Talk:René Lévesque

Lede and Québécois (again)

Following the RfC above, the first two sentences of the lede now read:

René Lévesque GOQ (August 24, 1922 – November 1, 1987) was a Canadian Québécois politician and journalist who served as the 23rd premier of Quebec from 1976 to 1985. He was the first Québécois political leader since Confederation to attempt, through a referendum, to negotiate the political independence of Quebec.

It seems that at least one of the uses "Québécois" is redundant and unnecessary. I presume there are not other "non-Québécois" politicians who since confederation have sought, through referendum, to negotiate political independence for Quebec. For the reasons above, I don't think the use of "Québécois" in the first sentence is necessary, but if we are going to keep it, it seems the other mention should be removed. If we are going to keep the second mention, we should remove the first. Regrettably the RfC above seems to have focused on the first sentence, with some contributors seemingly not giving consideration to the lede as a whole.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I disagree with the RFC closer's decision. IMHO, the consensus is "Canadian politician". But, I don't have the energy to take my 'challenge' to WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well short of a 'challenge' to WP:AN or elsewhere, the closing comments seem to permit going with either "A" or "A&B" for the first sentence. The close does not seem to weigh in on the second sentence. So I figure we could reach a consensus to go with "A" and then leave the mention of Québécois in the second sentence. Similarly, we could go with "A&B" for the first sentence and then remove the mention of Québécois from the second sentence. Other options might also be available. Just saying, it seems redundant and unnecessary to include both mentions.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with implementing option 'A' - "Canadian" in the first sentence & "Quebecois" in the second sentence. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That is my preference too for the reasons I have already stated. Alright, I will WP:BOLDly implement that. At the very least, it may jumpstart a WP:BRD cycle. At best, perhaps we will find there is now consensus for that option.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a process to challenge the close of an RfC, and this section (and the consensus of two editors it seems to have produced) is not that process. Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

A challenge of the close isn't required here. The closer found a consensus for either "A" or "A&B" ("Canadian" or "Canadian Québécois"), so we are able to go with either, and the closer hoped we would decide on one or the other as a result of further discussion here. S_Marshall wrote Editors are at liberty to continue to debate this point. I hope it isn't necessary to have another RfC about it, though. I suggest we continue to discuss this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be leaving out the key aspect of the close, In the circumstances I feel that should make the minimum possible edit, which is to insert "Canadian" before "Québécois". I'm choosing not to remove "Québécois" because I can't see a consensus to do so. The closer has found no consensus to remove "Québecois", and the closer has not concluded, as you paraphrase above that we are able to go with either. As I stated above, there is a process for overturning a close, and quoting it selectively in defense of BOLD proposals to implement a different result than that reached by the closer is not the relevant process. The closer states that "Québecois" could be removed if a consensus to do so were to develop in subsequent discussion. Given that a number of the latter !votes specifically endorsed the inclusion of both terms, I think the arrival of such a consensus to be an unlikely event, but who can tell the future?

Meanwhile, the question of word order addressed by my edit here is very much within both the spirit and the letter of the close, and is relevant until and unless consensus is reached for more drastic changes. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The closer said we can go with either, following further discussion here (and hopefully not another RfC). Above I have set out why I think using both is redundant and unnecessary. It is unnecessary to mention "Québécois" in the first sentence because it already mentions in the first sentence that he was the premier of Quebec, and prior to your edits, the second sentence included mention of his role as a Québécois political leader who sought independence of Quebec, and the third sentence includes mention of his involvement with Quebec's nationalization of hydro and Quebec sovereignty, and the fourth sentence notes his founding of Parti Québécois. Why do you think mention of "Québécois" is required in the first sentence, when mention of Quebec and Québécois appears more than six times in the lede? I expect looking at the lede as a whole is helpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I believe "Québecois" should appear in the first sentence because that is the term overwhelmingly used in WP:HQRS about him. If I am reading the above discussion correctly, very many editors wanted "Canadian" to appear in the first sentence because they find that term especially pertinent to non-Canadian readers, but few editors actually objected to the inclusion of "Québecois" in the first sentence. Once a proposal was made to include both, many editors supported that proposal.

I understand that you (and presumably GoodDay) find the inclusion of "Québecois" in the first sentence redundant and unnecessary, but the closer of the RfC explicitly found no consensus to remove that term. Therefore, a new consensus - whether formal or informal - is required before your self-proclaimed BOLD change would be appropriate to restore. Newimpartial (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so the closer found no consensus to include "Québecois" in the first sentence, nor to exclude it. So, the question is what is the appropriate balance considering the lede as a whole. There is more than six mentions of Quebec/"Québecois" in the lede. Which do you think are needed and which can be removed? Why is it necessary to include "Québecois" in the first sentence? The closing comments are rather indifferent about whether "Québecois" is included in the first sentence, and did not consider the other sentences. The closing comments suggest we discuss this to reach a consensus about where/whether to include "Québecois", so lets do that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The closer followed the principle of least change in their implementation of consensus, which seems to me to be a good place to start. Both you and GoodDay begin your comments in this section by taking issue with elements of the RfC result: you for the RfC seemingly not giving consideration to the lede as a whole and GoodDay more straightforwardly with I disagree with the RFC closer's decision. So the two of you looking to impose a different wording than the closer proposed because you disagree with the RfC looks to me like nothing other than sour grapes. I didn't agree with the result of the RfC either, but it is what it is and I for one would like to improve the article within the constraint of the result.

Obviously consensus could develop in favor of very different language in the lead sentence and in the lead section as a whole. But starting from the premise that the RfC process was flawed because you don't 100% agree with its outcome seems to me to be an unrpromising starting point in reaching a new consensus version. I have already explained, in my immediately preceding comment, that I think "Queébecois" belongs in the first sentence based on the principle of following the WP:HQRS on this article's topic. I have already proposed to drop the immediately subsequent use of Québecois, and I am open to any actual improvements in the prose of the lead section. Removing Québecois from the first sentence as a descriptor for the article's subject (an element that has been present in the stable version of this article for many years) does not strike me as a likely improvement. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to look past your comments that don't assume good faith and respond only to those which relate to content. The reality is that the RfC concerned the first sentence and not the lede as a whole, and the closing comments don't comment on the rest of the lede. The fact that sources refer to him as Québecois is a reason to include that content in the article, and perhaps the lede. It isn't a good reason to include it in the first sentence, or to do so when there is over six references to Québécois/Quebec in the lede already. I asked you which you think can be removed and which should be kept and why. I haven't heard a real answer to that. If you want to answer it and focus on the content, fine. In any event, I would much rather hear what other editors who have not already commented in this section have to say on the topic though. Thanks.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This & the following separate discussion should be combined, as they're about the same topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm just about fed up with this whole argument. This content dispute is likely going to end up getting an editor reported to WP:EW. I don't like the direction it's all heading towards. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the section below addresses a different question than this section. I also believe that revert-warring against the version of the first sentence resulting from the RfC, when you happen to disagree with the close, is not an appropriate way to resolve this issue - I would suggest that you stop doing that. I would love to reach consensus on better prose in the lead, but that will not be achieved by editors acting on their own without achieving consensus here. The agreement of two editors who have lingering issues with the result of their own RfC process falls well short of the WP:CONLEVEL required to move beyond a more formal RfC process.

Also, as I said in an edit summary, I have proposed to drop "Québecois" from the second sentence, a change that fits with the RfC close and doesn't run counter to the close and it's implementation. That is my response to the issue of "too much Québecois", and I don't really understand why the two of you are now resistant to that solution. Newimpartial (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your refusal to ever accept "Canadian politician" alone in the first sentence (via your multiple reverts), has become unbearable. I'm done with this content dispute, which is morphing into an editorial dispute. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest He was the first premier of Quebec to seek a mandate, through a referendum, to negotiate the province's political independence from Canada. I don't think anyone other than the Premier of Quebec would plausibly be in a position to do so, so broadening it to "Quebcois political leaders" adds unnecessary confusion.--Trystan (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean as an alternate to the existing second sentence? I don't have any strong view on that, but I suspect those wanting an early mention of Québécois ethnicity/nationality will not be satisfied with mention of his Quebec premiership alone. Others, myself included think referring him as a "Canadian Québécois politician" in the first sentence is clunky, excessive given the rest of the lede and generally inelegant. If the first mention of Québécois is removed from the first sentence, I don't think removal of it from the second will please anyone.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree Québécois should be in one of the first two sentences and ideally not both. The use in the second sentence is the much more awkward of the two. Unless "Quebecois political leader" has some meaning other than as an elegant variation cypher of "Premier of Quebec", that is the one I would eliminate.--Trystan (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are right that it is essentially elegant variation at least in how it relates to the second part of the sentence (ie the referendum part). It seems to me that some want to call him a "Quebecois political leader" due to the different meaning of Quebecois. They want to communicate not just that he was a resident of Quebec, or as you say premier "of Quebec" but the narrower meaning that his cultural/ethnic identity was Québécois. As an anglo, I have always been told that Québécois refers to French Canadian inhabitants of Quebec (ie excluding anglos and recent immigrants, maybe including French speaking immigrants, maybe not), and that the term Quebecers includes all residents regardless of language or ethnicity. Some use Québécois in the broader way, others the more narrow ones (eg descendants of the French settlers in Quebec only). It seems to me the choice of the term Québécois is because some want to identify him as being culturally or ethnically Québécois, not just generally associated with Quebec. Of course, including this in the first sentence (if the reason we are including it is because of this ethnic definition) seems to run afoul of MOS:ETHNICITY which seems to advise against including ethnicity in the first sentence of a lede, saying this can be "introduced in the second sentence if [it is] of defining importance". Anyway, it seems some of the complexity here is the ambiguity of the term, and the fact that some seemingly wanted it included for the ethnic/cultural reasons, while others, sometimes the same editor, seem to be arguing for inclusion of the term on the basis that it is not about ethnicity at all and simply about residence, or being "of Quebec". Anyway--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

TBH @Darryl Kerrigan:, I'm still amazed as to how the RFC could be closed as anything but a consensus for option-A. Simply mind boggling. GoodDay (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I also found the close somewhat strange. Use Canadian, and Canadian only, in the first sentence. Leave mentions of Quebec to the following sentences. Meters (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Canadian Québecois or Québecois Canadian

Per this revert - which version do editors prefer? Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the talk page. I think continued discussion is helpful. I am not sure why a new section is required though. This seems to be a continuation of the discussion immediately above. My preference and GoodDay's seems to be expressed above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am asking whether, among two ways of implementing the RfC close, editors would prefer "Canadian Québecois" or "Québecois Canadian". The previous discussion section is largely between two editors who disagree with the RfC close, and is therefore quite different in scope from the question I hope to see settled here - in fact, the question I am asking here was not raised at all in the previous section. Newimpartial (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The two ways that S_Marshall contemplated the RfC be implemented were either "A" or "A&B" (ie "Canadian" or "Canadian Québécois") per the closing comment above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the previous section, where I address this issue. The RfC close went well beyond "contemplating" implementation - it actually proposed a specific solution, for clearly articulated reasons, while allowing that in future a consensus could be found for further improvements. In this section, I am proposing one such (potential) improvement, which continues in the spirit of the close. Newimpartial (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Go with "Canadian politician" in the first sentence. PS - This should be a sub-section of the preceding discussion. We don't need to have multiple discussons concurrently, about the same topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this section is a choice of word order: "Canadian Québecois" or "Québecois Canadian". Proposals to remove "Québecois" are off-topic for this section. Newimpartial (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

We've got Quebecois mentioned enough times in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Both appear consistent with the RfC, but I think GoodDay's version is more elegant. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Okay, I will WP:Boldly implement that again. Editors should continue to discuss. Hopefully, we will hear from new editors who have not previously commented. I agree either would be consistent with the RfC close, but it is worth noting that the close found consensus for the inclusion of "Canadian" in the first sentence, but simply didn't find consensus to include, nor to exclude, "Québécois". Where consensus has not been established for inclusion (as has not been here for Québécois) the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content per WP:ONUS.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If two or three editors who preferred "A" over "A and B" repeat their !votes in this section, that does not create a new consensus for "A". The status quo version and the closer's version contain B. You simply do not have any kind of consensus much less the required WP:CONLEVEL, to remove B, and this is not an appropriate occasiom to invoke BOLD. As GoodDay indicated above, this is becoming an "editorial issue". Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Just like before the RFC. You're once again reverting multiple editors & that might lead to someone (not me) reporting you to WP:EW. Indeed, part of the reason I started that RFC, was to avoid your getting blocked for edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall: as the RFC closer. We may need some 'more' input from you, for the sake of clarity. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to hold a simple two-pronged RfC over whether or not to use "Québecois" in the lead sentence. The inclusion of "Canadian" has been decided, but the exclusion of "Québecois" has not - it would be great if editors could come to consensus through discussion and without a formal process, but this seems unlikely. Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

In response to the ping, my close is a variant of WP:BARTENDER. Either Canadian and Québecois or Canadian without Québecois, but not Québecois without Canadian. I wasn't able to determine a clear consensus on whether it's necessary to say Québecois in the first sentence -- the community seems split on whether to use it.

Please don't hold another RfC about the first sentence of this article. Wikipedia's limiting resource is volunteer time, and RfCs use up a disproportionate amount of it, so RfC is an "expensive" process, if you will. It would be much better if you could reach consensus here.

I am not Canadian, and have spent only a week in Canada of my whole life, so my understanding of Canada is very limited. I have no particular expertise to offer. But as I've been asked to try to break the logjam, I'm happy to take my closer's hat off and offer a view as an editor.

I think we're trying to make the first sentence of the lede do too much work. We're trying to say that he was both Canadian and Québecois, that he was both a politican and a journalist, that he was premier of Québec, and for how long. I think that's too much and it's making a convoluted, tortuous sentence. I suggest moving the whole question of his nationality into sentence two. In other words, if I was ruling tyrant of Wikipedia, this article would begin with:

René Lévesque GOQ (dates) was a politician and journalist who served as Premier of Québec. His nationality was Canadian, but he identified as Québecois, and he sought Québec's independence from the rest of Canada.

I hope this suggestion helps.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I presumed your reading of the RFC, didn't intend for the opening sentence to read "Canadian Quebecois politician". Having done a peek through the intros of Canadian politician bios on Wikipedia. This bio seems to be the 'only one' currently using "Canadian Quebecois politician" in its opening sentence, let alone lead. Sometime later this year (if this dispute hasn't been resolved by then), I'll consider opening up an RFC at WP:CANADA's talkpage. Concerning how to describe all Canadian politicians, in their bio intros. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm sure that you're right when you say this is the only example of that phrasing. Of course, we decide what each article should say individually -- there isn't a single, homogenous standard structure or wording to which all Canadian politician biographies must conform, and if you try to force such a structure to exist, then I would anticipate copious quantities of drama followed by an inconclusive outcome. I agree with you that it's suboptimal to say "Canadian Québecois" or "Québecois Canadian" and I hope that we can thread this awkward needle by moving both of those words to the second sentence.—S Marshall T/C 17:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion S Marshall. I wish something like that could help break the logjam but I think that proposal, or something like it is not going to please anyone. It seems more cumbersome, less "elegant" as SportingFlyer said, and somewhat less neutral on the issue of nationality than either side would really want. Of course, he was Canadian, but I think describing him as a "Canadian politician" in the first sentence is actually slightly softer than saying bluntly that his citizenship or nationality was Canadian. "Canadian politician" would allow some to read it as him being Canadian simply because he was a politician in Canada, by virtue of among other things him being the premier of Quebec, which follows immediately afterwards, with then him being identified as Québécois immediately after that. Saying his citizenship/nationality is Canadian, suggests that his nationality "isn't" Québécois, even if he identified that way. Or at least some might take it that way. Beyond that it just doesn't read as smoothly as "Canadian politician" alone, immediately followed by all of the other Quebec/Québécois context. I agree a further RfC isn't required here, and that an RfC to try to create a standard across many articles is unlikely to be helpful. Hopefully, we can continue to discuss here, new editors will comment and all editors will be open to hearing from them. I hope this content dispute can be resolved as that: a content dispute that can be talked through. But it is looking increasing to me that we have one editor misunderstands the close, on that basis is refusing an compromise, entering ownership territory and shutting down discussion with their misunderstanding and characterization of the close. If that continues, the only way out is going to be resolving the editorial dispute. I don't have much faith in a further RfC resolving this, as the existing close is being misunderstood, and mischaracterized as it is.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Québécois a nationality? I had thought that Québécois was a culture, an ethnicity, and a dialect, but a person from Quebec's nationality is Canadian? As I've already said, my knowledge of this is extremely limited.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A Catalan from Barcelona is both Catalan and Spanish, a French Canadian from Montréal is both Québécois and Canadian is the way I see it. There's a level of Quebec nationalism which exists that doesn't for other provinces. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. A Texan or a Californian's nationality is American, even if they're separatists.—S Marshall T/C 00:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the answer depends on what definition of nation you mean. If you mean what country are they citizens of, the answer is Canada. But nation is often used more broadly. There was the Québécois nation motion, which recognized "...that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." Both meanings are arguably relevant for WP:CONTEXTBIO.--Trystan (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

TBH @S Marshall: I'm a tad astounded as to how you could not see a consensus for option A, in the RFC. A huge majority of the participants, favored that option & others were acceptable to it. Very disappointing. GoodDay (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• That's why we use uninvolved closers.—S Marshall T/C 10:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

One could equally say that because "A and B" was not in the RfC as initially formulated, and since it gathered support gradually after being introduced, that there was clear support for an "A and B" consensus.

Alternatively, one could simply acknowledge that the RfC was not specified constructively from the beginning. Newimpartial (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Or one could say a few uninvolved editors came and decided to propose cutting the baby in half. Disappointing that they did so without considering the lede as a whole, including the second sentence where you had warred to get a second mention of Québécois prior to the start of the RfC. The current state of the article does not represent the consensus from the discussion before the RfC, from the RfC and as was beginning to form afterwards before you bludgeoned it to death. Now there really isn't any path forward, congratulations.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, there's only been one (before & now after the RFC) editor, 'reverting' option-A. So the RFC ruling has 'sorta' given the 'green light' for such continued obstructionism against implementing option-A. This entire 'content dispute' would've ended 'bout two months ago, if not for one individual's active (i.e. reverting of multiple editors) refusal to accept "Canadian politician", in the opening sentence. PS - A side note: It's rather disappointing, that members at WP:CANADA are showing little to no interest in this content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, a LOCALCONSENSUS that might or might not have formed between yourself and GoodDay would never have been a valid consensus, especially not after a formal process had pointed in another direction.

Second, as far as your BLUDGEON accusation goes, this time frame (since the above discussion opened) does not really support your accusation. Nor does this longer timeframe (beginning with the pre-RfC discussion). Being one of two editors who contribute most to a Talk page doesn't necessarily amount to BLUDGEON, does it? Or if it does, doesn't it apply to both editors?

Finally, I am very much open to a variety of approaches to the lead (and lead sentence) of this article. What I am opposed to is a cookie-cutter approach that discards the precedents set by reliable sources in favor of a muscular insistence that passport nationality be included in the lead sentence. That isn't a rule on enwiki, and it irritates me whenever editors act or argue as though it is.

Also, in this edit you state that I added a mention of Québecois to the second sentence, which is a thing that never happened. Please don't spread false news. Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, let us know what you decide.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm contacting the 'survey' editors from the RFC (@Dobblestein:, @G. Timothy Walton:, @Kawnhr:, @WildComet:, @Robertus Pius:, @Meters:, @Canterbury Tail:, @Earl Andrew:, @TheCelebrinator:, @IOHANNVSVERVS:, @Cremastra:, @Ivanvector:, @Masterhatch:, @JM2023:, @Sadko:, @Meters:, @Meters:, @MaximusEditor: & @SportingFlyer:) as they may be interesed in this post-RFC discussion. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

My view hasn't changed. It should be "Québecois and Canadian" or "Canadian and Québecois". Or hyphenate it. But they should both be mentioned. (I have a slight preference towards having "Québecois" first. But I think the lede is good the way it is right now.) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine either way. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a locum placement while Sisyphus deals with some family issues; I expect this issue to still be going when I finish. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

My opinion hasn’t changed. Québecois is mentioned frequently. I believe there’s some WP:OWN issues going on here with the user GoodDay is referring to. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 16:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, polling like this might be confusing. Editors just casually checking in might think the question is the order of A&B per the secton title (ie A&B or B&A) not whether we go with A or A&B (per the RfC and discussion immediately above). This section was started under the false premise that the RfC close was A&B. It was started by an editor who then bludgeoned the discussion immediately above.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Quebecois Canadian is good because it matches other terms like French Canadian, English Canadian, Scottish Canadian, Irish Canadian, African Canadian, etc; but Canadian Quebecois is good because it shows that Quebec is within Canada. I have no strong preference at this time. JM (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If you go by where he was born? then we'd have "New Brunswicker Canadian". GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a policy-based reason why we should not describe Lévesque the way sources describe Lévesque? MOS:ETHNICITY doesn't offer one, so I'm curious why people keep making suggestions that depart from what good sources do. Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, not everybody agrees with your interpretation of WP:ETHNICITY. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to be the case that certain editors interpret ETHNICITY as though it said, "never include an identifier in lead sentence of a 20th or 21st century biography that could be mistaken for an ethnicity unless the biographical subject is from the UK or Spain". However, that is not what the guideline in question says and is unlikely to be what it "really means". Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The bar is, rightly, high - Barack Obama is known as the first African-American president but he's rightly not described as 'an African-American politician' in the lede. GiantSnowman 18:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

But it seems to me that what ETHNICITY calls the context for the activities that makes the person notable is what matters here. In the case of Obama, this is quite obviously the United States (of which he was president), but in the case of Lévesque, it is just as obviously Québéc, of which he was premier and on behalf of which he lead a national independence movement.

I respect the decision, made in the recent RfC, to insert "Canadian" in the first sentence. From this it does not follow - and the closer did not conclude - that Québécois should be removed. This case is strictly parallel to the cases of Basque and Catalan politicians, and what we really ought to be doing is following the sources in the same way when it comes to key terms. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This case does not parallel the Basque and Catalan politicians, at all. Now, for this bio? in the second sentence it reads - "He was the first Quėbėcois political leader since Confederation to seek, through referendum a mandate to negotiate the political independence of Quebec". Why isn't that good enough, for you? We also mention in the first sentence, that he was premier of Quebec, too. Yet, that's still not good enough for you. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I feel that the direction of recent edits to the first sentence of this article, beginning with the IP edit in November, has been to insist that "Lévesque is Canadian, not Québécois" or at least that "Lévesque is most importantly Canadian, not Québécois". I don't believe that either the sources or enwiki policies support this assertion - it is simply a preference held by certain editors (it also doesn't reflect the judgment reflected in the very long history of this article). This isn't a matter of this or that article text being good enough for me; my interventions reflect my sense of what the WP:HQRS on the topic say, and they do not place Lévesque's Canadian-ness over his Québécois-ness the way many BOLD edits to the first sentence have tried to do over the last 2-3 months.

Now GoodDay, why exactly do you argue that this case does not reflect the Catalan and Basque cases? Is it because Canada isn't Spain? Or is it because Quebecois identity only supplanted French Canadian identity in Quebec in Lévesque's lifetime? Because I would say that the latter is a reason to include "Québecois" in the first sentence - under other circumstances, I would be comfortable with "French Canadian" in the first sentence, and Lévesque was certainly born "French Canadian", but he quite clearly died as, and was most notable as, Québécois. But perhaps you have some other aspect of the cases in mind when you reject the comparison. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you willing to accept "French Canadian politician", in place of "Canadian Quėbėcois politician", in the first sentence? Because, from the second sentence onward, we mention him being a Quebec separatists. Yet, that's still not good enough for you. Also, you're the only editor who's 'reverted' "Canadian politician" standing alone in the opening sentence, both before & after the RFC. At this point, I realize you're never going to agree to having "Canadian politician" stand alone, in the first sentence & will continue to actively oppose it. If five, ten or more editors showed up & reinserted "Canadian politician" alone, in the first sentence. Would you still 'revert'? GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, if there is consensus to remove Québecois from the first sentence, I will of course respect that consensus. So far only a minority of participants on this Talk page have supported that proposal, and of those who have few have based their preference on policy (and none on RS).

I repeat my own question, though: why do you see this case as different from the Basque and Catalan cases? It might be easier to reach a meaningful consensus if editors were to explain where they are coming from (as I have done to some extent, in my somewhat rambling comment above). Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Canadian Québecois. My opinion is that Quebec is in Canada, why are/would we put more emphasis on the area within Canada than the country itself? Canadian in the nationality, Québecois is fine tuning that information.

Dobblesteintalk 16:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A large majority in the RFC, supported changing to "Canadian politician" in the first sentence & others in that RFC, expressed being able to live with that change, even if it wasn't their first choice. As for WP:ETHNICITY? I don't see Quebecois mentioned there, but you're free to open an RFC there, to add it or seek clarification. This is Canada, not Spain. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Ping acknowledged. Please do not ping me to this discussion again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Neither. Use Canadian, and Canadian only, in the first sentence. Leave mentions of Quebec to the following sentences. Meters (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Most participants in the RfC !voted without being presented with the option of including both descriptors; therefore, they did not express a clear preference for removing "Québecois". Also, most participants in the post-RfC discussion have not expressed a preference to remove "Québécois". So I simply don't see a consensus (yet) to do it.

So if I understand you correctly, you are interpreting the "Spain" provisions at ETHNICITY as an exception to the rule, rather than as expressing the correct interpretation of the rule. I disagree (just as I regard the practices for UK nationalities as an interpretation, not an exception). At some point I do expect to workshop an RfC on this question at ETHNICITY, since the misapprehension that "we treat the UK and Spain one way, and the rest of the world another way" seems to me so widespread. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I do see a consensus for "Canadian politician", standing alone in the first sentence. You're the only editor who's 'reverted' the change, both before & after the RFC. PS - I'm glad, you're willing to open up an RFC at WP:ETHNICITY, btw. Though good luck in getting the special treatment for UK & Spain, expanded to other sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Canadian politician vs Canadian Quebecois politician

It's an improvement from the previous "Canadian politician" vs "Quebecois politician" content dispute. But here we are, disputing between "Canadian politician" & "Canadian Quebecois politician" in the opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an odd interpretation of the situation, GoodDay. Multiple editors have recently supported "Québécois Canadian politician", while other editors support leaving "Canadian" and "Québecois" (or equivalent terms) to the second sentence (to which I am also favorable in principle). Why are you only interested in talking about these two options in particular? Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

They're the only two options (via reverts) being disputed, right now. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

They are also the two options the RfC closing comments left us with (ie A or A&B, "Canadian politician" or "Canadian Québecois politician").--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the goal of all these discussions should be to arrive at consensus on the lead paragraph. "Québécois Canadian politician", or moving the nationality terms to the second sentence, are both potential bases for consensus, are they not? I didn't revert to my proposal for Québécois Canadian politician because another editor objected; I restored the RfC version against my own proposal. (To be clear, the RfC closure itself didn't specify that "Canadian" should appear before "Québecois" in the first sentence; only the closer's edit to the lead sentence did so.) That doesn't mean that proposal is any less "valid", and the same is true of the closer's newer proposal to move national terms to the sefond sentence. We should be looking for an actual consensus here, and my reverts to the closer's version do not at all mean that is the version I prefer. They are essentially "procedural" - reverting to the "last good (enough) version". Newimpartial (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No. The RfC found a clear consensus to include Canadian in the first sentence.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't you think we've got it mentioned enough times in the lead, that he was a Quebec separatists? "Canadian politician", is all we need in the opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I have already stated that I agree that "Québecois" appears too many times in the lead section. I have proposed to reduce this. But I also feel that the article should follow the sources and provide the context of notability. Almost any of the options proposed to date do a better job of this than a bare mention of "Canadian politician" in the lead sentence (Lévesque's career after 1970 is not communicated in any meaningful way by the phrase "Canadian politican" - as opposed say to the career of Lucien Bouchard, which is). If a consensus emerges to say only "Canadian politician" in the first sentence, then that's great, but is hasn't happened yet, and pretending that "Canadian Québécois politician" is the only alternative under consideration seems misleading to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Quebecois is already mentioned in the lead. It doesn't have to be in the first sentence. "Canadian politician" is enough. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want to remove Canadian from the first sentence you are basically going to need a new RfC (because that proposal goes against the closing comments). I understand you will not consent to any situation where Canadian appears in the first sentence but Québécois does not. So besides these two options, what proposal would fit within the confines of the current close consensus?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"Québécois Canadian politician" does so. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a non starter proposal. It's even worst then "Canadian Quebecois". GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to put that option on the table perhaps we should consider French-Canadian politician as is used for former Bloc Québécois leader Lucien Bouchard. I have never heard Québécois-Canadian combined in my life. Nor Canadian-Québécois. The traditional term doing that is French-Canadian. Interesting to note also that Gilles Duceppe another Bloc Québécois leader, not yet mentioned, is simply described as a "retired Canadian politician" in the first sentence of his article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think French Canadian is quite right. It's not synonymous with Quebecois or Quebecois Canadian. For one thing, there are the Acadians in Atlantic Canada (Acadie) who are also French Canadian. JM (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is not exactly the same thing. But is a Canadian-Québécois or a Québécois-Canadian actually mean anything? Is there actually any reliable sources using those terms together? What about using them to describe René Lévesque? Or would we simply be inventing the term here? And then being the first to apply it to Lévesque?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that he is described as both Quebecois and Canadian (although, probably more often Quebecois, the same way Scottish politicians are almost always just "Scottish"), I don't think we're inventing anything to simply say he is "Quebecois Canadian" or "Canadian Quebecois" without the hyphen. Notice that there is a difference between hyphenation and having two fully separate unhyphenated terms. If we hyphenated it, then yes, it would be an invention, but as far as I know, no one here has proposed hyphenation, so I don't think we're inventing anything. JM (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Polite reminder to all that MOS:ETHNICITY applies and states "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability". Therefore, the question we have to decide is whether or not "...was a Canadian politician and journalist who served as the 23rd premier of Quebec from 1976 to 1985. He was the first Québécois political leader..." sufficiently deals with him being from Quebec. If not, then we should say "...was a Canadian Québécois politician and journalist..." (as I don't think 'Québécois Canadian' sounds right). GiantSnowman 09:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the lead? Your first example meets the requirements. I mean, how many times do we have to mention Québécois in the intro? Indeed, I think we're overdoing it in the entire opening paragraph, concerning pointing out that he was a Quebec nationalist. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the question is that simple. There are several situations where national identities other than (or in addition to) country of citizenship are used to establish context under MOS:CONTEXTBIO, such as Spanish regional identities. A Québécois national identity is arguably the sort of context that should be included to properly establish context, particularly in the case of a prominent nationalist.--Trystan (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, the motion is just that, a motion, which doesn't give a Francophone Canadian living in Quebec, any more special status then a Latin Canadian living in Ontario. But if it's considered that important? Then in the second sentence, one can just wiki-link it to "He was the first Quėbėcois political leader...". GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I keep referring to the way Scottish politicians are simply called Scottish and not British. Given the importance of his nationality to his political career and ideology, it would be strange not to have it there. As for "He was the first Quebecois political leader..." it looks to me like that "Quebecois" is an adjective referring to the province of Quebec (i.e., "Ontarian premier") and not a reference to his nationality. JM (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it is done for Scottish politicians. For Quebec politicians we have gone with Canadian (as was decided in the RfC). It is enough to note his Québécois ethnic/cultural/linguistic identity in the second sentence. As already noted, for most Quebec politicians, we don't even do that. Another example being current Quebec Premier François Legault.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Why are we going over this again after just having an RfC which resulted in the use of both "Canadian" and "Quebecois"? JM (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As has been said many times above, on adminstrative notice boards, and on individual editors talk pages... because that is a mischaracterization of the close. The close decided that "Canadian" belongs in the first sentence of lede, and that continued discussion was needed to decide whether "Québécois" does also. I am rather tired of correcting editors comments that misunderstand the RfC close.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I wasn't exactly wandering around random noticeboards and user talk pages looking for all this discussion. Couldn't you be a little more patient? JM (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, link to one of these is above. Much further up you will find a wall of text explaining this, including another editor arguing insistently that the closing comments of the RfC don't mean what they say the mean. I admit that that misunderstanding of the close repeated to the point of bludgeoning has made it hard for editors new to the discussion to come in and get their bearings.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Has anybody contacted the RFC closer about this? GiantSnowman 21:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and he stated that using both Canadian and Québécois was "suboptimal" though then he also made an alternative proposal of removing both from the first sentence, which doesn't exactly accord with his closing comments or the RfC. And I expect really wouldn't please anyone. Full discussion is here. Sorry, bit of a wall of text.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-contact the closer, about this ongoing content dispute? I couldn't be that cruel ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

But the closer might still be watching. Darryl Kerrigan -- as a closer I was uninvolved and had no opinion about what should be decided. Then I got pinged (repeatedly) to this discussion and I tried to help by taking my closer hat off and participating as an editor. Now I've done that, I do have an opinion about what should be done -- and it's not quite what the community decided in the RfC. But my personal view as an editor doesn't and shouldn't overrule the discussion close.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course. I am not suggesting there was anything improper about the close, nor your suggestions thereafter as an editor. Just to answer GiantSnowman's question. And frankly, I thought my initial answer might have been misleading without noting your other comments as an editor. So I did that immediately after. Thanks for keeping an eye, and continuing to try to help us resolve this.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Use Canadian, and Canadian only, in the first sentence. Leave mentions of Quebec to the following sentences. Meters (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This is so frustrating. Levesque was born in Canada, lived in Canada & yet we're being prevented from calling him a "Canadian politician", in the opening sentence. Meanwhile, I'll (figuratively) wager that we've got bios of Canadian politicians, who were not born in Canada, called "Canadian politician" in their opening sentences. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@XeCyranium:, you're welcome to give input. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, hi sorry didn't realize there was a war going on over this. After reading through it I stand by the change I made, there's no consensus to include québécois in the first sentence, only one for Canadian, and there are MOS concerns that specifically suggest avoiding the way it is currently written. From my newly done (brief) perusal of the history and talk page, it seems like Newimpartial is the main voice advocating against exactly the type of change I tried to implement, seemingly for no policy or MOS based reason and without the consensus of other editors. Given the lack of consensus for Newimpartial's preferred version, I feel following the MOS should take priority until such time as another RFC is performed to hammer down the decision. As it currently sits I'd ask Newimpartial to not revert the change again, given the MOS concerns highlighted by my edit summary and because "Canadian Québécois" is about as asinine a descriptor as "French parisien" or "American New Yorker". Most importantly though, because Newimpartial is the only editor I can see going back for months now who has ceaselessly edit warred to include their preferred version without the support of policy or consensus and against the objections of a half dozen other editors. XeCyranium (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Most importantly though, because Newimpartial is the only editor I can see going back for months now who has ceaselessly edit warred to include their preferred version without the support of policy or consensus and against the objections of a half dozen other editors. That sounds a lot like an accusation about behaviour, which doesn't belong on an article Talk page, and it also isn't accurate. For a start, the current version isn't what I prefer - I have preposed a different word order, and am open to other ways of including descriptors, as discussed in previous sections of this Talk page.

Second, several other editors have expressed on this page that they prefer to retain both Canadian and Québécois, and this is what the closer of the prior RfC implemented following their close. I am not maintaining a WP:1AM position here. My edits in article space are actually supported by MOS:ETHNICITY, as I have explained in multiple discussion sections above, and are also supported by Wikipedia:Closing discussions. So I would appreciate it if editors could keep allegations about conduct to an appropriate venue, and that they be based on things that actually happened. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Canadian and Quebecois are referring to different things here. The fact he self-identified as Quebecois is relevant to his biography—blindlynx

"Quebecois" is already mentioned in the lead, though. We don't need it mentioned twice. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's better as is than with a weird hyphenation. That said Quebecois does need to be early in the lead is all i'm saying—blindlynx 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)