Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[edit]

Partial self-nomination. The United States Bill of Rights recently achieved FA status, so I thought I'd nominate this in the interest of fairness. Just kidding. Seriously though, this has come a long way since the original version. While the Charter has generated so much case law and commentary that an article on it could never be comprehensive, as with the US Bill of Rights information on individual provisions have been forked to their own articles. As an overview of all the Charter, what's here, I think, covers all main bases. Some of the footnotes are missing specific page numbers, but I have easy access to those books and will fill those out in the next couple days. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page numbers have been added. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well written. Ardenn 03:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary object. In other words, I'd be happy to support this teriffic article once the following issues are addressed:
    • You need to define "back-to-work legislation," a concept unknown in the U.S.
    • I would go into more detail on Section 1.
    • Perhaps you should put "notwithstanding clause" in bold on first reference, since you refer back to the term several times.
    • The article says, "some of the Quebec representatives did provide input into the Charter because they shared some of the underlying principles." What do you mean by "representatives" here? Do you mean "MPs?"
    • The phrase "Vriend v. Alberta (1998), which read equal treatment into a law that had been discriminatory toward homosexuals" is confusing. I think this sentence should be rephrased to say, "Vriend v. Alberta (1998), in which the Supreme Court ruled the province's exclusion of homosexuals from protection against discrimination violated Section 15."
    • You refer to "Scholars Morton and Knopff." I think that if a source is not famous enough to have his own article on Wikipedia, you need to say who he is -- e.g., "University of Calgary political scientist Rainer Knopff. At the least, you should include their first names.
    • The section beginning with "Scholars Morton and Knopff" is somewhat confusing. It contains run-on sentences. It also assumes the reader knows what "the living-tree doctrine" is, which most readers probably don't.
    • You probably should explain what you mean by "fundamental justice."
    • I don't know what you mean by "substantively" in the comparison with the Bill of Rights' due-process clause.
    • I think the sentence about the role of the religious right in defeating the ERA is unnecessary.
    • You mention that Mandel and Lipset criticize the Charter for making Canada more like the U.S. You've got to point out that this is considered by many Canadians to be a bad thing. Most Americans probably think other countries want to be like the U.S.
    • You should use an expression other than "launched several charges" in the paragraph about Morton and Knopff's complaints. When I hear "launch a charge," I think of someone filing a lawsuit.
    • I think you ought to mention under what circumstances the courts can rule on charter rights. I know the government can ask the Supreme Court ahead of time whether something violates the Charter (which they can't do in the U.S.). Can private citizens challenge the constitionality of a law directly, or can they only do so by appealing a lower court's verdict of fact? -- Mwalcoff 05:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for that feedback. Back to work has been simplified to ending a strike; some more introductory detail on section 1 has been added; Vriend has been revised but the phrase "read in" is preserved, please say if it is now clearer; Morton and Knopff are given fuller introduction, and the sentence is broken up; fundamental justice is described as natural justice, a term known beyond Canada with a long tradition in British law; "substantively" has been revised to "more protections"- as I'm sure due process would be perceived by Americans as consisting of legal protections, hopefully this is clearer; the religious right sentence is temporarily preserved as it helps explain the different circumstances that led to the constitutional difference- if you still disagree I will gladly remove it; Americanization is further explained as being feared; more information is added on how rights claims come before courts. The precise identity of the Quebec representatives is, regrettably, within a source I do not have at the moment- I will retrieve it when I fill in page numbers, in the next couple days, and specify who they are. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As it turned out I misread Chretien entirely on the Quebec representatives; thus the sentence is removed, so there's no need to specify who the non-existent people were. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for addressing those concerns. I would go into Section 1 a bit more in the comparison with the U.S. Bill of Rights. There are a lot of Canadian laws that would not pass muster in the U.S. but which are OK in Canada because of Section 1. Publication bans, for example, and the parts of Bill 101 the courts have allowed to stay. You might also give some real-world examples of how sections 2 and 7 are broader than their American equivalents, since I was always under the impression that the U.S. Bill of Rights was broader. I also think you need a sentence about why Lipset thinks eliminating a US-Canada distinction is a bad thing, if in fact he does. Finally, you still need to address how consitutional issues come before the courts -- which can include Section 21 and "references" from governments to the Supreme Court. -- Mwalcoff 00:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Went into a little more description regarding how section 1 works and gave an example of how rights can be more generous under the Charter; IMO other examples can go into the articles on the sections themselves, as Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms both have "Comparisons with other human rights instruments" as well; the mention of s.7 being broader is referenced. The Lipset paragraph is removed in response to your concerns, and as its point was redundant anyway. Reference question information has been added. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm going to go ahead and support, notwithstanding (no pun intended) the couple of areas where I think the article could be improved. Specifically, I'd like to expand a bit on Section 1 in the comparison with the US Bill of Rights and a bit more on the section where a reference from the government is mentioned. Is that OK with you? -- Mwalcoff 23:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd be fine with it if it's kept brief here and more detail moved to the section 1 article; but in the comparative journals I looked at I never saw actual references (though I don't doubt the truth of what you've said), and with little discussion in the general references as well I don't think it's absolutely necessary to the article's comprehensiveness. Thanks, CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was going to nominate it too. ;) Needs some fixes, but it's a very good article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 11:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporary oppose
  • The refs are a bit confusing:
    • I don't think you need to duplicate titles in "footnotes" and "references".
    • When refering back to a book already cited, giving the full ref again is poor style.
    • There are a few identical refs that should be combined, if you don't know how, I'll do it.
  • Circeus 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have cut down on redundancies between the footnotes and references, consistent with today's FA Frog; full references are shortened on next appearances, although for Hogg I still used the title since a different book by him is listed in the bibliography and he's also quoted by CBC; I'm not sure what references need to be combined. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: needs a good copy-edit, if this sentence from the lead is anything to go by.
Desires to improve upon this rights protection, the general human rights and freedoms movement that grew after World War II and was enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and intentions to unify Canadians around a certain set of principles, led to the Charter being enacted by the government of Pierre Trudeau.

Tony 05:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment to my objection. The second para of the lead suggests that the whole text needs a thorough copy-edit, not just the examples I've brought to your attention here.
the Charter makes its guarantees and its expectations on the role of judges in carrying them out more explicit than had the Bill of Rights.

"Did", not "had"?

However, courts also gained new powers to enforce more creative remedies and exclude more evidence in trials than was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, being influenced by Canada's mother country the United Kingdom, emphasized Parliamentary supremacy.

"However, the Charter gave the courts new powers ..."; this sentence, like many in this article, is too long and complex. Break it up?

The result was that the Charter would inspire both passionate support and fierce opposition among Canadians.

"As a result, the Charter inspired passionate ..."; but the (resulting) logical connection needs to be explicit.

Please try to have someone run through the whole article carefully. Tony 01:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support - It's looking good to me, pending most of the suggestions made by Tony. The Disco King 00:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, his specific examples have been looked at. Generally I've been going through it and have broken up a few more sentences, and have made other small copyedits. Anonymous editor has also done a lot of copyediting, and I think a few others did too (like Ground Zero). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Duly noted, change to support. Excellent article. The Disco King 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written, very informative! Anger22 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. It has improved, but the writing is still not nearly good enough for a FA, especially one on a legal subject. If you can get someone who's unfamiliar with the text to go through it carefully and fix it, I'll change to 'weak support'. Here are more examples I've picked at random.

"Talk of introducing a constitutional bill of rights for Canada became the subject of more serious attention in 1967"—talk became the subject of attention?
"The Canadian Bill of Rights, which the Canadian Parliament enacted in 1960, compiled many of these rights"—compiled is an odd word in this context.
"some within government and other groups"—the government is a group?
"meaning full sovereignty from the United Kingdom"—"from" is a problem here.

Most sentences need tweaking. Tony 08:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support though the first section looks kinda messy. pm_shef 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to go. Circeus 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
    • The article still needs a thorough copy-edit (particularly the opening paragraphs).
    • Under "Features", the rights under s. 2 seem to be given lesser treatment because it is laid-out less prominently than the rest of the section. To be consistent, it should start with "fundamental freedoms" in bold (like the following sections). In fact, it might improve if you have a separate line entry for s. 2(a), 2(b), etc.
    • Section 1 should be given prominence over Section 33; while s. 33 may be "forbidden fruit" and therefore the more interesting topic, s. 1 plays a role in almost every Charter case. Furthermore, if you are contrasting the Charter with the US Bill of Rights, the inclusion of s. 1 ought to be highlighted as a significant distinguishing feature of the Charter.
    • The commentary on s. 25 - 32 is weak compared to the preceding commentary. Section 24 (Enforcement) ought not to be lumped into sections 25 - 31 (General).
    • I agree with your desire to preserve the term "read in" or "read into". While even before the Charter the court could strike provisions of a statute, it is a somewhat radical concept for the court to have the ability to add to (or "read into") a statute language that wasn't put there by a legislature.
-- Overall, a good article, but not "featured article" good.
(Sorry for the afterthought, but it just crossed my mind that this article might benefit from a nomination at Canada collaboration.)

Fluit 01:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've incorporated some of your suggestions and worked more on the introduction. I've given section 2 its own line, though I'm not sure if multiple lines are needed both because the fundamental freedoms part (like the mobility rights part) only contains one section and thus only a link to one article, and because Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be the better place for more depth. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object... "Section 16.1: English New Brunswick and French New Brunswick are equal" seems poorly phrased. It would be nice if the image description on Image:Dief Bill of Rights.jpg was as detailed in explanation as that for Image:Canada Act signing.jpg (especially in terms of explaining the legal status) but conversely the template tag on Image:Canada Act signing.jpg has been deprecated (I imagine it should probably replaced with the one use for the Dief image). I often judge an article on the things it seemed to assume I knew (so I didn't have to do background research to get up to speed) and what it hasn't told me at all and I wish it had. On which basis, could the article explain: what was so significant about New Brunswick in terms of Section 16? Was the previous situation biased towards English? Why was New Brunswick the focus of so much of Section 16 - did it constitute a major change of status? A brief mention that the province has a balance of both English and French speakers (does that make it unique?) would be nice for non-Canadians. What about indigenous languages? Did the charter affect them? (There's a section on this but it would be nice if it was more explicit.) When it says Quebec did not ratify, what were the practical effects of that? Was it somehow overridden? When Trudeau was out of office, why did it matter what his opinion the on Charlottetown Accords was? (Isn't the really important piece of information here why the proposals failed? Or was Trudeau able to block them?) Also, there's some statements here that could really do with being referenced, e.g. " Nevertheless Quebec did not ratify the Charter (or the Canada Act 1982), either because it was then led by the sovereigntist Parti Québécois or because it felt excluded from the negotiations." - In my opinion speculation about motives, especially of complex organisations like governments, corporations and politicial parties, should be referenced. Despite all this, it's definitely one of Wikipedia's better articles and I will be easily persuaded to support if either a couple of my suggestions get implemented, or it improves visibly in quality in other areas. TheGrappler 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, I've added more info for the Diefenbaker image.Habsfan|t 01:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated TheGrappler's other suggestions here and on my talk page into the article as well; another editor a little more unfamiliar with the subject has also promised to give it a copyedit tomorrow. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A great improvement, especially with respect to section 16. Still not sure about its coverage of indegenous minority language rights - could this be clarified somewhere? Also, in the national values section, is "The Charter's unifying purpose was particularly important to the mobility and language rights" talking about what I am guessing it is (i.e. making it easier for French- and English-speaking Canadians to move around, since even if they moved to an area they were a minority they would now have certain language rights, in the hope that this would make Canadian society more integrated/cohesive/mobile)? Not being au fait with the politics of Canada, I can only guess. A more explicit statement of the way in which the Charter was intended to foster national unity would be good. Very nearly tempted to change to a support, by the way... please keep on working at it! TheGrappler 01:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thank you! This article has shown considerable improvement during it's time on FAC, kudos to the editors. I therefore move to support. TheGrappler 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Another editor"? Hmph! ;) Flowerparty■ 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Object -- Image:SSC-Courtroom.jpg is defended as "fair use", but the article wouldn't suffer for the lack of it; there is no compelling need for this particular image. I note that we have Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg or (anachronistically) Image:Canadian Supreme Court justices circa 1950.jpg, and there are probably others to be found with some searching. Jkelly 21:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No objections. There are, however, still some rough patches. I'm unclear what we're saying with "In 1999, MP Svend Robinson proposed before the Canadian House of Commons that the Charter be amended to remove the mention of God, as he felt it did not reflect Canada's diversity. Section 27 also recognizes multiculturalism, which the Department of Canadian Heritage argues is prized among Canadians." -- is there a point being made here, or are these sentences unrelated? Regardless, a very solid effort. Jkelly 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're unrelated- I haven't seen Robinson's speech or petition. Paragraph is split like it was before. And thanks to Flowerparty for the copyedit. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few things. I really don't think an article can make FA status with red links. Something needs to be done about them. I think the pictures at the top are screwy (sorry, no offence, it's just the word that comes to mind). I think the actual pic of the Charter should be at the top right, and the coloured table below it. It makes the first screen more visually appealing AND it IS the Charter, right? We should see it right away. It's a beautiful document. The section directly below the intro is so 'listy', it's boring and visually unappealing. Couldn't the info be put into a table (an element I think is missing anyway, in comparison with a lot of other FAs)?--Anchoress 12:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can have featured articles with red links, today's has a few. There's also less than before; I've started section 4 and 29 since this began. The featured article Xenu also starts with the Scientology template with the Xenu pic below it and the volcano and plane below it. Having the template at the top as with the subarticles allows the reader to click on certain things without the template jumping all over the place. I could put a table in there, but given that there's two places that might be converted to tables here, the rights and the "General" sections, it might seem awkward to have those two tables there. Note also United States Bill of Rights lists its provisions in non-table form (both that article and this one have to double as overviews and disambiguation pages). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think instead of pointing out how the article can be improved, more people shoud get into the trenches and try to help this article along. I appreciate the efforts of CanadianCaesar, but he or she appears to have become a little too close to the text to see it objectively anymore. That happens to all writers, and what makes good writers are good editors. This article needs a lot of polishing if it's to be a feature article. I've tried to do my part, but have rapidly lost interest. I could say keep me in the oppose column, but really, mark me down as don't care. Fluit 06:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it needs a "lot of polishing" isn't particularly helpful. What parts? The "polishing" you did and evidently had in mind required a lot of fixing in turn. And I can't see it objectively anymore? Really? A lot of changes have been made to this, by me and by others. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Reply to Fluit, Caesar posted between] Well I think it's important to remember the purpose of this page. On the Charter talk page, this template appears:
 This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
Note the line 'leave comments'. I personally do *lots* of actual editing, but all the things I 'commented' on in this page are things I don't have experience with. Also, when the goal is to get an article to FA status, new people jumping in and changing things isn't necessarily what's needed. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I feel defensive because it seems like you're criticising people who've left comments here, when we may have done so because the template on the talk page asked us to. If the current main editors for this article (and/or the person who requested it be evaluated for FA status) feel new blood is needed, a request should be put in for that. Trying to get people who may only feel comfortable commenting to make changes to the article isn't necessarily the best idea IMO.--Anchoress 22:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria." IMHO, this article doesn't. That's just my opinion. The topic is a deserving one for being featured, hence my interest in helping out (especially when invited to do so on my talk page, just as I see others have been invited to do so on their talk pages), but the entry isn't up to par. Again, that's opinion. I'd just like to help, and was happy to pitch in when invited. Fluit 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you're not providing any objective evidence of how the text is inadequate or I'm too close to it. Numerous people have edited it. I have let them. Numerous people have given suggestions. I've taken them up on it. I'm concerned about Wikipedia's quality and you specifically aren't helping Wikipedia's quality. You have taken out definitions of uniquely Canadian terms, added unrelated information, introduced grammatical errors (a majority of what?) and blatant inaccuracies (the Victoria Charter did include a bill of rights, for God's sake! Don't edit what you know nothing about!) Don't make unfounded comments about my editing to cover up your own massive failures as an editor. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, just to clarify, taking out the work of others (not just mine) just to substitute them with your own does not automatically make it clean up. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're resorting to name calling and put-downs, you're too close to the text. If it's your way or the highway, you're too close to the text. When you write things like "Numerous people have edited it. I have let them.", you're way too close to the text - this isn't your private domain.
I have stated earlier on that everyone's work, including my own, benefits from good editing. Yes, you are correct, the Victoria Charter did include a bill of rights, I admit that I wasn't careful in editing that line. I stand by my opinion that this excellent topic deserves more work. Writing wise, are too many run-on sentences and too much verbage. Having read it numerous times (while acknowledging that the Charter was very much Trudeau's "baby"), it reads to me as too much as being written from a Trudeau point of view It also strays a bit off-topic. Finally, I'm not going to get into some sort of petty revert-war, but I find it odd to have have a discussion of the history of the Charter without even a mention of the role of Cretien, Romanow and McMurtry, the Supreme Court of Canada reference, or the role of the British parliament.
Ultimately, you asked for my opinion, I provided it. It's not my fault you don't like what you heard. Fluit 00:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can fix some of the things you brought up now, but I haven't resorted to name-calling and put-downs, I've honestly described how you are seriously hurting this article- damn near vandalizing it. I didn't mean to say "I have let them" to mean it's my domain. It's not. I watched them edit, even things I didn't agree with, knowing that the article does not belong to me. I recognize fully that Wikipedia articles belong to all. I can name a few editors who have had tremendous impact on the way this article has gone. But it's not just written from a Trudeau POV (Morton and Knopff would like to dispute that). Second, please be aware Patriation has its own article. Why should I plunge into a deep discussion of the SCC and British Parliament? Encyclopedia articles summarize, we're not writing a book. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the heated discussion is a result of a serious misunderstanding that has been addressed. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun, good luck, I hope the article lives up to FA status. Fluit 03:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I really think that this is a featured article even if it has a few problems. --Tarret 01:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Has someone copy-edited this properly yet? I thought I'd take a quick, random look at it, and low and behold, every sentence had little problems. Here's what my eyes landed on:
    • "Under the Charter, Canadian citizens (and in some cases, permanent residents and other people in Canada, sometimes including corporations"—"sometimes", being a temporal term, is inappropriate here.
    • "is binding on the federal government (and the territories under its authority) and on the provincial governments." This three-item list is a little clumsy: remove the first "and" , remove the second "on", and just use commas, not parentheses.
    • "Rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter include,"—Insert "The" at the start, and use a colon, not a comma.

Tony 08:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I've fixed those, but do you honestly believe "every sentence" has problems? And yes, a few people have looked at it. Even if you believe it's not a featured article, please be a little more respectful toward their efforts. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms&oldid=1138456966"