Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Canadian Charter

Indiscriminate Removal of Relevant External Links in Canadian Charter Articles

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * I have engaged in a lengthy discussion on Singularity42's talk page, under the heading "Re: Red Links". In the course of this discussion, I attempted to reach consensus on this issue, and suggested some compromise solutions. The discussion has remained intelligent and civil, and both Singularity and I have reviewed the relevant rules and made efforts to understand one another's positions. Singularity42 suggested in his most recent reply that consensus between us on this issue is most likely impossible.

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Is the limited placement of relevant external links (where no analogous Wikipedia page exists) consistent with Wikipedia's policies?
 * 2) Is the indiscriminate removal of relevant external links (and/or replacement with red links) an inappropriate editorial action?

Between October 29, 2013 and November 4, 2013, the Wikipedia user Singularity42 partially reversed a number of edits on pages regarding Canadian law. I added much of the content in question under the IP address 24.70.54.230.

Singularity42 has not identified any inherent problems with the content I added to Wikipedia, and has in fact thanked me for it. However, Singularity42 has removed the external links and references which support the additional content.

Prior to my edit of September 7, 2013, for example, the Wikipedia content on Section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (i.e. the right to a speedy trial) read as follows:


 * Section 11(b) can be taken to provide a right to a speedy trial. The criteria by which the court will consider whether the rights of an accused under this provision have been infringed were set out in R. v. Askov (1990). Later, in R. v. Finta (1994), the Supreme Court clarified that the period of "unreasonable delay" begins at the time the charge is laid. This was in response to a case in which charges were laid 45 years after the alleged offences occurred; and that this was suggested to be an unreasonable delay. Reasonableness depends, in part, on the amount of investigative work that is involved, the number of interested parties and their locations, and/or the complexity of the case. Reasonableness also relates to local court resources and/or how they compare to other jurisdictions. Other elements in determining reasonableness of delay could include delays by either the Crown attorney or defense counsel, or even the Court itself.

After my edit of September 7, 2013, the Wikipedia content on Section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was amended as follows:


 * Section 11(b) can be taken to provide a right to a speedy trial. The criteria by which the court will consider whether the rights of an accused under this provision have been infringed were set out in R. v. Askov (1990). In R. v. Morin [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the test set out in Askov, noting that the accused bears a certain onus to demonstrate actual prejudice as a result of delay. In cases of very extensive delay, however, the court found that prejudice could be inferred.
 * Later, in R. v. Finta (1994), the Supreme Court clarified that the period of "unreasonable delay" begins at the time the charge is laid. This was in response to a case in which charges were laid 45 years after the alleged offences occurred; and that this was suggested to be an unreasonable delay. Reasonableness depends, in part, on the amount of investigative work that is involved, the number of interested parties and their locations, and/or the complexity of the case. Reasonableness also relates to local court resources and/or how they compare to other jurisdictions. Other elements in determining reasonableness of delay could include delays by either the Crown attorney or defense counsel, or even the Court itself.
 * Recently, in R. v. Ghozerash, 2013 BCCA 272, the BC Court of Appeal found that the courts have a responsibility to schedule trials promptly when it is clear that significant delay already exists.
 * Recently, in R. v. Ghozerash, 2013 BCCA 272, the BC Court of Appeal found that the courts have a responsibility to schedule trials promptly when it is clear that significant delay already exists.
 * Recently, in R. v. Ghozerash, 2013 BCCA 272, the BC Court of Appeal found that the courts have a responsibility to schedule trials promptly when it is clear that significant delay already exists.

On October 29, 2013, Singularity42 amended the Wikipedia content on Section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as follows:


 * Section 11(b) can be taken to provide a right to a speedy trial. The criteria by which the court will consider whether the rights of an accused under this provision have been infringed were set out in R. v. Askov (1990). In R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the test set out in Askov, noting that the accused bears a certain onus to demonstrate actual prejudice as a result of delay. In cases of very extensive delay, however, the court found that prejudice could be inferred.
 * Later, in R. v. Finta (1994), the Supreme Court clarified that the period of "unreasonable delay" begins at the time the charge is laid. This was in response to a case in which charges were laid 45 years after the alleged offences occurred; and that this was suggested to be an unreasonable delay.  Reasonableness depends, in part, on the amount of investigative work that is involved, the number of interested parties and their locations, and/or the complexity of the case. Reasonableness also relates to local court resources and/or how they compare to other jurisdictions. Other elements in determining reasonableness of delay could include delays by either the Crown attorney or defense counsel, or even the Court itself.
 * Later, in R. v. Finta (1994), the Supreme Court clarified that the period of "unreasonable delay" begins at the time the charge is laid. This was in response to a case in which charges were laid 45 years after the alleged offences occurred; and that this was suggested to be an unreasonable delay.  Reasonableness depends, in part, on the amount of investigative work that is involved, the number of interested parties and their locations, and/or the complexity of the case. Reasonableness also relates to local court resources and/or how they compare to other jurisdictions. Other elements in determining reasonableness of delay could include delays by either the Crown attorney or defense counsel, or even the Court itself.

The reference to R. v. Ghozerash was completely removed while the link to an article on R. v. Morin (arguably the leading authority on unreasonable delay in Canada today) was turned into a “red link” which leads nowhere.

In a subsequent section of the same page (regarding Section 11(d) of the Charter – i.e. presumption of innocence), Singularity42 removed external links to relevant legal analysis on R. v. Rowbotham (the leading case on government-funded defence counsel) and R. v. Hill (a key decision on the application of the presumption of innocence to alleged “dangerous offenders”).

I am fully aware that “red links” serve a valid purpose by alerting editors to pages that should be created in the future. However, I believe that Singularity42 is incorrect in his interpretation that red links must be used (instead of an external link) where no Wikipedia page presently exists on a given subject.

Wikipedia's guidelines on red links read as follows:


 * "Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles.
 * Articles should not have red links to topics that are not likely to have an article..."
 * Articles should not have red links to topics that are not likely to have an article..."

The pages I linked to in this particular instance (regarding R. v. Morin, R. v. Ghozerash, R. v. Rowbotham, and R. v. Hill) had no direct equivalent on Wikipedia. Furthermore, neither Singularity42 nor any other editor I am aware of has listed these subjects on their user pages under “Articles I plan on creating.”

It goes without saying that where a Wikipedia page exists on a subject, one should link to that page rather than an external website on the same topic. Even if the Wikipedia page is of lower quality than an external source, it is incumbent on the conscientious Wikipedia editor to improve that page rather than simply linking to an external source.

That being said, all of us have a limited amount of time to spend editing Wikipedia, and it might never be possible to create a Wikipedia page about every case decided by the Canadian courts. Until an internal page is available on a given subject, Wikipedia is improved by limited use of relevant external links where no analogous page exists on Wikipedia itself.

Wikipedia's rules regarding external links generally are not as inflexible as Singularity42 suggests. The policy on external links reads as follows:


 * Some external links are welcome (see What can normally be linked, below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

It is my position that a limited number of relevant external links are not only helpful but necessary in order for Wikipedia to be informative as opposed to misleading. This is particularly true in the legal field where a single leading case might not provide a complete and up-to-date understanding of the law.

For example, Wikipedia has a page on the Askov case but no page on the Morin case, even though Morin significantly refined the law and is arguably the most relevant authority today under Section 11(b) of the Charter. Any website which provides its users with a summary of Askov but fails to so much as link to an explanation of Morin is actually doing a great disservice by misleading its readers. Clearly, the inclusion of such a link (as opposed to a dead-end "red link") is "justifiable according to (Wikipedia's) guideline and common sense".

Frankly, I cannot imagine a more legitimate justification for an external link than a situation where the content presently available on Wikipedia gives an incomplete (and potentially misleading) summary of the law in a particular area. A comprehensive new page on Morin would mitigate the problem in this one instance, but I could point to dozens of other examples in the Charter articles alone where this same problem exists. It is not realistic or practical to simply litter Wikipedia with red links and expect volunteer editors to completely and flawlessly summarize every important case in Canadian jurisprudence. Where Wikipedia provides incomplete information, some external links are necessary, at least in order to pick up the slack in the meantime.

A few weeks ago, I identified a number of these gaps and endeavoured to fill them by adding a brief paragraph or two to clarify a missing point or mention a key case that has been left out. In some of these cases, I included a link to a more thorough analysis of the legal issue or case in question, located on a page outside Wikipedia. Many of these pages link to further information, such as the reasons for judgement in a given case. All of the pages I have linked to are strictly informational in nature. They are free of advertising, not associated with any business, and not trying to sell anything.

Although the additional content in question has generally been accepted and preserved by the Wikipedia community, Singularity42 has taken it upon himself to remove all of the external links and replace them with red links, even where external links are necessary in order to elucidate the principles discussed. Much of the content on Wikipedia is necessarily brief and precursory by nature, due to the breadth of material included and the time constraints on those adding it. A dogmatic and prohibitionist approach to the limited placement of relevant external links does a great disservice to the Wikipedia community by depriving it of necessary information which might explain and expand upon the subject matter in question.

In short, where crucial gaps exist in Wikipedia (such as, just for example, the absence of an article on the Morin case), editors should be permitted to provide the Wikipedia community with at least a temporary solution by placing relevant external links to topical websites. Where another member of the Wikipedia doubts the relevance or authority of an external link, they should either:

1. Create a comprehensive page on the topic within Wikipedia to replace the external link; or

2. Find a more relevant or authoritative external link.

It is not appropriate to indiscriminately remove relevant external links (which might be of great assistance to Wikipedia users) and replace them with dead-end “red links” where no analogous article exists on Wikipedia.

Ideally, many of the gaps in Wikipedia can eventually be filled by diligent editors such as Singularity42, who I congratulate for his tireless work on Wikipedia's Canadian legal articles. Practically speaking, however, there will always be external sources which contain information that Wikipedia doesn't. Where this is the case, I maintain that the limited placement of relevant external links is “justifiable according to (Wikipedia's) guideline and common sense,” subject always to the reasoned judgement of the Wikipedia community.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

- JRJM -


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * This is more of a clarification on the primary issue than an additional issue. Generally speaking, I have not removed actual content (except in a very few occasions where OR/SYNTH was added, or it added unnecessary additional details, and I noted as such in my edit summaries).  Really, all I have done is removed the external links the OP added in the main body of the article to his own personal website and replaced them with either 1) a wikilink to an existing article on the subject, 2) a redlink if Wikipedia should have an article on the subject, or 3) a reference tag with a more neutral, recognized site ([canlii.org CanLII), which Wikipedia has a well used cite template for (cite CanLII). Singularity42 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Proposed issue 2: Rather than getting into a disagreement later about it (no matter how the primary issue gets resolved), we are going to have to also deal with whether Jrjm's personal websites meet the external links policy for the external links sections and the reliable sources policy for references. In my opinion, these are self-published websites of Jrjm, and are his own (often correct) interpretations of the primary sources.  Although I agree with many of his interpretations, his personal websites do not meet the relevant policies, and generally shouldn't be linked to under either policy no matter how the primary issue gets resolved.
 * In case anyone is interest, I have tried to add some background context, etc. at User:Singularity42/External links in Canadian law articles. Singularity42 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Jrjm (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Conditional agreement on the posting of the external links issue into the main body of an article. Frankly, the guidelines seem crystal clear to me: 1) external links should generally not be placed in the main body of an article, 2) external links to personal websites should definitely not be placed in the main body of an article, and a redlink should not be replaced with an external link. Jrjm seems to be referring to policies about the external link section and trying to apply it to the main body of an article.  If a mediator disagrees with this, then there is something worth mediating and I will agree to mediation.  If a mediator agrees that there is already strict guidelines and policies on this, then a better forum would be somewhere like the Village Pump to see if there is a consensus to change the guidelines. I agree on what I have identified as the second issue. Singularity42 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

JRJM's Response (Re: Further Issues)
I have no disagreement with additional of further issues. However, out of respect for Wikipedia's mediation team, I suggest that we don't make this into a time-consuming exercise about each individual link and whether it is the best link in the circumstances.

I maintain that the links I placed on Wikipedia were relevant and appropriate. If I, or anyone else, places a link which is not ideal in the circumstances, individual editors can and should replace it with a better link. I respect such editorial decisions and realize that Wikipedia is continually changing, hopefully for the better. The only thing I take issue with is the indiscriminate removal of relevant links, and their replacement with either dead-end red links or direct links to the raw text of cases which may not be accessible to the lay reader.

I believe that this is a simple issue of principle: Where Editor A adds an external link which is undeniably relevant, but in the opinion of Editor B not ideal, should Editor B indiscriminately remove such links? I believe that a better approach is to maintain such links until:

(1) An internal Wikipedia page is created; or (2) Editor B finds a more relevant and appropriate link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrjm (talk • contribs) 06:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * I'll accept the case, however I should point out the Mediation Committee can't overrule or modify the external links guideline, and this dispute does seem to directly relate to the guideline. In this context, my role won't be to mediate as such, but merely advise that according to the guideline, external links are placed in the external links section. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with red links in situations where we don't yet have an article. Also, item 11 of External links is 'Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority' which almost certainly includes the pages linked to anyway. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

JRJM's Response (Re: Acceptance for Mediation)
Thank you for agreeing to consider this matter. I assure you that I am not asking for any guideline to be overruled or modified, but merely interpreted.

In addition, I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" in principle with red links, merely that the indiscriminate replacement of relevant external links with dead-end red links is inappropriate. This is particularly true in cases where the content presently available on Wikipedia would leave readers with a mistaken impression, and where the external link in question might provide much-needed clarity. In my respectful submission, that was exactly the situation in this case.

In regard to the issue of "links normally to be avoided," I agree that "blogs, personal web pages, and fansites" are generally not appropriate as external links. For example, a blog or website which exists to express an individual's personal thoughts or reflections does not fit with Wikipedia's purpose as a reference tool.

However, the mere fact that a website is operated by a "person" does not make it "personal" within the meaning of this definition. Websites which exist for the purpose of providing valuable reference material on a specialized subject may be appropriate to link to, provided of course that they are relevant.

In order to determine whether a website falls within the definition of "links normally to be avoided," the following should be considered:


 * 1) The relevance of the website to the Wikipedia page in question: If the website is not on point, it should be removed.
 * 2) The availability of analogous content on Wikipedia: If an existing page on Wikipedia provides the same or similar information, the link should always point to that page, not an external site.
 * 3) The apparent reliability of the content: If a site contains erroneous or misleading content, it should not be linked to from Wikipedia.
 * 4) The apparent purpose of the website: Websites designed primarily as a vehicle for personal opinion or reflection are not appropriate to the reference purpose of Wikipedia.
 * 5) Whether the website is commercial in nature: Websites which are promotional in nature or designed to advertise some business or brand are not appropriate to the non-commercial and open-source nature of Wikipedia.

In my view, all of the aforementioned factors weigh against the removal of external links in these circumstances:


 * 1) The pages linked to were highly relevant to the Wikipedia pages in question. Singularity42 has not disputed this.
 * 2) At [], Singularity42 acknowledged that "Canadian law topics are in various states of quality - with some articles on important topics outright not existing." This is the problem that the external links in question were added to solve.
 * 3) Singularity42 has stated that the websites in question are "often correct" and says the he agrees with many of the interpretations. He has not pointed to a single instance of inaccuracy or unreliability on any of the pages linked to.
 * 4) The websites in question are reference tools. CharterCases.com specifically is "dedicated to providing accurate yet critical analysis of leading court decisions involving Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms." In other words, while there may be elements of critical analysis and interpretation in some of the articles on the site, it is primarily a reference tool, designed to make complex legal decisions more accessible to Canadian readers.
 * 5) The websites linked to are free of advertising, not trying to sell anything, and not affiliated with any commercial entity.

I look forward to any questions or comments you might have.Jrjm (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment by PhilKnight
My apologies for not posting sooner. While I appreciate Jrjm's comments and analysis, my overall understanding has not changed significantly. That is, the external links guideline is perfectly clear on the matter of whether external links appear in the main body of articles. If Jrjm wants to change this, he could open a discussion at the Village Pump, or possibly even start a Request for Comment on the use of external links in articles. However, at the present time, we have a guideline, which clearly explains that external links should not appear in the main body of an article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)