Wikipedia:Peer review/Delgamuukw v British Columbia/archive1

Delgamuukw v British Columbia

I've listed this article for peer review because I just did a substantial re-write.

Thanks, Sancho 18:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Colin M

• Who is Delgamuukw, the plaintiff? I feel this should be mentioned somewhere (perhaps in "British Columbia courts § The claim"?)
• I'm finding that the full case citations look a bit noisy when they appear in the main text. e.g. clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075 applies when.... I would prefer just clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow applies when.... Based on a quick search, that style seems more common on Wikipedia. e.g. in the lead of Cooper v Hobart. (Though I'm not sure if there's any overarching style guidance in the WP:MOS or elsewhere about citing court cases.)
• I made some edits to use "aboriginal title" throughout, rather than "Aboriginal title". This is how it's styled in most of the Aboriginal title article, and in the Supreme court decision. But I see that it's also capitalized at Aboriginal_title#Canada (to the point where the author has even "fixed" the capitalization in quotes: Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) laid down the essentials of the current test to prove Aboriginal title: "in order to make out a claim for [A]boriginal title, the [A]boriginal group asserting title.... Not sure if there's some backstory here that makes this capitalization question more controversial than I imagined?
• Based on the lead alone, I found it impossible to understand what exactly was at issue in this case. i.e. what were the plaintiffs asking for? The explanation at Delgamuukw_v_British_Columbia#The_claim seems clearer - based on that, I'm understanding that they were suing for "title and jurisdiction" over 58k km2 of land, and compensation for "land already alienated". I feel like this should be made clearer in the introduction though? In general, I think much is obscured by the repeated use of the technical term "aboriginal title". If we could get some brief plain English explanation of what that means in this context in the intro, it could help a lot? (I know aboriginal title is linked where it's first used, but it's a long article, and is itself kind of technical).
• Minor thing: If that claim were to have succeeded, tribal law (Indigenous law) would prevail Is the parenthetical necessary? Is it just giving a synonym, or is there something deeper at play?
• ...the British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously rejected Justice McEachern's ruling that all of the plaintiffs' Aboriginal rights had been extinguished. The Court of Appeal ordered the case back to trial to determine the nature and scope of those Aboriginal rights. Two of the justices, in dissent, would have went further to also allow the appeal on the issue of aboriginal title and to send that question back to trial as well. Having a hard time understanding this. It seems to be creating a distinction between "aboriginal rights" and "aboriginal title". I'm guessing the latter has to do with legal ownership of the land (i.e. the 58k square km), or the right to use the land? But then what does the other issue of "aboriginal rights" mean? Does this have to do with the right to self-government?
• I realize it's the Supreme Court, and so often we're more interested in how the court's findings clarify or elucidate certain legal principles, or create important precedent, moreso than how their decision relates to the specific problem at hand. But that said, there's a lof text in § Supreme Court of Canada about the SC decision, but I'm having a really hard time picking out what their decision meant for the plaintiffs. Basically, did they get any of the stuff they asked for?
• The intro mentions much of the decision is technically obiter dicta (since a new trial was ordered due to errors in how the evidence and pleadings were treated). Is this elaborated on anywhere in the body? It's mentioned that the BC Court of Appeal "ordered the case back to trial", but this was in 1993, before the case was heard before the SC.

Sorry for all the feedback along the lines of "I don't get it". It may be that I have less legal knowledge than a typical reader of an article like this, or it may just reflect how inherently complex this case is. Overall, I like the organization of the article, and am very impressed by how well-sourced it is (though I'll admit, I barely dipped a toe into the sources). Colin M (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Re-draft in response to Colin M (talk · contribs)

• Just saw these comments today! Thank you for the detailed feedback.
• Explained who Delgamuukw was in the claim.
• Removed the reporter for in-text citations, leaving that to the footnotes, except for the first mention of the lead of the decision this article is about (following Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canadian_law/CaseLawPolicy).
• Re-capitalized Aboriginal based on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canadian_law#Style_proposal:_capitalization_of_Aboriginal_(aboriginal).
• Described in the lead what was being asked for and the ultimate outcome of the Supreme Court of Canada decision: new trial ordered.
• Just used "Indigenous law".
• There is an important distinction between Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal title, which I have tried to make more clear in the article.
• About the final result for these plaintiffs: clarified that a second trial never happened. The plaintiffs got a bunch of favourable law stated by the Supreme Court, but never got a favourable ruling on the declaration they sought because a second trial never happened.

Sancho 03:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)