Talk:Poutine

Poutine is a Québécois dish

Hi everyone,

I don't understand why my edits providing clarity regarding poutine as a Québécois dish are undone when this is not even a debate anymore. All credible sources are used, even a recent one from the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20210505-why-only-quebec-can-claim-poutine).

Best Axolotlxl (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is ....does say it's a Quebec dish.....your edit simply adds a source in the lead and unlinks our main Canadian food article and seems to suggest that Quebec is a country.Moxy- 18:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Not my intention of suggesting that Quebec is a country. For example, I think it is clearer to present the dish as: "It emerged in Quebec, in the late 1950s in the Centre-du-Québec region, though its exact origins are uncertain and there are several competing claims regarding its invention within the region." Don't you agree ? Axolotlxl (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Axolotlx: Your edits have been reverted because they ignore previous editorial consensus. I swear, every couple months someone comes boldly editing on this same point, and starts up an edit war without bothering to read the talk page. At the top of the banners on this page, there is a thin banner says "Talk:Poutine/FAQ", click on [show] to the right and read it. Between that and the wikicomments right in the text, I'm not sure what else to do except maybe add an editnotice.

Poutine originated in Quebec. It is "associated with Quebec cuisine" and has been "called Canada's national dish". That's all in the lead, referenced in the body and undisputed. But when you talk about national cuisines that opens a huge can of worms and irresolvable arguments that just aren't a good investment of editor time. The article would not have passed GA status due to edit warring if we hadn't decided for it to not state a position on cuisine nationality. I could probably write a few pages about cuisine nationality but again, not worth the time.

If you really want this in the article, I suggest you call another RfC and see if a new consensus has emerged at this time (it's been about three years since the last substantial debate). Obviously, I do not feel this would be worthwhile.

Oh, for your proposal above, no, I think the addition of the bolded words is a redundancy that we don't need in the lead. A few excellent copy-editors have gone over this article, btw. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Regarding national cuisines, there is a clear consensus about Quebecois national cuisine. Here is a whole page about it: Quebecois cuisine. I don't see how it would be controversial to specify the right national context to which poutine actually belongs. Axolotlxl (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:LAME for a few examples of how nationality can be the subject of edit warring, and how seemingly obvious matters can lead to entrenched, circular arguments. That's what I'm trying to stop from happening here. If you still don't believe me, once again, I ask you to read the talk pages, and maybe go through the edit history while you're at it. If you can't do that, and if you can't accept that your position is a point-of-view and not absolute truth, I don't see this discussion going anywhere. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I finally went through it all. The thing is, this is clearly no debate. Quebec has its own culture and national identity and national cuisine, which poutine is part of. This is the foundation of all the articles published on the topic of “why only Quebec can claim poutine”. Also, Quebec is officially recognized a nation. Again, a whole Wikipedia page exists about Quebec national cuisine (Québécois cuisine). If you can read French, take a look at the Wikipedia page written in French to see how deep this cuisine is. At that point, to be consistent with your point-of-view, should we ask that the Quebecois cuisine page be shut down because some are uncomfortable with the fact that Quebecois national cuisine exists? With all the articles written on this very topic using poutine as an example, and with all due respect, denying the existence of Quebecois cuisine is kind a denying Quebecois national identity as a whole. I’m sure this is not your intention, but I’m curious if you or others from this page want to help bring forward Quebecois cuisine on this page? @Reidgreg + @Moxy Axolotlxl (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No guess work about Canadian culture we call that WP:OR. Moxy- 23:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Guess work ? This was approved by the House of Commons of Canada on Monday, November 27, 2006 see: Québécois nation motion: "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." Axolotlxl (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware. I just don't feel that your edit is enough of an improvement on the current version of the article (which I feel is pretty even-handed) to be worth all the drama that it's going to bring. If you're crusading for recognition of Quebec cuisine, I would direct you to WP:GREATWRONGS. BTW, Fabien-Ouellet, one of the experts cited in the article, has taken the stance that there may be no such thing as national cuisines, only regional cuisines, with poutine being a cuisine of the Centre-du-Quebec region rather than Quebec as a whole. Are you prepared to have that added to the argument? (I hope to work on this and update the article after I get access to a copy of Poutine Nation.) – Reidgreg (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand, I'll try to get a hold on Poutine Nation too and other published sources to see if the edits with Québécois cuisine still make sense or if we should simply keep the current consensus. Not sure what we do with sources written in French, but I guess we will see later. Axolotlxl (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

Infobox images: used c. 2015–2019 (top) and established at WT:DYK in June 2019 (bottom).

@Axolotlxl: I reverted the infobox image to the version established in discussion at WT:DYK for the article's Main Page appearance on 1 July 2019 (in the DYK picture slot). The image was changed in this edit by Yoninah. I'm not sure I care about the image being "sad" (per your edit summary) so long as it is illustrative and encyclopedically valuable. Being in focus helps. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Google doodle

I missed it, but a couple weeks ago there was a Google doodle of poutine (news story here, Google's page on the doodle here) which resulted in it being the most popular Google search term that day (in Canada). This article topped 48k pageviews that day, an all-time high, significantly higher than its DYK appearance on Canada Day 2019. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"Shawarma poutine" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Shawarma poutine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 10 § Shawarma poutine until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Result: Delete – Reidgreg (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"Chicken Poutine" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chicken Poutine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 11 § Chicken Poutine until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Style question

Should French-language quotes be italicized, in the same way that stand-along French terms are? (e.g. "ça va faire une maudite poutine" -> "ça va faire une maudite poutine") dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 03:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This can be a confusing point. There are several small MOS sections which provide some guidelines on foreign-language quotations and whether they should be italicized. Reviewing these, I feel that the overall rule is to use italics sparingly; the quotation itself sets the quoted material apart from the surrounding text and adding a second layer of styling can give it too much emphasis. If it's understood from context that it's non-English, italicization isn't necessary. If I was quoting something that had one or two non-English words amongst English words that weren't otherwise stylistically differentiated and could confuse the reader, I might use italics. But if the whole quote is non-English, or the non-English parts are otherwise differentiated, I probably wouldn't use italics. Some of the guidelines:

• MOS:QUOTE (from the main MOS page) says It is incorrect to put quotations in italics unless the material would be italicized for some other reason. A little further down under MOS:CONFORM it provides an example of nested foreign quotes The cynical response "L'auteur aurait dû demander : « à quoi sert-il d'écrire ceci ? » mais ne l'a pas fait" was all he wrote. with no italics.
• MOS:ITALQUOTE says Do not use italics for quotations. Instead, use quotation marks for short quotations and block quoting for long ones. It does not specify English/non-English. It notes that italics are used in a quote for emphasis (it does not specify other valid uses).
• MOS:NOITALQUOTE It is normally incorrect to put quotations in italics. They should only be used if the material would otherwise call for italics, such as for emphasis in the original (better done with {{em}}) or to indicate use of non-English words.
• MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE: Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear with a translation into English and When editors themselves translate foreign text into English, care must always be taken to include the original text, in italics. This is perhaps the strongest statement in favour of italics, but I take the importance of it to be for verifiability purposes regarding Wikipedian-generated translations.
• MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English. Use the native spellings if they use the Latin alphabet (with or without diacritics)

Again, my take is to not apply multiple styles to the text. I should, however, check for the use of {{lang}} templates throughout the article to improve accessibility. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, I will probably refer to WP:BROKE in this case then. Thanks for the detailed reply! dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 05:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)