Talk:Uber Technologies Inc v Heller

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.

Canada 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.

Removal of content edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Wikidea, please explain why you removed so much content from this article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I removed much, except shortening the text of the facts. Should read more clearly. All still there though, and reorganized headings. Wik idea 19:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

You removed a paragraph giving background on the Employment Standards Act, as well as numerous citations. I have once again reverted your change. Please explain why that paragraph and those citations should not be included. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikidea, Please stop unilaterally restoring content. I have objected to your change. Please explain why it is justified. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Patience my friend - I see the problem, sorry about the missing footnotes. But should read better now. Wik idea 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I disagree that it reads better, and I believe there are still numerous missing footnotes. I am barred from reverting again, but I really don't see the rationale for your change. As of now, there is at least one footnote that has gone missing—compare Special:PermaLink/999948284 with Special:PermaLink/999949302. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Which one? Can put it back. In the facts, usually good practice to (1) state who claims what from who on the basis of what law (2) then explain the details (3) then the arguments. Also, I do wonder if we need secondary sources for explaining the facts/judgment. Wik idea 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikidea, I can't tell which one, because the diffs are quite hard to read. I do know that there is one less source cited in the most recent version than in the last version before your edits. As for the secondary sources point, there were secondary sources cited for every fact in the "facts" section in the last version before your recent edits—Special:PermaLink/994999830. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic