Talk:Rosalie Abella

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 19:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

The Controversy section seems to be more about someone disagreeing with a decision in which RA took part than a genuine controversy. SCC justices make hundreds of decisions each year, all of which are controversial in the sense that they are all contested. And someone wins and someone loses. The articles would get pretty big if each decision of the Court were to be listed. I think I'll remove the section in a few days if someone can't come up with a good reason that this particular case is "especially" controversial. --24.68.252.200 (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Done 24.68.252.200 (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings User 24.68.252.200, See revised article for "good reason that this particular case is "especially" controversial." Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that Hintzman's case isn't controversial or important. But this is RA's article, and it goes against WP:SS and WP:UNDUE to allow JH's case to dominate RA's page. Put another way: someone coming here to learn about RA neither wants nor needs to know about what Amnesty thinks about JH's case: they'd want to go to JH's page to find that out. And a brief link to JH's page can direct an interested visitor to that. Having more than half of RA's article devoted to the minutiae of someone else's case means it isn't RA's article any more 24.68.252.200 (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

Is this Censorship?

Greetings User 174.88.97.225,

On Apr 30 2009, you deleted the following entire paragraph:

Quote:

On November 15, 2007, Justice Abella 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 Abella 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)

References

End quote

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) 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rosalie Abella. 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/20130515213644/http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/ju/abella/index-eng.asp to http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/ju/abella/index-eng.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Rosalie Abella.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)