Talk:Charlottetown Accord

Canada: Governments / Law High‑importance

	Canada portal 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV, Clean-up

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Added NPOV-- Campaign, Results and Aftermath sections need cleanup but I don't have the time right now. They read like an op-ed 69.157.106.211 09:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To me, they all read as strictly factual accounts. They state no political opinion, but simply report the tenor of political opinion on both sides at the time; factual reporting of other people's POV is not the same as Wikipedia being POV. I'm especially mystified by your flagging of Results as a section that needs NPOVing, since that section contains nothing but the text of the question and the province-by-province voting results. If that's not NPOV, nothing in the world ever could be. Bearcat 01:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I must agree with Bearcat. Furthermore, it is my understanding that {{npov}} (and related template notices) should not be imposed on an article if the imposer does not present a valid, cogent case for a dispute. This requires more than saying "[such and such] need cleanup". I suggest removing the notice, unless and until 69.157.x returns and offers to detail his or her grievance. -- Hadal 07:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure; the references to Brian Mulroney look slightly PoV to me, especially in the Aftermath section (where it's simply stated that he made mistakes). It's not a major problem, I'd have thought (though if you put yourself in the shoes of a Mulroney supporter you might feel more aggrieved). Did he admit that he'd made mistakes, I wonder? If so, then that could be added to the text. I've Googled for this, but couldn't find anything.
I agree, though, that the Results section is about as NPoV as you can get. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the header, and would advise the anon to review WP:CU, and become more involved in pages he finds objectionable or inferior. Placing a tag and leaving is a very unpopular habit here. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 14:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's a reference to Trudeau cronies early on in the article - this is obviously POV. I don't know enough about the issue to rewrite it myself, but wanted to point it out here. --8.11.254.188 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Roll of the dice"

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As well, following the Accord's defeat, he was criticized for calling the process "a roll of the dice," which voters interpreted as meaning that he was gambling with the country's future.

I may be wrong, but I thought Mulroney said that about Meech Lake (referring to the chances of getting all the Premiers to agree) and not Charlottetown.Habsfannova 05:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 05:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

He did say it about Meech, not Charlottetown. What he meant was he was throwing it out in front of the craps pits to see where the bets had fallen - like a found of the boardgames Risk or Diplomacy, sort of. Not gambling exactly so much as fielding a plan; he could have used a better metaphor but he used an appropriate one; and of course Canadians don't like taking risks, other than cheap, blind ones like lottery tickets (or extreme skiing).Skookum1 04:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlottetown Accord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060712155629/http://fc.lbpsb.qc.ca:80/~history/time-today-ctown.ra to http://fc.lbpsb.qc.ca/~history/time-today-ctown.ra

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic