![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article needs to be completely rewritten. Most of the references and quotes are from daily newspapers(!) while they should be mostly from law journals and academic publications for such a touchy subject. -- Mathieugp ( talk) 04:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Mathieugp's assertion that the idea of partition was on the basic of 'corporate support' is without foundation. Jbacu1985 ( talk) 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
While this article is about Quebec, it is written mostly from an english canadian perspective. Many sections are non neutral point of view, such as this sentence : 'Shortly after these events, the sovereignist provincial government of Premier Bouchard enacted a law forcing many of Quebec's municipalities to merge — and in particular, forcing all of the small non-francophone municipalities on the Island of Montreal to become part of a single francophone-majority municipality covering the entire island.' The city merger was a complex issue but has nothing to do with the "events" relating the partition of Quebec. The Montreal Gazette columnist is just being anti-sovereignist as usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.107.173 ( talk) 12:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering why the article has been tagged POV as there is no discussion on this page. Not been Canadian just wondered what the problem is. I've corrected the tag date to November. Bevo74 ( talk) 12:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
As nobody has replied I'm going to remove it in the new year unless there is a reply.
Bevo74 (
talk)
20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Have done so
Bevo74 (
talk)
07:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged the #Arguments against partition section as I can see quite a few issues with it. My two main concerns are the paucity of citations, as well as the general tone of it. Firstly, while any direct quotes are (mostly) cited, most if not all the surrounding text isn't. Secondly (and related to this) it comes off a bit ORish, especially section 4, and there's a definite sense I get from my reading of the entire section that it seems slanted against partition. - Chrism would like to hear from you 23:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The section "Arguments against partition" is really big in comparison to the others, and also there is a "Arguments against partition" section but no "Arguments for partition", isn't that strange? Another thing, for every argument you use in the "Arguments against partition", change the word Quebec for Canada, and all the secessionist will complain. -- Living001 ( talk) 14:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Removed nonsensical editorializing about the constitutional situations of other countries; Belgium wasn't partitioned and the whole thing was the result of an armed revolution, while the claim that Azerbaijan was partitioned is downright bizarre: Northern Azerbaijan was conquered by the Russian Empire in the early modern era and became a number of transcaucasian governments, which became soviet republics when the bolsheviks went around to dealilng with the nationalities question. The only "partitioning" going on in modern Azerbaijan is either the remainder of soviet era subdivisions, or Armenian military occupation zones. Effectively using these as examples goes with what has already been established by legal scholars, namely, that any partition of Quebec would require armed force. 216.252.75.220 ( talk) 17:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the "Arguments against partition" section back to a section solely about arguments against partition, removed their counter arguments, as it is not a blog for political debate, but a page to inform on the subject. I have also added clarifications and links to reliable sources. Last editor was heavily biased in their allegations, going so far as to describe arguments against partition as 'intolerant' and 'non-sensical', including the fact that none of these "counter-arguments" were supported by any sources. If someone cares enough, they might make an "Arguments for partition" section. One last time: Wikipedia is not your personal blog to argue convictions and/or political affiliations, and always bolster claims with links to relevant information/sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.M.Cochrane ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I know there is this really detestable romantic appeal in the west to loyalist families somehow still being dominant in the townships, but it hasn't been true for a century and a half outside of well-hated landlords (the quebec french expression "l'anglais du village" (yes, singular) comes from the townships). The current demographics are 5% english and a lot of "english-sounding" names are algonquian in origin, with toponyms being roughly split three ways between french, english and various abenaki languages. The notion that the townships are in any way, shape or form english is on the same level as the delusion among modern-day united empire loyalists that India and South Africa are part of the anglosphere because single digit percentages of the population claim their empire's bastardized frisian as native language. It's a fantasy of the same people who would like to forget that the french do not end at the Ottawa and the Restigouche. 199.180.98.54 ( talk) 20:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The arguments against partition section pushes a political agenda. It should not be brought back unless someone is dedicated to showing both sides of each issue in the same section, as clearly, it cannot be written without being biased. 184.162.248.200 ( talk) 01:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)anon