Talk:Louise Charron

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 19:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Greetings User 174.88.97.225,
On Apr 30 2009, you deleted the following entire paragraph: 
Quote:
On November 15, 2007, Justice Charron was one of three Justices in the Coram regarding the dismissal of "the application for leave to appeal" of American conscientious objector, Iraq war resister, and refugee applicant Jeremy Hinzman.  As is the case with every leave decision, neither reasons nor a vote was released, so it is impossible to know how Justice Charron voted. Nevertheless, “in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision,”  a motion was quickly developed  and eventually passed in the Parliament of Canada which appeared as a response and a remedy to those lower courts decisions.  (See details)
End quote
===References===
That paragraph was well documented and well sourced.  You accompanied that hasty deletion with these words: “(Inappropriate to refer to SCC leave decisions. These are not considered proper decisions and have no precedential or legal value and should not be referred to in the biography of a Jurist.)”
The rationale for your deletion is based on false premises: This is not a biography of a Jurist.  Instead it is an encyclopaedia entry of a person. There is a significant difference. An encyclopaedic entry for a person is much broader than the strict legal confines of a traditional legal biography of a Jurist.
Here some examples:
Example One:  The pregnancy of Justice Rosalie Abella has no relation at all to a traditional legal biography of a Jurist, and yet it is legitimately found in an encyclopaedic entry for the person Rosalie Abella.  “The person Rosalie Abella” is broader than “the Jurist Rosalie Abella.” 
Example two:  The entry for Stephen Harper includes much more than the information about him as a Prime Minister.  It includes the fact that he is a fan of ice hockey, and includes an entire section on his personal life.
The facts contained in the paragraph you deleted relate directly to the interplay between the Supreme Court Judges of a nation and the government of that nation—namely the Parliament of Canada.  This is material significant enough for any encyclopaedia –regardless of whether or not it belongs in the strict legal confines of a traditional legal biography of a Jurist.
All edits in Wikipedia must follow the Wikipedia editing policy.  If you would like to delete content from Wikipedia then it is best to produce the specific links to the Wikipedia editing policy which support your deletion.  Thank you.
Boyd Reimer (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this Censorship?

message: That paragraph was well documented and well sourced.  You accompanied that hasty deletion with these words: “(Inappropriate to refer to SCC leave decisions. These are not considered proper decisions and have no precedential or legal value and should not be referred to in the biography of a Jurist.)”
The rationale for your deletion is based on false premises: This is not a biography of a Jurist.  Instead it is an encyclopaedia entry of a person. There is a significant difference. An encyclopaedic entry for a person is much broader than the strict legal confines of a traditional legal biography of a Jurist.
Here some examples:
Example One:  The pregnancy of Justice Rosalie Abella has no relation at all to a traditional legal biography of a Jurist, and yet it is legitimately found in an encyclopaedic entry for the person Rosalie Abella.  “The person Rosalie Abella” is broader than “the Jurist Rosalie Abella.” 
Example two:  The entry for Stephen Harper includes much more than the information about him as a Prime Minister.  It includes the fact that he is a fan of ice hockey, and includes an entire section on his personal life.
The facts contained in the paragraph you deleted relate directly to the interplay between the Supreme Court Judges of a nation and the government of that nation—namely the Parliament of Canada.  This is material significant enough for any encyclopaedia –regardless of whether or not it belongs in the strict legal confines of a traditional legal biography of a Jurist.
All edits in Wikipedia must follow the Wikipedia editing policy.  If you would like to delete content from Wikipedia then it is best to produce the specific links to the Wikipedia editing policy which support your deletion.  Thank you.
Boyd Reimer (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Louise Charron. 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/20110516100659/http://scc.lexum.org/en/news_release/2011/11-05-13/11-05-13.html to http://scc.lexum.org/en/news_release/2011/11-05-13/11-05-13.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified