User talk:Sunsonn

Hi Sunsonn — I’ve recently expanded the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada article with additional background and sources. Since you created the original page, I just wanted to let you know. I didn't change any of your original text and hope you're OK with the new material.

If you’d like to discuss in more detail, feel free to email me through my Wikipedia account (email is enabled). You obviously have an interest in this topic, as do I. Actually, I had created my own article but you beat me to publishing by about 3 days.  :)

John Beamish John Beamish (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear John Beamish,

Thank you for your message. I believe your contributions are well-written and useful. My main concern is just that some of the content should be moved, and the table needs some clarification.

There is always the need to find a balance between adding relevant detail and keeping articles focused. The sections on "Aboriginal Case Law in Canada" and "Other Precedent-Setting Treaty Agreements in BC" are both interesting, and have wider applicability than just the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada court case. They both should, I believe, be their own Wikipedia article (or two articles -- I was recently thinking that a page on treaty agreements in BC was needed), so I have removed these sections. Once new pages are created, a link to these articles could be added in the "See also" section at the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada page. (As an aside, with the page(s) to be created, you might think of using a "Timeline" format, as with this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Canadian_history)

It is important for Wikipedia readers that an article focuses on the topic, and the sections "Pre-Colonial History of Cowichan People" and "Colonial Arrival" mainly relate to the Cowichan Tribes, rather than to the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada court case. There is a Cowichan Tribes Wikipedia article, and I believe those two sections could be integrated into that page. I have removed these sections but moved some of the information to the section "The basis for the finding of Aboriginal title". Moved information includes text on the government setting aside, but not completing, the process of creating a reserve for the Cowichan in Richmond. Putting all the information there avoids repetition and, I believe, makes it clearer how it relates to the judge's decision.

Another motivation to add the text you have prepared to the Cowichan Tribes article is that if there was a detailed discussion of the Cowichan Tribes history, to maintain Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view, it would be logical to also discuss the history in the region of other parties in the court case including, for example, the Tsawwassen and Musqueam. (Just FYI, the average Wikipedia article is around 700 words, and the median 350 words, while the current version of the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada article is around 4,000 words.)

I like the organizational idea of the table you added, but I have removed it as I am concerned that it may contain original research. Specifically, it appears as though the "Court's Direction" and "Practical Effect" columns are an analysis of the judge's decision. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that information be provided by reliable secondary sources. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research).

Also, it might not be clear to the average reader what the first column refers to -- the "Remedy Element". Is this perhaps a legal term? If yes, a definition is needed or a Wiki link for a page that can define the term.

Some specific comments on the table:

- Row (1) "Practical Effect" you say "Establishes constitutional Aboriginal title in an urban area." It is not clear what the term "constitutional" means in this context. Perhaps that was the term used in the judgement? If yes, a citation to the specific page would be helpful.

- Row (3): You say the Fee simple/private ownership is "Not immediately invalidated as owners were not defendants in the case". Do you mean it is because private owners were not defendants that their titles were not invalidated? It would be helpful to provide a source for this, as I understand the court ruled that Aboriginal title is a "prior and senior right" over private land. Also, if not "immediately" invalidated, when would it be invalidated? As this is an important point, a clear statement and a source is needed.

- Row (4): You say "Certain overlapping grants declared defective." What is meant by "grants" (do you mean "land titles")? Which "overlapping" grants are being referred to? Also, a reference with a page number would be helpful.

One of Wikipedia's core content policies is that information provided must be verifiable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). So with the table, you should provide a reliable source for the information (it is fine to include a reference in individual cells). If you want to also include the court case as a reference, including a page number with the citation would make it easier for the reader to verify the information provided (since the ruling is hundreds of pages long).

I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments (you can send an email to me.)

Best regards,

Sunsonn Sunsonn (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Sunsonn,

Thanks for the detailed explanation on the talk page. I agree that some of your concerns have merit; however, wholesale removal of another editor’s good-faith contributions isn’t how disputes are handled at Wikipedia. When there’s disagreement about new material, the appropriate process is to raise the issue on the talk page, request broader input (e.g., through an RfC or the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard), and let other editors weigh in rather than unilaterally reverting substantial additions.

I’m not interested in getting into an extended back-and-forth or investing more time in what’s meant to be a collaborative process. One of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is that a single editor can effectively override others’ contributions without wider consensus. I don’t have the appetite to fight for inclusion or to relocate the material elsewhere.

Regarding the reference chart: it was simply intended as a neutral summary of the text immediately above it. Summaries generally don’t require separate citations as long as they accurately reflect cited content in the article. If you feel the chart didn’t match the text, the solution would have been to adjust the underlying text — not to remove the entire summary pre-emptively.

To move forward productively, I think you should restore the removed material so that editors can properly review it and participate in building consensus. After that, we can all refine or restructure it based on feedback from multiple editors, not just one. That’s the collaborative model Wikipedia depends on. They may agree with you or they may not. It's just that it's not your call to make.

Regards,

John Beamish John Beamish (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello John Beamish,

I agree that collaboration is important, and I believe that changes you suggested have improved the article. The section "The basis for the finding of Aboriginal title" has been updated and now says, for example, that the government started, but did not complete, a process of creating a reserve for the Cowichan in Richmond.

Based on your suggestions regarding Case Law in Canada, I have added a section "Related Court Cases" with links and descriptions (edited to keep the text succinct) in the See Also section. Thanks for your input, as I believe the article is now better. Sunsonn (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)