Talk:R v Marshall

Canada: Law Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Indigenous peoples of North America Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Separation

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Although it's not needed yet, with some expansion both decisions would probably be worth individual articles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Appearance of bias in article

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article could do with additional references, but also references that expand beyond the commentary provided by Cameron. As a crown lawyer, Cameron's expertise should be (and is) recognized. But it should also recognize that an inherent bias may exist in Cameron's views against the Court's ruling, and should therefore include opposing views. I eat BC Fish (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have made the article more balanced by removing most of the Alex Cameron material and adding some from the other camp. The article was definitely violating NPOV by citing Alex Cameron so extensively while not citing anyone else. Communpedia Tribal (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

2020 Mi'kmaq lobster dispute

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have recently created a page on the events in the 2020 Mi'kmaq lobster dispute in Nova Scotia - relating to this article. I was hoping to have some more editors familiar with the subject take a look. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic