Talk:Politics of Canada Archive 1

I was shocked when I read this page and made a hurried edit. However, shortly I shall do a proper rewrite that will be absolutely from a NPOV....DW

Your anti-Quebec rants hardly seem NPOV. -- Zoe

A brief but specific description of what you thought was so un-NPOV about the description as it was would certainly be appreciated. - Montréalais

(The below is not from Zoe, it is from Tokerboy)

I think I agree with Zoe (though I'm not sure if "rants" is a good word)

• "Rene Levesque, won the provincial election and began to explore a course for Quebec sovereignty."
  • changed "greater independence from the rest of Canda" to "sovereignty" (sp?) -- is independence the only desire of the Parti Québécois?
• "Many in Quebec and Canada recognize that the province is distinct and unique within Canada but that does not merit a position of autonomy with most all Federal powers granted to the provinces."
  • This is clearly a POV, yours or someone else's. Perhaps I believe it does merit such a position.
• "In essence, only a shell of a country would remain, leaving 10 individuial nations."
  • Perhaps true, but this is almost certainly debatable. Would it be more like the United States or the European Union?
• "Granting special powers to Quebec alone provides for a second autonomous nation"
  • Once again, "autonomous" is debatable. Maybe "more autonomous"
• "A few very small examples of what Quebec wants are..."
  • These seem like big demands, and why not list them all so there can be no one taking issue with which ones are presented?
• The whole paragraph after the above quote
  • Just because the United States does it that way does not mean that it is a priori correct for Canada to do so, yet that is the impression I walk away from the article with. There is also a substantial difference between adding an amendment and rewriting the constitution.
• "Two later initiatives reflect the goodwill of Canadians"
  • Sounds like a POV. Perhaps I believe it does it reflects the imperialist tendency of Canadians. At the very least, surely some Canadians do not feel such goodwill towards Quebecers.
• "Despite near-unanimous support from the country's political leaders, this second effort at constitutional reform was defeated in Quebec and the rest of Canada in an October 1992 nationwide referendum."
  • I'm not saying this isn't NPOV, but it sounds interesting and I'd like more details on why so many elected politicians disagreed with their constituencies. How close was the referendum?
• "the sole purpose of this sovereigntist party is to break up the country"
  • Is that their words, yours, or someone elses?

These are coming from a non-Canadian that knows very little about Canada, and even less about Quebec. In spite of my ignorance, they seem like they need rewording, or at least specify some points where details can be added. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can add to the disagreeable statements list. Tokerboy 01:36 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC)

---

Note that DW once again fails to comment on what others have had to say about his changes, but is more than willing to attack others. Elliot, what's your feeling about his changes? -- Zoe

---

I'm finding the repeated references to "the separatist government" of Québec to be too much. Once something like that is said, repeating it ad nauseum begins to seem more like expressing some POV. Eclecticology