Talk:R v Morgentaler

Title of this article

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)

• I still have concerns about the title. It's not the 1976 case that bugs me because I think that most now call it Morgentaler v. The Queen, but what about R. v. Morgentaler (1993)? CanadianCaesar 23:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I noticed that problem not too long ago. The two best options, in my opinion, would be to either to name each as R. v. Morgentaler (1988) and R. v. Morgentaler (1993), or in the alternative, keep this one as is and name the other "R. v. Morgentaler (1993)" as the 1988 case is far more famous than the 1993 one. As to which option is better depends on the day you ask me, I really can't think of a clear and convincing reason to chose one over the other. --PullUpYourSocks 00:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Quote

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)

Question : Meaning of "R. v. "

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)

It stands for Regina, meaning the Queen. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Question : Text of s. 251

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)

Nullification

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)

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)

POV edit warrior

On 24 May 2014 99.224.75.219 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.

1. 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."
2. 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.
3. 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)

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)

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)

" decision remains in popular discussion"

"The extent and nature of the Morgentaler decision remains in popular discussion, "

• 1) the content " decision remains in popular discussion" is not encyclopedic. As of when?
• 2) The letter to the editor does not support the content, as far as I can see.
• 3) the content really says nothing, and appears to be just a WP:COATRACK to hang the source on. Pretty crappy editing. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Markbasset when you reverted me, your edit note said " valid topic of legal experts interpretations differ; add cites or improve wording rather than deletionism". Whatever you are talking about, it has nothing to do with the actual content. Or am I missing something. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jytdog - think you should have mentioned reverting my edit in the above, but I've tried to reenter it as per a want for more support and given the two texts mentioned in talk at NPOVN. This is the attempt at resolving the NPOVN topic re a different editors prior edit in the lead area including by placing it at the aftermath section. If you feel you can wordsmith that interpretations of the case impact appearing in press and books are of varying nature feel free to try or to TALK here further -- seems like going into biased advocacy to not mention the legal consensus and some newspaper content differs. To your literal questions

• 1) "when" would be as of the day the divided decision transcript came out thru to the date of yesterday, folks trying to make sense of or PR posturing to it.
• 2) 'far as I can see' will offer that this wording seemed better than the header the newspaper gave, but if you'd rather go with that would be better supported then mention it and if you think in quotes or cite text
• 3) 'content says nothing' will again offer if you think you can convey the meat of this letter better feel free, but if you mean content rather than editing then Talk to that here

We're tripping over each other inputs here, your post below to your own thread came while I was typing this. I'm going to slow down now and look for further inputs in a bit. Markbassett (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

please take your time and write complete sentences. I can barely understand what you are saying. It seems that somebody (I don't know who and don't much care) really wanted to add this Letter to the Editor as a source, and with that goal in mind was quite desperate to come up with some content to hang it on. In any case, I took the content and made it actually say something, and used good sources to support that something. The Letter to the Editor is not currently in the article. So let's pause this and go back to the NPOVN board, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog - Please conduct talk more carefully and allow more time : My last talk tried to answer your 1-2-3 -- your revert was undone plus talk questions 1-2-3 responded to. But that found already had the undo undone and added info undone within a minute of addition plus talk edit conflict. Just slow down and give more than a minute for typing to show. Since you did the second revert without having gotten to read the explanations, waited a few days to see your inputs and now let's give due process the try again: I gave response to your 1-2-3 as background questions, and re the legal experts review of decisions I added a couple of book cites as well as havng the PEI Supreme Court judge's letter to editor. Will take this all as undo your second revert and welcome further discussion or concerns for me to address. Markbassett (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy to talk. So far there is no consensus to use the letter to the editor as you wanted. As for the other sources you introduced, I discussed them, and the way you used them, in my edit notes. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog 'Tay - but I think it's moot now though, as Binksternet flew thru and twinkled a revert on a different basis of 'Rv per WP:UNDUE, fails to explain anything. (TW)'. I'm presuming he meant undue and the not explaining part was a side comment. I don't expect more detail from him (since I saw he flys about 25 reverts an hour and this one is about 100 back in his contribs now) but take it as second editor / third viewpoint didn't see a reason to have legal consensus statement so now I will move on to placement of other text instead of working with you on better wording or discussing more... Markbassett (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Unclear wording in Background

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)