Talk:Indigenous peoples in Quebec

What is the purpose?

User JillandJack, whose recent behaviour on Wikipedia reminds me of our beloved hard banned Angelique/DW, keeps changing the first sentence of this article. He/She/They obviously wish[es] to make it really clear to the world that Quebec is a province of Canada. Fine, this is an undeniable fact and, since not everyone can identify all 10 provinces of Canada, it is good to give this precision to our readers.

But why was this first sentence: " The Native peoples of Quebec, a province of Canada, consist of 10 Amerindian nations and the Inuit nations number 71 415 people and account for approximately 1% of Quebec's population. " changed for: " Members of the Native peoples living in the Canadian province of Quebec consist of 10 Amerindian nations and the Inuit nations number 71 415 people and account for approximately 1% of Quebec's population. ".

What's the difference? In accord with Wikipedia's conventions, the title of an article should be bolded in the first sentence/paragraph. Why should it say Native peoples living in the Canadian province of Quebec?

-- Mathieugp 19:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe JillandJack's edit was done to try to water down how we describe the autonomy of the First Nations. By removing the word "nations" and replacing it with "living in", it implies that the First Nations have no special status. JillandJack is confusing the words "nation" and "state", "state" would be incorrect as the First Nations are not independent from Canada, but "nation" is correct and is evident in all provinces across the country. Kurieeto 14:56, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Rename

I want to propose that this article be renamed to First Peoples of Quebec, for several reasons. First, the new name would align nicely with the established First Nations of Canada article. However more importantly, it would be a precursor to the re-establishment of a Category:First Peoples of Quebec. JillandJack depopulated Category:Native peoples of Quebec because they felt it redundant with the articles already in Category:Canadian First Nations. Category:Canadian First Nations has about 70 articles that are not categorized further, and I think it would help the learning of those not familar with the First Peoples of Canada if the Category:Canadian First Nations branched into Categories for the First Peoples of each province. I welcome all comments, if none are received in a week then I will proceed as discussed above. Kurieeto 14:56, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to the move to First Peoples of Quebec. I personnally don't like the expression, but if that is the accepted term in English Canada, so be it. -- Mathieugp 06:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no common, accepted term in English Canada for describing the indigenous peoples of a province. I chose First Peoples of _ as above because the syntax conformed to the naming standard of the main article, First Nations of Canada. This also allowed for the inclusion of the Métis and Inuit by using 'First Peoples' rather than 'First Nations'. I'm completely open to other name suggestions, even keeping this one, but as my goal is to have a page like this for each Canadian province and territory, I want to first have consensus on what our naming convention will be. Kurieeto 12:47, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

That's very rational thinking. I think we may be able to get along. :-) I suggest we try to find the most universally accepted term in the antropological/ethnological communities of English-Speaking Canada (if there is one) and use it. The dictionary seems to suggest that "aboriginal", "indigenous", "autochtonous", and "native" are all pretty much synonymous in English. I believe that indigenous and autochtonous are pretty rarely used in Canada, but aboriginal and native aren't. (It's pretty much the opposite in French, i.e., "autochtone" is the most common term, "aborigène" and "indigène" are never used for North American natives, and "natif" is not used at all. If it were, it would be an anglicism. ;-)

I personnally think that "aboriginal" is better suited than "native" for it is more precise, and by using it, we would be avoiding potential arguments with people who would say stuff like "I was born here! I am native too!". What is your opinion? -- Mathieugp 02:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I found a great site on the federal government's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs website [1]. It defines the terms that we're discussing as established by the government, whose policies on naming I think we should try to emulate. I agree that "Aboriginal peoples" is the best term, because as per the government's definition it encompases the First Nations (Indians), Métis, and Inuit. Including the "s" in "peoples" is more important than I had first realized, they discuss the difference of having/not having the "s" on the website above. I think this consensus is great and we can begin to move forward with the provincial/territorial articles and categories. Kurieeto 22:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I also wanted to say that I agree with your note that by using "aboriginal" we'll avoid arguments about being a "native" Albertan, Ontarian, etc. Also, I just tried moving the Category:Native peoples of Quebec to Category:Aboriginal peoples of Quebec, but I received an error message. Are we unable to move categories? Thanks, Kurieeto 23:56, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about moving categories. I think (but I am not sure) that you are supposed to create a new category and then have the old one deleted by an admin. If you find out, let me know. -- Mathieugp 02:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mathieu, I just thought of something, should we avoid using the possessive term "of"? Would the phrase "Aboriginal peoples in Quebec" be better than "Aboriginal peoples of Quebec"? Some may get offended at a wording that implies that a group of people "belong" to a province. After all, almost all aboriginal groups were located in their homelands long before any province or territory in question was created. I realized this after I made a requested for the old Category to be moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I'm going to remove the request until this is decided. I personally think that "in" is a preferable term because it is more neutral. Kurieeto 17:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. -- Mathieugp 13:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Language

Does anyone know the statistics for the languages spoken by Aboriginal people in Quebec? That is, how does the Aboriginal population split along Anglophone/Francophone lines, and how many primarily speak their traditional languages? Stevecudmore (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll find a Wikipedia table with this information here, however the latest available data are here -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aboriginal peoples in Quebec. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518170328/http://www.autochtones.gouv.qc.ca/nations/cartes_communautes_en.htm to http://www.autochtones.gouv.qc.ca/nations/cartes_communautes_en.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Indigenous peoples in Northern Canada which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Claim towards Naskapi-Innu Identity lacking citation

Under the section regarding the Naskapis, there is a claim that is made without a citation: "however, they are often considered to be Innu living in a remote area."

An updated citation should be added for this claim or this segment should be removed entirely. There are statements made by select leaders of Innu Communities in the Cote Nord of Quebec that make this claim, however there still exists recognizable differences between the Naskapi and Innu, namely in language and geographic origin.

If no change is made in the coming weeks, I will proceed with amending it to the following: "Although there are claims that the Naskapi are part of the Innu Nation, the Naskapi are a distinct Nation within Quebec and Canada, and are recognizd as such under the Northeastern Quebec Agreement." Smidkiff1776 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)