Talk:Official Languages Act (Canada)

Latest comment: 13 years ago by 24.138.169.241 in topic Updated reference

I removed this sentence: "The primary impact of the 1969 act was on the court system. Before it there were several provisions for trials and legal documents in both languages in some jurisdictions, but on the whole the legal situation was an incomplete patchwork." -the British North America Act (section 133) made this constitutionally mandatory since 1867...

  • removed History of Quebec category. A common misconception is that the legislation made an impact in Quebec, but actually Quebec had already been bilingual for 200 years. Peter Grey 00:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bilingual regions edit

Which regions are considered bilingual for the purposes of the act? I found this list, but it is largely defined in terms of counties and municipalities that don't exist anymore, making it somewhat hard to follow. I assume "including: (a) Cities [...] (b) Towns" should be interpreted to mean that the entire counties (and districts in Northern Ontario, although interestingly enough the list doesn't use that word) are included in the bilingual regions, not just the cities and towns mentioned specifically? //Essin (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism edit

This revision by IP address 198.103.109.141 has become the subject of media attention, after this user added references to the "Quebec Nazi Act" and similar vandalism. The IP is reported to be assigned to the Correctional Service of Canada. Following reaction by MP Denis Coderre, Public Security Minister Vic Toews says he has asked CSC to look into the origin of the vandalism. (Radio-Canada) - Montréalais (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply


I believe this article should be semi-protect for a while due to media attention. Numerous edits after the initial vandalism prevented a quick fix to this article. 216.254.145.138 (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pending changes restrictions have already been applied - most readers will not see any changes until they are approved by an editor in good standing. If it becomes necessary, semi-protection will be considered. There certainly are a few eyes on the article at the moment, so any vandalism won't last long. Cheers! Resolute 20:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Added to the box up top, though I'm not sure if I like the idea of glorifying one troll's vandalism by creating permanent links to it. Resolute 22:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Legal Action has been intimated against the vandal (and Wikipedia?) by the office of an MP [Seen on CTV]. As a way of preserving the spirit of Wikipedia this page should NOT be restricted in any way. It is not in Wikipedia's interest to fold to uninformed media attacks, or this will become a common undesired occurrence. Slaja (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Updated reference edit

The link for the report in reference 8 is broken. I have no idea how to fix ref lists, but this is the proper link (for Citation 8) http ://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/docs/e/2004_05_e.pdf (24.138.169.241 (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC))Reply