Talk:R v Morgentaler

message: I moved this page to R. v. Morgentaler because this is the most common name of the case. It is even index in the Supreme Court database under that name. There is a second Morgentaler case from 1976 but it went by the name Morgentaler v. R.. Cheers! PullUpYourSocks 00:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of this article

message: The quote in the lower part of the article is not from the actual decission of the court it was one of the Jusitice's personal opinions. I can't remember at the moment which one. I think we should find a quote that was signed onto by the entire majority rather then using a, while in my mind very compelling and eloquent, quote of one of the Justice's.
Benw 06:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: I'm translating :fr:Henry Morgentaler. Just a little question, what means the R. in R. v. Morgentaler ? It's the same in French, R. c. Morgentaler.
Thanks ! Staatenloser 00:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It stands for Regina, meaning the Queen. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question :  Meaning of "R. v. "

message: Does anybody involved in this know where a link to the original Section 251 might be found? The one that the Supreme Court struck down? I'm having nothing but trouble finding it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.66.34 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question :  Text of s. 251

message: This page is linked to from jury nullification, where the case is refered to as an important example of a jury nullification in Canada, which was then appeals. However, there's no mention of a jury aquittal on this page, let alone that it was likely a nullification...
Stevecudmore (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jury nullification was more relevant to Morgentaler's other lower trial cases than to this specific appeal.  Morgentaler v. The Queen might talk a bit more about jury nullification. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nullification

message: On 24 May 2014  changed the lead
*inserting "None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn"
*changing "Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada." to "Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws protecting the unborn by regulating abortion in Canada."
This is pretty inappropriate, but as the IP seems set to do WP:BATTLE over it, I'd rather not be the only one reverting.
#There is no claim in the lead that "one or more of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion demand" nor does it even mention "abortion on demand."
#The lead summarizes the rest of the text of the article and explains what the subject is, not what one letter to the editor points out didn't happen. It's possible the source could be used elsewhere in the article, I suppose.
#Inserting "protecting the unborn" adds no clarity or depth to the article and simply inserts POV.
If nobody else gets involved I guess I'll take it to NPOVN. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this from NPOVN lising....  I put a link to that Guardian article lower under Aftermath as an attempt to be representative that both interpretations exist and a try to resolve it outside the lead.  I can see the wording that is mentioned above as one view of what the cite is saying.  The page does say "All judges in 1988 Morgentaler decision acknowledged state has legitimate interest in protecting unborn" so the editor was accurately conveying from the cite; and the page is from a PEI supreme court judge of that era as selected and presented by a newspaper so has some credibility as expert opinion from a RS.   I don't think there is any way to be conveying interpretations of what the decision is or means that is not going to have NPOV issues, and note that the other conclusions under Aftermath also seem leaps in phrasing or overclaiming with less cite support than this one had so suggest just accept that even 20 years later folks still argue over what it means and Wikipedia is just presenting things that are said and not picking a winner.  Markbassett (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded at WP:NPOVN, but I'll just say that thought I'm doubtful that the person who's been adding the source will be satisfied, I have no problem with the wording you've added to the Aftermath section: "The extent and nature of the Morgentaler decision remains in popular discussion, e.g. in a recent Guardian letter[3] by Gerard Mitchell." --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edit warrior 

message: This text at the end of the "Background" section seems a bit unclear:
:: The Court of Appeal for Ontario found in favour of the government. On appeal, the main issue put before the court was whether section 251 violated section 7 of the Charter. A secondary issue put to the court was whether the creation of anti-abortion law was ultra vires ("outside the power") of the federal government's authority to create law.
* is sentence 1 referring to the old ruling on Morgentaler v R, or a preliminary ruling on R v Morgentaler?
* is sentence 2 about the ruling (by Court of Appeal for Ontario) in favour of the government (in either case), or about an appeal of that ruling (by Court of Appeal for Ontario)?
* and it seems some of this should be cited
Cezna (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear wording in Background