Talk:Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Canada: New Brunswick / Law Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Brunswick.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

The history section has been butchered[edit]

The referencing is less clear- there are some paragraphs with no references- and other things have been altered to say things that just aren't true. For example, the Russel quote is now claimed to be saying that the right amending formula was used, but what Russell really said was that it was good to make a minor amendment without having to deal with things like the status of Quebec and Aboriginal self-government. This article is seriously hurting and should be reverted. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]