important enough to give themselves their own national day (1881) and flag (1884).

The Canadiens were also of the opinion that their nationality was important enough to be preserved. However, unlike the Acadians, they were not able to preserve their original name over time. In the 1960s, the people formerly known as the Canadiens in the time of New France, after a long period of confusion where they went by the name of Canadiens français, ultimately rejected their old name, which no longer made any sense since at least 1867. In Québec, in the vocabulary of French speakers, the word Québécois, the people of an existing province, supplanted Canadien français, the people of place no longer existing but in the dream. In English however, the equivalent word of "French Canadian" is still in use and so is the confusion that inevitably goes along with it. Most naturally conveying the meaning of "Canadian citizens of French ancestry, heritage or language" all at once, it excludes all American citizens and puts the Français, Acadiens, Canadiens (today Québécois) residing in today's Canada indistinctly all in the same basket. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Quebecois/Québécois

Both spellings are acceptable, but I think when citing sources, you should use spelling of the quoted source. The "Quebecois" spelling is used consistently throughout the document [1] as well as in the data holding the data [2].--soulscanner (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should only use one spelling. Like Quebecer (Quebecker is also acceptable, but least used on Wikipedia). Citing sources are not always right with spelling. If they don't know how to write a word, they will misspell it. I think an encyclopedia has to use the most "official" word. Jimmy Lavoie × Vive le Québec libre! ^talk 11:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be that the sources get it wrong. However, in wikipedia, the sources are more authoratative than your personal opinion. --soulscanner (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. I didn't decide how "Québécois" will be spelled. Just look at Québécois (it's not Quebecois as you can see). -_- You should know that only ONE source, it's not reliable to state something. Just check out and I'm sure you'll find more sources using Québécois than Quebecois. By the way, I'm not the only one that think it, see this edit (Someone changing Quebecois to Québécois for typo reasons). Thanks. Jimmy Lavoie × Vive le Québec libre! ^talk 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In English, both are acceptable and both are used. So if you exclude one spelling, you ARE deciding how it should be spelled based on your personal opinion. Like I said, I prefer Québécois myself, but I recognize that many educated writers do not use the accent. Check out the dictionary sources at [[Québécois]]. What counts in this case, though, is that the source being quoted is respected. --soulscanner (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rene Levesque.jpg

The image Image:Rene Levesque.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos

The first picture is not actually poet Émile Nelligan; it is rather of pop signer Avril Lavigne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.82.122 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that there's been a longstanding reversion war over who should be included in the infobox (see discussion below); sometimes people change a photo without changing the associated caption. You happened to catch the article in one of those moments; it was corrected rather soon thereafter. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

English language of french Canadians? (Info Box Dispute)

Okay there seems to be some discussion and dispute about this in the info box.

Are we talking about French Canadians, as heritage? Like in the US the politicaly correct thing is to call Black people African American, but white people who come from Africa are not called this. This would mean descendants of the French settlers that are now throughout all of Canada. There are people in the US that also claim to be French Canadian, but do not speak french at all.

Or are we talking about French Speaking people from Canada? People who descend from Haiti, for example, would also fall under this clasification.

What are we really talking about?

Let me put it this way:

I am French Canadian (I speak French and am Canadian), I am Néo-Québécois (I was not born in Québec, but lived there as if I was), I am also Québécois (Heritage, my Father is Pure-Laine Québécois), I am American (Both as in the continent and as a US Citizen), I am Canadian (citizenship), I am European American (instead of using white or caucasian), I am English (I speak English, I am not British), I am French (I speak french, I am not from France).

Now my Wife on the other hand:

She is American (Citizenship and continent), English (speaks the language, not from the UK), French Canadian (Her Paternal Grand Mother was From Trois-Rivières).

So according to the article, Yes the language English needs to stay in the info box. As it pertains to the ethnic descendants and not just to "French Speaking People of Canada".--Mrboire (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) this is stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.180.15 (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps to be French-Canadian in the USA is based on a combined tri-national identity of the very group - 1. ethnicity (French), 2. national origin (Canadian) and 3. the country they belong to (in this case, the United States of America not Canada or Quebec). The problem is there isn't such a thing of a French Canadian country, although Canada does exist and French-Canadian communities haven't preserved enough of their ancestral culture than in Canada, the majority in Quebec as French is the provincial official language. Americans of Canadian and Francophone descent can be called both French-American, Canadian-American and French Canadian American. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The French-Canadian country is, of course, Quebec, which in the past was called "Canada". What is called "Canada" today is a federation of all British American colonies born in 1867 and has nothing to do with the country named "Canada" in the time of New France. At the time of the 1867 debates on the "Confederation" of the British American Colonies, the question was the creation of a "New Nationality". The "Old Nationality" we could say was the first "Canadian nationality", a nationality sprung out of French civilisation, which the people of the country formerly known as Le Canada, were very determined to preserve. This old French-Canadian nation was in perpetual crisis from 1867 to 1967, forced as it was to adapt to the challenge of a Confederation which had pronounced it "Old" and worth replacing with something "New". After 100 years of vainly pushing for a reformed Bi-National federal Canada, based on a pact between two equal peoples, the question of the national territory of the French Canadians was finally settled when in November 1967 the delegates of the French-Canadian nation resolved:

The Estates General of French Canada, gathered in assembly, affirm that:

1. French Canadians constitute a nation.

2. Quebec constitutes the national territory and fundamental political milieu of this nation.

3. The French-Canadian nation has the right to self-determination and to freely choose the political regime under which she intends to live[3].

People who no longer speak the ancestral language of Ireland call themselves Irish, and even after three generations born in America, they still identify as Irish (in addition to American). This is somewhat similar for Quebecers outside Quebec, but unfortunately the constant renaming of their homeland created a huge semantic confusion. -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing that's important to remember here is that while the set of "People who are of French Canadian ancestry" and the set of "Francophone Canadians" obviously have a high degree of overlap, they're not wholly identical. People of French Canadian/Québécois heritage who live in Ontario or British Columbia or New York or California (and, it must be said, even a few who live in Quebec too) may spend much of their day-to-day lives speaking English instead of French — but they're still ethnically "French Canadian". And some people living in Canada who predominantly speak French are of Acadian or Haitian or Vietnamese or Senegalese or Maghreban or Martiniquais ancestry rather than FC. But strictly speaking, this article is about French Canadians as an ethnicity or nationality, and therefore inclusive of anglophones who have French Canadian ancestry, not about francophone Canadians as a language group. Although the article should certainly acknowledge the latter community, they're not the primary topic here except insofar as they overlap with the ethnocultural group. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo section at top

I don't understand the mentality behind people putting photos of French Canadians who haven't had a major impact on Canadian society as a whole. The edit that I made, shows French Canadians who have shaped and influenced the culture and society of French Canada and its people. Also, every person except for two people (Calixa Lavalee and La Bolduc) were voted in a list by the CBC as one of the "Greatest Canadians", ever. Here is the source.[4] My point is, that the photos should constitute people who have had a major impact on French Canadian society, and I would appreciate it if others would follow that, and not base their edits on some popularity contest. Thanks. BalticPat22Patrick 21:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that we need to stop editwarring over whose photos are included in the infobox — too many times I've seen current pop culture figures added to the box at the expense of prominent historical figures. I'd like to propose that we discuss and agree on a small number of photos and then leave them alone. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. The only problem with that will be keeping unregistered or uncooperative users from reverting them back. Nevertheless, I am willing to work with other users to help fix this needlesss edit-war. Personally I believe that the photos of the two former Canadian Prime Ministers and Celine Dion should be kept, seeing as they are all an intregal part of French Canadian culture and society; two of them actually governed the nation of Canada itself, and the other is one of the most commercially successful musicians in the world. That said, I am very much open to what others have to say. You have me onboard.BalticPat22PatrickPatrick 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I move to include 50% men, 50% women and select a group of people who are important in the history of all French Canadian groups in North America or not so "important" historically but world famous one way or another. I would tend to think that these people should be selected carefully so as to represent several social milieus (politics, arts, science, sports, etc.) -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nelligan and La Bolduc are also strong choices. Of the seven that are currently in the infobox, I think Lavallée is the most easily dispensable — not to discount his historical relevance or anything, but if the goal is to put a limit on the number instead piling more photos on, then he's pretty obviously the first one off the island.

As for hockey players, I'd go with Rocket Richard over Jean Belliveau. But maybe that's just me.

If the goal is six photos, I'd suggest that we keep Nelligan, Laurier, Chrétien, La Bolduc and Dion, and choose one more suitable woman (Jeanne Sauvé?) If it's eight, then Nelligan, Laurier, Chrétien and the Rocket, La Bolduc, Dion and two more women. Though that's just food for thought; I'm not wedded to it. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think six is okay. I mean we can have Laurier, Chrétien, the Rocket for men, and Dion, La Bolduc, and another women who is of importance in something other than the enterainment sector, seeing that Dion and La Bolduc are already in that category.BalticPat22PatrickPatrickPatrick 04:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Six sounds fair to me too. I would pick Louise Arbour over Jeanne Sauvé: she is much more international. I think one PM of Canada is enough. I would trade Laurier or Chrétien for a scientist, maybe Hubert Reeves? -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Chrétien would be the better PM to keep. Also, yes a scientist or a person in the medical field would be a great addtion. So, we have Chrétien, "the Rocket", and Reeves, for men. That covers politics, sports, and science. For women, we have Dion, Arbour, and La Bolduc. That covers music and entertainment, and politics and world affairs. I like Arbour too, seeing that she was a member of the UN and of Canada's judicial system.BalticPat22Patrick 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So far, with this selection, our main issue is that they are all born-in-Quebec Quebecers. The article is meant to treat the subject of all French Canadians. Maybe we should go for 8 people instead of 6, and add 2 out-of-Quebec French Canadians, a man and a woman. Maybe Jack Kerouac and Gabrielle Roy? -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm not very educated with the two people you gave, but they seem good enough to place. So, we can have four men and four women; Chrétien, Kerouac, "the Rocket", and Reeves for men and Dion, La Bolduc, Arbour, and Roy for women. Is that okay with everyone? BalticPat22Patrick 19:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly reasonable choices, though we don't actually have an appropriately-licensed image of Roy on Wikipedia at present, so somebody would have to put in the effort to locate one. I'd note, however, that while not overloading the box with politicians to the exclusion of other figures is probably a good reason to put Sauvé on the backburner, we shouldn't entirely rule her out as an option just yet — given that she was Fransaskois by birth, she should still be kept in mind as a backup figure on the hors Québec criterion if, for example, we can't secure a suitable photo of Roy. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Gabrielle Roy or else Jeanne Sauvé. -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait. We do have a photo of her in public domain. For some reason it was not used in her English bio article, only in her French bio article. I'll fixed this right away. -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, excellent. Thanks for the catch. Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So, where do we stand? Do we still have Chrétien, Kerouac, "the Rocket", and Reeves for men? If so, I'm okay with that. As for women, I'm assuming we still have Arbour, Dion, La Bolduc, and now the inclusion of Roy. If I'm not mistaken, I believe there are all public photos available for each of the eight people. Does anyone else have any comments or questions?BalticPat22Patrick 00:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No comment nor questions for me. Whoever wants to do it, you have my support. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, is everyone else okay with these people??BalticPat22Patrick 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll get the info ready. Also, after the revision is done, do you think it would be necessary to have a small note describing the edit so that other users will know not to revert them, either intentionally or unintentionally???BalticPat22Patrick 18:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of times people have edited the box to replace an existing photo with the latest bikini-clad wrestling babe, yeah, probably. Hidden notes of that type don't always stop everyone, but they do stop some people. Bearcat (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is worth trying. Something describing the rationale behind the selection with a link to our discussion and a warning not to change without first discussing it. Something like that? -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll wait until the protection tag expires, and then I'll create the revision. Again, thank you all very much. I think this will greatly enhance the article's reputability, and give other readers a much better understanding of the article.BalticPat22Patrick 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The protection tag was mainly to stop the immediate dispute over photos. I'll remove it right now. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's all set. Thanks everyone.BalticPat22Patrick 19:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus!

There had been a consensus a month before with four other Wikipedians. You three decided to change all that and remove Julie Payette, Calixa Lavallée, Emile Nelligan, etc. You never consulted us. It is hypocrisy to state otherwise! You have no regards for what the others did. I agree with you that the wrestler was not a good choice as well as Simple Plan. But that is what they wanted, and I did not go against their wishes, but at least I was consulted. You guys went ahead between yourselves and dictated to others what you wanted, and now you state that we did not participate in the discussion. You would have changed it anyways and would have left no room for any compromise. You feel you own wikipedia. It's a real turnoff! --142.169.118.147 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions. 142, you say that 'You never consulted us'. Who is 'us' in this case? 'We did not participate in the discussion' who are 'we'? Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Go back in history and see who added the pictures yourself. Don't ask me to rat on others. Only the weak give names and talk about others behind their backs. I will not allow you to cause them trouble!--142.169.118.147 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To rat on others? I was simply asking who 'we' and 'us' are. I was trying to understand your comment. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

further to that, I just went back a year and did not see you farther back than I think Dec 09. This is why I asked who 'we' are. There is no accusation or implication there, please do not take it that way. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am the one that added Simple Plan and the woman wrestler Maryse Ouellet. What are you trying to do here, cause more trouble! Bouchecl (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I simply asked a question to understand the comment, I am certainly not trying to cause trouble. How asking someone to clarify a comment causes trouble is beyond me, but please, understand that causing trouble was not my intention. Please assume good faith. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So, I gather from the history that 142 is Bouchecl correct? Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been any prior consensus as to which photos should or shouldn't be featured in the infobox — the only thing there's ever been is a constant war of people replacing one photo with another just on the basis of who they personally liked better. There's never been any prior discussion to decide on which photos should be chosen, except for the occasional "I object to (Trudeau/Chrétien/etc.) on political grounds!" And nobody on Wikipedia has any special right to demand that they be personally consulted before any decision; it's your responsibility to monitor and keep track of talk pages where discussions impacting on your areas of interest may be taking place. Three people is a perfectly legitimate consensus if only three people come along to participate in the discussion; this isn't a national plebiscite. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about inclusion Mylene Farmer in the infobox?Dbrodbeck against, but it one of the most well-known French Canadians and personally I consider that it is worthy to be in infoboxSentinel R (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me we already have a female singer who is better known in Celine Dion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing terrible that there will be two female singers. So it is made in many other infoboxes.Sentinel R (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there will be. The photos that are in the article now give a more than proficient overview of French Canadian culture and society. If we start to add people who are either not notable or culturally significant, then we will be right back where we started. I began this whole "photo overhaul" because of this exact reason. Users cannot just add people whom they personally like or admire. The point of it is to add photos that reflect French Canadian society, and not just favoratism. Otherwise, it will be just another popularity contest with massive reverts happening every day. There needs to be some order in place, and that is what I sought to do, and still seek to accomplish. BalticPat22Patrick 15:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No vote was ever taken on this!

I agree with 142 that nobody other than the three stooges were consulted. So much for democracy. Hitler could not have done better!--66.254.46.243 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate on votes, indeed it is not a democracy (see WP:NOT). Please also read WP:CIVIL. You also might want to read Godwin's Law. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No stooges were consulted in any of the discussions on this page. We considered it, but Larry's anti-French, Moe had better things to do and Curly's dead. And if you think anything that went on here is even remotely comparable to genocide, then you really need to go to your nearest hospital for a kind of help Wikipedia can't provide you. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Chill out Bearcat!

The guy meant you proceded in an autocratic dictatorial way. You need to go to the nearest mental hospital Bearcat! Get a life!--70.83.173.219 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. Read the talk page, there was no 'dictatorial' manner that anything was done in. A consensus was reached, from my reading. Plus, Bearcat is right, this is hardly genocide, and if anyone compares this to anything Hitlerian, well, again, read the entry on Godwin's Law Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort; if you notice, I didn't even initiate the discussion or change the photos — I merely contributed to a discussion that somebody else started and finished, and which you had every opportunity to participate in too. As well, note that I suggested more than one person (Nelligan, Jeanne Sauvé, etc.) who didn't end up among the final choices — so I can hardly be accused of being dictatorial about a discussion that I didn't start, didn't close and didn't get my own way from. And my gawd, you can't possibly think that I'm the one being a hothead here, considering that my response, while certainly a little bit on the wry side, was really quite calm and collected — especially considering that I was simultaneously being compared to both Hitler and the Three Stooges. How else does one respond to such a ridiculous hyperbole but with their tongue at least a little bit in cheek? Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack Kerouac

I take pride in being of French Canadian descent, and I'm American. In the article of the page on French Canadians, where it shows pictures of French Canadians, it shows a picture of novelist and poet Jack Kerouac, who is an American of French Canadian parentage. I'm just wondering, isn't the article on French Canadians just about French Canadian people, or and people of French Canadian descent? Not that big of deal, I'm just wondering. Jordancelticsfan (talk March 4, 2010 (UTC)

The article is meant to be inclusive of the whole historical ethnic/national grouping of French Canadians, not solely those who live in Canada now — so it would be inclusive of American people who have French Canadian ancestry. Kerouac was actually chosen for the infobox by an earlier discussion on this page, specifically to represent the fact that there is a sizable community of people with French Canadian ancestry who live in the United States. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Quebec, Québécois, Quebecer

as all public institutions attached to the provincial government refer to all Quebec citizens, regardless of their language or their cultural heritage, as Québécois

This part is plain false. The provincial governement refer to all Quebec citizens, regardless of their language or their cultural heritage, as Quebecers (or Quebeckers), not Québécois, when speaking English. Example : [5]. In French, the word Québécois is used for the same meaning, but it is not ambiguous, unlike what the text say. The idea that Québécois means French speaking Quebecer exist only in English, and only in some circles. In French we never refer to an English speaking inhabitant of Quebec as a "Quebecer". And in English, an "Ontarian" doesn't refer exclusively to an English-speaking inhabitant of Ontario. The same apply for a "Canadian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.94.222 (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Louise Arbour.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Louise Arbour.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Distribution table

An IP has removed the distribution table claiming the data are form a 'skewed survey'. While we do need a reference for the table, I think we need a reason to remove it. I think this should be taken here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We should have a sources for this - I can see why someone would say its "skewed" because the is no source(s).Moxy (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, skewed, to me, means that the data are biased in some fashion, and, if they are indeed from StatsCan (and yes we need a ref) their skewness seems unlikely. However, hell yes we need a reference. The table has been there for quite a while without comment. (Again, yes, we need a reference). Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the reason it looks off is because we say in the sentence before the chart "In Canada, 85% of French Canadians reside in Quebec" yet the chart says "75%" for Quebec - witch one is it?. We need refs as you say :-).Moxy (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know others watch this page, so hopefully they will weigh in. Did I mention that we need a reference.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Canadien français, Canadienne française

I have rearranged the photos listed under the caption above in order for them to fit to this caption. There were two men and two women under the caption "Canadien français" and also two men and two women under the caption "Canadienne française". I took the liberty to place only men under the first caption and only women under the second caption. Thank you/Merci, Nerissa-Marie (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Use WP:ENGLISH. There is no reason to try to force a French lesson on Anglophones. Similarly, in the French encyclopedia, no reason to force an English lesson on Francophones. This is not French 101, this is an encyclopedia. If readers wish French lessons, they may find them elsewhere. Student7 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That caption has been there for a very long time, which does show consensus for it being there it seems. I see no problem with it being there, but let's wait for others to weigh in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps written by Francophone English from Quebec thinking the "two language" business. Not really germane.

Do you disagree with WP:ENGLISH? The problem is, when you start using non-WP:ENGLISH, where do you stop? The same pertains to the French Wikipedia when it employs English.

Speaking of which, have you taken a look at French version? Shouldn't this naming work both ways? Student7 (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What they do at the French wikipedia is irrelevant. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGLISH is about what the title of an article should or should not be — not only does it not prohibit including a mention of a topic's name in a directly relevant foreign language within the article body, it specifically says that we should do so. Therefore, since nobody was proposing that we move the whole article to a French-language title, WP:ENGLISH actually undermines rather than reinforcing the argument you were trying to make with it.

For the record, en: does have a policy, when writing about topics of direct interest to a particular foreign language community, of including the topic's name in that language within the article body. For instance, our article on the capital of Poland is located at the English spelling Warsaw, but it does note the Polish spelling Warszawa in the body text. Ditto Moscow vis-à-vis Москва, Ivory Coast vis-à-vis Côte-d'Ivoire, and on and so forth. So there's no valid reason why topics pertaining to Canadian French should be handled any differently: we title them with the name that the topic is generally known by in English rather than French, but we do include the French name in the body text if it's substantively different.

The situation at fr: is also not relevant, because the topic of French Canadians does not have any special overriding English language context that would necessitate mention of a second name; that article's text is already in the language of primary relevance to the topic, so its name in English is no more relevant in the text of their article than its name in German or Farsi or Tagalog would be. For the record, just like on here, fr: does note English-language names in cases where the English name is directly relevant to the topic (fr:Londres, for example, does include the "London" spelling.) So what fr: does or doesn't do is irrelevant to what we should or shouldn't do here — because it's a question of relevance to the topic, not of Canadian linguistic quid pro quo. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I need to clarify further — the policy does not mandate that this article needs to contain a parenthetical French translation of every single word in the entire article, as Student7 now disingenuously and pointily seems to believe that it does; rather, it mandates providing a single mention, in the introduction and/or the infobox, of the primary topic's name, and only the primary topic's name, in a relevant foreign language. The article in its existing form is already properly consistent with that — it is not necessary or warranted or mandated by policy to systematically provide French translations of every proper name that appears in the text at all, but only the name that is directly synonymous with the page title. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Showing that the French language has different gender language for different genders. Though without an explanation or prior knowledge of French. which most Anglophones outside Canada definitely do not have, it will simply be something obscure that is over their heads.

I remember that the Mormons used to place the hard to grasp The Book of Mormon in hotel rooms. They've stopped this (I think) because they were probably losing more sympathy than they were gaining in converts. Placing gender-based language to head up what looks like an info-box has got to be in a similarly mis-chosen "bad ways to promote French" category. Student7 (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to promote French (what a horrible thing that would be! <- that is sarcasm, to be clear, though of course that is not our goal here). WP:POINTy edits are pointy edits. Let it go. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Again: it has nothing to do with a goal of "promoting French", and everything to do with the fact that the topic's French language name is of special overriding relevance to the topic, in exactly the same way that Warsaw's Polish language name is of special overriding relevance to Warsaw and Moscow's Russian language name is of special overriding relevance to Moscow and Iqaluit's Inuktitut language name is of special overriding relevance to Iqaluit. French is not getting any special treatment on the English Wikipedia; it is standard practice to allow a mention of a topic's name in its own primary native language, regardless of the language involved, when that differs from its name in English. Nobody's trying to promote anything except awareness of the facts — so just be aware that you may be cruising for a temporary editblock if you keep pursuing this. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghan Canadian which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)