Talk:Le Devoir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Quebec / Montreal (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Montreal (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Journalism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


This page is bias, le Devoir does not officially have an allegeance to sovereignty, in fact Claude Ryan who was chief editor for many years was a known federalist.

As far as I know is does not officially have an allegiance to sovereignty, indeed, however I think it is fair to say that reading it one can sense some nationalism and sympathy towards the separatist movement from the authors. I also remember reading openly separatist editorials. I don't know how this could be appropriately worded in the article, though. Saintamh 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Final Sentence in History[edit]

At present the article mentions that Le Devoir is one of the most prestigious newspapers in Canada and has excellent international coverage, none of these claims are normative in an objective encyclopedic article about a newspaper and seem more to advertise the paper's quality. The link provided as reference to these claims is used far too broadly and at no point makes any direct claim as to the quality of the contemporary paper. I will therefore be removing the last sentence in it's entirety.Thesassypenguin (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)