Talk:Partition of Quebec

Rewrite

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)

I disagree with Mathieugp'a dismissive attitude towards the citation of articles from daily newspapers. While the additions to this article from academic publications that he suggests would be most welcome, the newspaper articles are primary documents from the period when partition was in the news in the mid-1990s, as are the press releases, the summary of poll results published by the Angus Reid Group, etc.

To the best of my knowledge, the poll data on popular attitudes regarding partition has never been collected and reviewed in a single journal article. So I am at a loss as to how one would rewrite the article to eliminate the six or seven references to newspaper articles containing poll results, without eliminating the capacity of readers to independently verify the validity of the cited information.

Prometheus Unbowed (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not suggested to remove the citations, but to rewrite the article so the subject is treated with intelligence. Newspaper articles from the daily press cannot alone provide the references for an article on a subject of public international law.

- First, the FUD on partition comes from these very media.

- Second, none of the journalists cited has ever made any attempt at enlightening their readers on the legal facts, they have just echoed whatever the pamphleteers and partisans of this option have voiced. We are betting citing them directly than through the filter of the press.

- Third, without corporate support, the subject of the partition of Quebec would have received little to no echo, because the issue was settled in 1992, with the legal opinion of Thomas Franck, Rosalyn Higgins, Alain Pellet, Malcolm Shaw, Christian Tomuschat, who were asked simple questions by a commission of the National Assembly, for the first time in history united across party lines to inquire on the political future of Quebec. In consequence of this opinion, political scientists and jurists who are not blinded by chauvinism understand that the partition of Quebec can only be done two ways:

1) by an act of aggression, which implies the violation of international law by Canada, the country of peace keeping or

2) if Quebec is stupid enough to wish to open negotiations on the subject.

That "the poll data on popular attitudes regarding partition has never been collected and reviewed in a single journal article" tells a great deal on the importance the subject has received from academia, doesn't it?

In any case, here is what one finds with a very quick search:

1980 - William F. Shaw and Lionel Albert. Partition: The price of Quebec's independence: A realistic look at the possibility of Quebec separating from Canada and becoming an independent state

1992 - Scott Reid. Canada remapped: How the partition of Quebec will reshape the nation, 1992

1996 - Trevor McAlpine. The partition principle: Remapping Quebec after separation

1996 - BARRY CAME with E. KAYE FULTON in Ottawa and LIZ WARWICK in Montreal. Ottawa Endorses Québec Partition

1996 - ROGER ANNIS. Ottawa Threatens Partition Of Quebec Move Aims To Derail Growing Sentiment For Independence From Canada

1996 - P.J. Monahan & M.J. Bryant with N.C. Côté. "Coming to Terms with Plan B: Ten Principles Governing Secession", in D.R. Cameron, ed., The Referendum Papers: Essays on Secession and National Unity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999).

2003 - De Lydia Anita Miljan and Barry Cooper. Hidden Agendas. How Journalists Influence the News - Chapter 7. Partition of Quebec (very interesting, shows the direct influence of Conrad Black in getting the issue to be covered in the news and also how the language of the journalist determines how the subject is treated.)

In French, there is this:

Souveraineté : Partition, a complete dossiers prepared by Vigile.net over the years:

1996 - Claude G. Charron. La partition du Québec : de Lord Durham à Stéphane Dion

1997 - Le mouvement partitionniste et les frontières d'un Québec souverain by Génération Québec

-- Mathieugp (talk) 03:34, 14 April 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)

Your assertion is without foundation. Mine, which is that the idea would not have received much media attention at all without corporate support, was based on information read in Lydia Anita Miljan and Barry F. Cooper (2003). Hidden Agendas. How Journalists Influence the News - Chapter 7. Partition of Quebec, pp. 139-144 + various other French-language media sources. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadian perspective

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)

POV tag

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)

Multiple issues

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)

Article with pro secession bias

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)

The townships

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)

biased information

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