Talk:Québec solidaire: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:17, 30 October 2006

Form of Name

Note that the form in French is Québec solidaire, with the "s" lowercased, as per the usual rules. Québec Solidaire (capital "s") is acceptable when we are writing in English, as we do likewise for Bloc Québécois and so forth. - Montréalais 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Bloc Québécois is fully capitalized not only in the English wikipedia article, but in the French one too, and on the official BQ website. (I know what you mean about French capitalization rules; I just think the BQ is not the best example here. Same with the PQ.) --Saforrest 08:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political methodology

Québec Solidaire aims to change the way politics are dealt with in Québec. By implementing participating democracy in the party's own structure and choosing a consensual approach (as opposed to a strict hierarchy), Québec Solidaire has a goal of redefining politicians and give a more important voice to the people in the province's political scene.

Québec Solidaire also advocates a proportional vote in Québec wich would enrich democracy by allowing entry of smaller partys and an equal representation of women and minorities onthe political scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.96.73 (talk • contribs)

Revert

I'm reverting your edits, anonymous. I think it's clear that you're deliberately trying to slant this article to emphasize that QS is extremist, marginal, communistic, etc. Do read over the policy on presenting a neutral point of view. If you have anything useful to add as a corrective, on the other hand, please add it. For example, you'd be very welcome to add a section called "Criticism of QS" reporting any sort of allegations or criticisms that may be out there.

One of your edits was justified with the statement The party itself advocates that it contains socialist and communist forces and several statement in the article contains reference to it. It therefore make sense to include them in those categories. The first sentence, if I understand it right, is incorrect. Certainly there are socialists and communists within the QS. But the party does not advocate socialism or communism, as such. Quartier Latin1968 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Issue

I am not criticizing their point of view.

I think we may disagree but it is not correct on a neutral web page to present this party in an other form than a marginal party in Quebec. No poll showed a real intention of voters to support this party and on the last election, UFP got 1.76% on average where it presented a candidate. It is not a question on wether you agree or disagree with their political platform, it is a question of using a neutral vocabulary for a party that gets marginal support from the population.

Maybe the term far left would be most appropriate to describe where this party stand on Quebec political spectrum. But I don't think it is neutral to speculate on their future outcome. The Gazette, for example, used a more critical language than the canadian press article that is cited.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=df402344-15f8-400e-87bd-890cef55be46

I think that if this page is to be neutral, it should be presented as it is, a marginal party to the left of the Parti Quebecois. Even if in Francoise David's term, the Parti Quebecois is a right wing party, the Parti Quebecois defines itself has a left wing social democrat party and got the support from more than 30% of the population at the last election. QS should therefore be presented as a party to the left of Quebec's historical left wing party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.239.168 (talk • contribs)

I've removed the socialist parties category. The fact that the party has elements within in it that are sympathetic to socialism is not any sort of proof that the party itself has that agenda. I'm sure some of the members of the Democratic Party in the U.S. have socialist leanings, but only a political illiterate would consider that party as anything other than centrist (and usually centre-right). The very fact that it's a seperatist party suggests that Quebec Solidaire is not really socialist.

At the very least you could wait till they come out with an official platform. All indications suggest that the party embraces reformism, bourgeois identity movements, and middle class protest politics. Nothing socialist about them. 207.6.31.119 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first anonymous user wants to describe QS as a somewhat marginal party to the left of the PQ – that's fine! Personally, I don't think it's unfair (or non-neutral) at this point to say that, because that's exactly what QS is, for now. And I think the recent anonymous emendation from "many speculate" to "some in the party hope", or whatever it was, is proper and fine. Likewise, I agree, the category:socialist parties is perhaps inappropriate until/unless the party declares itself to be socialist. As long as we're working constructively to present a NPOV, I have no problem at all – it's just the slanted use of epithets like "extremist" and so on that seem inappropriate to me. Quartier Latin1968

21:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Quartier. The policies of QS are democratic socialist, not extreme left; they intend to drastically reform the market, not abolish it. Calling Quebec Solidaire extremist, based solely on the notion that it is unpopular, is certainly unacceptable. Even if they were communist or anarchist, it would still be inappropriate to call the party extremist. That word can rarely be used in a neutral sense, and it is usually only applied to parties that have used violence to achieve their goals. -- WGee 21:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name spelling

I think the name should be "Québec solidaire", as the official name presented on the party's website is consistently spelled in this way. --saforrest 01:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of folks raised this same issue some time ago (see the top of the talk page). -- WGee 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if you're not used to reading French, it can be kind of a shock to see content-words in proper names not capitalized. Officially I'll be neutral on this, because it won't kill anybody to learn the way capitalization works in French; at the same time, I suspect the current title better fits the principle of least astonishment for anglophones. Quartier Latin1968

15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be either capitalized (so that Anglophones know that it is a proper noun) or it should be italicized (so that Anglophones know that it is a proper noun notwithstanding its foreign style of capitalization). But since it's incorrect to italicize the name of an organization (even a foreign one), we should capitalize it. Plus, the names of most other Francophone political parties, both within this article and without, are capitalized—so we should continue the pattern. The Bloc Québecois even capitalizes its name on its website. That being said, I'm not sure if it is it entirely unacceptable to capitalize proper nouns in Québecois French. Any input on that, Quartier? -- WGee 00:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bon, je dois le signaler, j'suis anglophone moi ; et de plus j'ai jamais eu le plaisir d'habiter le Québec. That said, the general rule is that you capitalize the first content-word in a proper noun and no others – but you do see exceptions (someone mentioned the Bloc Québécois as an example; the name of Quebecor World is so spelled in French) and some fluidity (the Observatoire Jeunes et société has an extra capital J in the title of its homepage, and also capitalizes the S in some pages; the Société des roses du Québec does not capitalize the R in the text of its page, but does so in the title...). Quartier Latin1968

21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I scratched the entry at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Non-controversial_proposals; I don't think it's "uncontroversial", and this talk page shows a debate. Please relist as a regular entry in WP:RM if you want to pursue the matter. Duja 09:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, welcome to Wookiepedia, where "Use English" trumps official names and common sense.--user:Qviri 11:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the reason for such bitterness; I didn't suggest renaming this to "Quebec Solidarity". You're preaching to the (mostly) converted; I too hate pulling WP:UE as an argument, but the common practice in English when reporting foreign phrases is unclear, and I'm not competent enough to rule on the matter. The title-casing practice in my mother tongue is the same as in ~~French~~Québecois. And I merely acted as a good-faith administrator who came here and saw the talk page above spread with arguments about correct capitalization, so this is not a "non-controversial move" as was asserted. You were kindly refered to the correct place to pursue the issue further. Duja 12:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gauche Socialiste link

I think that there really ought to be a link to Gauche Socialiste. It already has its own page and refers to it as being a component of Quebec Solidaire.Rmalhotr 22:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gauche Socialiste was not even a political party, but merely a faction within the Parti de la Democratie Socialiste (PDS). The PDS was but one party that formed the Union des Forces Progressistes (UFP), which then united with the Option Citoyenne to form Québec Solidaire. It would be superfluous to discuss the origins of the two parties that formed Quebec Solidaire. -- WGee 22:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{PPAP}}
+== Form of Name ==
 Note that the form in French is ''Québec solidaire'', with the "s" lowercased, as per the usual rules. ''Québec Solidaire'' (capital "s") is acceptable when we are writing in English, as we do likewise for [[Bloc Québécois]] and so forth. - [[User:Montrealais|Montréalais]] 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)