Talk:Charlottetown Accord

NPOV, Clean-up
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 (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 ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 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. 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)

"Roll of the dice"
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)


 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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