Jump to content

Talk:Bloc Québécois

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First paragraph -- invert the 2 principles?

[edit]

"...devoted to the protection of Quebec's interests in the House of Commons of Canada, and the promotion of Quebec sovereignty..."

Personally, I think it should read: "...devoted to the promotion of Quebec sovereignty, and the protection of Quebec's interests in the House of Commons of Canada..."

Pursuit of Quebec sovereignty is first and foremost in the party's platform. Lucien Bouchard made that clear in the early days of the Bloc's formation.

Thus, it should be mentioned as the first phrase, in that opening sentence.

--Atikokan (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Duceppe

[edit]

What is Duceppe's status? Is he still president & leader of the BQ? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he resigned on election night and I haven't found anything online that says anything different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vale of Glamorgan (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Party leader versus party president versus parliamentary leader

[edit]

Louis Plamondon is not now, nor has he ever been, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, interim or otherwise. In fact, it doesn't seem as though the party has a leader at present.

Gilles Duceppe was both leader and president of the BQ before the 2011 election (thank you, Internet Archive). Vivian Barbot was chosen as the party's interim president after Duceppe's resignation, and she is still interim president as of this writing (source: the party's website).

Plamondon was chosen as the BQ's interim parliamentary leader on 2 June 2011. This is a parliamentary, and not a party, position. It more-or-less corresponds to the former position of House Leader, which no longer formally exists for the BQ as they are no longer an official parliamentary group. This article, clarifying Plamondon's title, does not indicate that he was chosen as party leader. This article, published in 2010, indicates that BQ House Leader Pierre Paquette had the same official title (in French) that Plamondon holds now.

The BQ website does not indicate that the party has a leader, interim or otherwise, at present. The only logical conclusion is that the position is vacant. In the absence of a formal leader, Barbot is the senior party official.

A few published articles since the 2011 election have described Plamondon as the BQ leader. This is due to confusion over the titles. CJCurrie (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

[edit]

Hi. Is there a reason why British date formats (e.g. 11 June 1991) are used instead of standard North American English format (June 11, 1991) ? The latter is used for articles about Quebec, Canada, Montreal, Quebec City, PQ, etc. I think that we should use Canadian English by default as it is spoken by Quebec anglophones. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:STRONGNAT Canada may use either, and since the BQ prefer the French language, dmy is appropriate for the topic. 117Avenue (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I do not understand the relation between the date formatting in French and this article, which is in English. In Montreal, MDY format is used, for example this article from The Gazette. In my opinion, DMY looks just wrong, but perhaps this format is fine outside Quebec. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bloc Québécois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec Bloc?

[edit]

I've lived in Canada for a long time and have never heard anyone refer to the Bloc Quebecois as the "Quebec Bloc". I'm wondering if we should delete this odd translation, which appears directly after the prononciation in the article. A CBC news article | here, published a week ago, refers to them as the "Bloc Quebecois"... Just like the rest of us Anglos do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Media Theorist (talk • contribs) 05:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as an alternative name in Britannica [1] for what it's worth. That being said, I've only heard it referred to by the French name or the "Bloc" in English Canada.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was placed there as a misguided attempt at clarifying the meaning of the phrase "Bloc Québécois" (as if there were five people in the world who wouldn't get it on their own), rather than a suggestion that anybody actually uses that as a proper name for the party. I agree that it shouldn't be there; our WP:UE rule does not require us to invent translated English names for things that don't have English names in real-world usage, but requires us only to reflect the usage that actually exists in English sources — and for this party, standard English usage is the untranslated "Bloc Québécois" rather than any anglicized alternative. (Several years ago a non-Canadian editor did try to move it to the original research alternative "Quebecer Bloc", citing UE for it, but they got reverted almost instantly — and what they were actually doing was an "other stuff exists" rampage against the pagemoves of several Italian political parties which do have anglicized names in English sources, so it was just pointless disruption rather than a dispute of any real substance.) Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK then I will be bold and take it out. For what it's worth, the same thing is mentioned about a third of the way down this incredibly long talk page (time for archiving?) New Media Theorist (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bloc Québécois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bloc Québécois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in the infobox?

[edit]

Two users have removed these (myself included), two users have added them back, so I guess it's worth talking about. So, is it really necessary to require citations, in the infobox, for the ideologies of "Quebec nationalism", "Quebec sovereigntism" and "regionalism"? To my mind, these are self-evident in the same way that "liberalism" is for Liberal Party of Canada, "canadian conservatism" is for Conservative Party of Canada and "green politics" is for Green Party of Canada— it is literally in their names, as here. But there's also the fact that these "disputed" BQ ideologues are all mentioned (and cited) within the article itself— in fact as I write this the opening sentence says the BQ … is a federal political party in Canada devoted to Quebec nationalism and the promotion of Quebec sovereignty.[5]. "Environmentalism", "social democracy", even "left-wing nationalism"— yeah, it makes sense these require sources. But do we really need sources to say that the party whose name translates to "Quebec Bloc", that was founded to promote sovereignty, and that only runs in Quebec is nationalist, sovereigntist and regionalist? — Kawnhr (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloc Québécois' alignment on the political spectrum

[edit]

It is indicated that the Bloc Québécois' alignment is one of center-left. While one must reckon that the party was in its first 20 years a party of progressive politics, it has shifted sharply to the right since 2015 and, more precisely, since 2019.

Since the federal campaign of 2019, the Bloc has taken a very conservative stance on immigration and minority integration in Québec society. It has taken the mantra of defending Québec's CAQ conservative government at the House of Commons at the expense of its old-time ally the Parti Québécois.https://www.blocquebecois.org/2019/09/12/laicite-76-candidats-du-bloc-sengagent-a-defendre-la-loi-21/.

Moreover, it has also taken a stance against the CERB, a temporary social program to safeguard Canadian wallets in the context of massive layoffs during the 2020 confinement.https://www.blocquebecois.org/2020/05/14/incitatifs-au-travail-ottawa-doit-respecter-son-engagement/.

Finally, its leader Yves-François Blanchet has also tapped into right-wing populistic rhetoric on Islam during Mr. Alghabra's nomination as Minister for the Federal Government.https://globalnews.ca/news/7574235/bloc-quebecois-omar-alghabra-criticism/

Conclusively, one also has to see where the Bloc is now poised to make gains or lose votes. While progressive, the Bloc was a strong choice throughout Francophone left-wing bastions in Montreal. Not anymore. The Bloc is now a viable option only in ridings where it can compete with the Conservative Party of Canada... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CerebralMTL (talk • contribs) 10:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like, sounds like and smells like WP:OR, find a reliable source (you are not, sadly) calling it a right-wing party. Also, for a right-wing party they sure do love left-wing policies (such as a wealth-tax and green equalization payments https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bloc-québécois-election-platform-1.6149655 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.33.254 (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentalism

[edit]

There's an edit war going on regarding the inclusion of "Environmentalism". The included source does not support the claim that environmentalism is part of BQ's ideology; all it supports is that one retired BQ politician suggested in 2011 that the Quebec legislature should look into the safety of asbestos mining. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:STATUSQUO, it should be restored. You can't argue to remove something, if it's not there. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For infobox ideology, the main ideologies, sourced and to that is widely accepted in sources, community, among political scientists and media, not some original research, unsourced or some personal wishes. This is encyclopedia not some blog. 79.101.140.54 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So 'now' you come to this talkpage. But only 'after', you believe you've gotten your own way. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, You been reported for Edit Warring Chip3004 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both parties, I would hope. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, there is no mine way or so, just to this is not a blog or wish list, it is encyclopedia and I read it often. Just acted when saw it. That is it. 79.101.140.54 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-warring aside, I do not see how environmentalism can be claimed to be a BQ core ideology based on the source provided.--User:Namiba 18:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wish the IP would've brought his concerns 'here', first. Also, concerned that he's only focusing on this one page. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If people actually took to read what I wrote in my edit summaries no problem, but no, some editors like to collect edits for numbers. I regret now to even wanted to make my edit. 79.101.140.54 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not getting through to you, it seems. Not gonna bother trying, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that that's over with, let's the rest of us discuss this. Is environmentalism a core tenet of BQ? I've not found much supporting the assertion (other than a ton of mirrors of this article). We do have occasional BQ leader making environmental noises, but nothing suggesting BQ has adopted such a position. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you (plural) want. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To something is included into infobox ideology as a core tenet, needs wide acceptance in reliable sources and academic community. Individual policies are not core ideology. Anyway, I now regret my try to change any, as seems some users not care what is in sources or dont read edit summaries. 79.101.140.54 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter as you can still be blocked for edit warring, you have gone past WP:3RR Chip3004 (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know what is problem here, couple of editors think to this place belong to them, they don't care about edit summaries or anything and they think to they can act as they want probably just to collect number or edits. In that they behave really rude and try to scare new editors with some labels etc. 79.101.140.54 (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter as you can still be blocked for edit warring, you have gone past WP:3RR, The three revert rule applies to all articles. Chip3004 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, so far, you've been acting like you own the page & looking at your contribs, you've been exhibiting SPA behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one is defending including environmentalism and the source does not back-up the claim, I am going to remove it and hope the edit-warring is over.--User:Namiba 20:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as (rightly or wrongly) the IP's goal has been achieved. It appears he's moved on. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, over two weeks now, since his departure. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec seats in infobox

[edit]

I thought there had been a discussion on this already but I don't see it here, so I'm starting a new one.

The proportion of House of Commons seats only in Quebec should be removed from the infobox, it gives an inaccurate impression of the relative size of the party in the legislature. We don't give a proportion of seats by region or a proportion versus seats contested for any other party, it's always seats held versus the size of the legislative body. Furthermore there is no regional subdivision of the House of Commons whereby the proportion of seats held only in Quebec has any relevance to the legislature at all, other than as an ideology which we describe in the article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember when, but there was a discussion either here or (more likely) at WP:CANADA. The consensus was to use the 338 seat model, rather then the 78 seat model. This was based on the fact that the BQ are a federal party, even though they choose to only run candidates in Quebec federal ridings. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector, GoodDay, and Impaulrators: I see that there's been some edits about this issue recently. I agree with the previous consensus that including a full column/infobox row on Quebec seats is not a good use of space and potentially misleading. However, since the BQ does only run in Quebec, knowing what proportion of Quebec seats they have won is valuable information. I would propose a note in the infobox and electoral results table in the House of Commons part that says something like "The Bloc only runs candidates in Quebec, which had 75 seats from the 1993 to 2011 elections and 78 seats since the 2015 election". ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BQ isn't barred from running candidates across the country. So, I wouldn't bother adding any footnote. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about this. The only similar example I could think of of a regional interest party contesting seats for a national parliament only within a sub-national region, and which have had significant electoral success within the region represented, is the Scottish National Party, which only runs candidates for the UK parliament in Scotland. That article shows seat totals for the 59 Scottish seats in the UK parliament, not the 650 total seats, and doesn't clarify with a footnote anywhere. There are others like the Bavaria Party but they've never won a seat so which total to use doesn't really matter. My personal opinion remains unchanged that showing the BQ's totals as a proportion of only Quebec seats misrepresents the party's political power, but it's also true that the party has historically had a disproportionate amount of influence for a party that has never held more than 18% of the seats in parliament. I think it would be worthwhile to hold an RFC on this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RFC on this at WP:CANADA, I believe. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean this discussion? It wasn't an RFC by any means, but it was pretty well unanimous that we should use the total seat count and not the regional count. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bloc_Québécois&oldid=1221217772"