Talk:Partition of Quebec

message: 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)
thread_title:  Canadian perspective 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Multiple issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article with pro secession bias 

message: 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)
thread_title: The townships

message: 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)
thread_title: biased information