Talk:Québec solidaire

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)

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)

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.

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. QuartierLatin1968 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

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)

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. QuartierLatin1968 21:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)