User talk:Roberto12

Polygamy

Thank you for your interest in improving the article Polygamy. Please cite your sources when making sweeping changes such as in redefining the word spouse or introducing the term "conjugal spouse". Take a look at Wikipedia:CITE for a guideline on how to improve your contributions in this manner. Cited contributions have a far greater chance of surviving subsequent changes by other editors. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in improving the article Polygamy. Please cite your sources when making sweeping changes such as defining a certain place that polygamy is placed as the law. Take a look at Wikipedia:CITE for a guideline on how to improve your contributions in this manner. Cited contributions have a far greater chance of surviving subsequent changes by other editors. Hairy Perry 18:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan marriage information

You have added information about the supposed legality of polygamy in Saskatchewan too many entries but you never cite any sources. Do you have sources for this information? I cannot find any myself. Please do not keep on adding it unless you have sources that comply with WP:RS. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again... Why do you not support your information with cites? Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were cited, but Silver Serren considered them superflous. Family Matters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto12 (talk • contribs)

I remember you quoting S.51 of the Family Property Act but you did not provide a WP:SECONDARY source of analysis of the law. The law by itself often requires expert analysis to tell the reader what the consequences might be, especially when the law of the country is in conflict with the law of a region of that country. In this case, quoting the law of Saskatchewan is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly.Griswaldo (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gris and Bink, I added the secondary and legal interpretive cources under polyandry..but silver siren undid them for being too detailed. However the sources stand as judicial evidence of citations. Does this help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto12 (talk • contribs)

What you added was your own interpretation. Per WP:NOR, your legal searches and subsequent analyses cannot be used in the encyclopedia. An acknowledged legal expert must be quoted on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I cited was the judicial quote and legal finding that silver erased. That WAS the acknowledged legal expert quote you mention. How can I cite a source if she feels it is too detailed?

www.canlii.org. search saskatchewan and bigamy..see the following judicial decision and quotes as below. Winik v. Saskatchewan (Public Trustee), 1999 CanLII 12517 (SK Q.B.) — 1999-02-23 Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan — Saskatchewan common-law spouse — common-law spouses — standing — intestate — common-law relationship

“As the formation of a common-law relationship does not require the solemnization of a marriage, there is no risk of violating the criminal sanction against bigamy.”

“The formation of a common-law relationship is not hindered by the existence of a subsisting marriage. Mutual intention of the parties consummated by their conduct, perhaps with an expressive public component, is all that is required for the formation of the relationship.”

In Canada, common law marriages are the same as civil marriages under Federal polygamy laws. Candian polygamy laws are somewhat different than the usa polygamy law. The article is titled "polygamy in North America", so a distinction of what certain jurisdictions in Canada allow needs to be said if there is to be accuracy. If accuracy and legal quotes or method of finding the legal decisions is not required, then you should not have asked me to provide it in the first place? If you compare the USA and Canadian anti-polygamy laws you will find that common law marriages are also considered marriages in the USA as well as Canada, except only Saskatchewan (read for yourself) DOES allow and authorize married persons to have same time common law spouses under Family LAw while the USA does not. Best regards FM

You are interpreting federal law as written vs provincial law as represented by a judge speaking in court in regard to a case. The original research or synthesis that you are performing is taking the words of this one judge and applying it to a whole province. Who is to say that another judge will hew to this precedent? You need an expert observer such as a legal news reporter who analyzes the cases and their effect. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, anything said in a court case is a primary source. Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia greatly prefers to have secondary and tertiary sources, sources which compare, discuss and evaluate court cases in the bigger picture. Primary sources are brought in only when there are thorny problems with conflicting secondary source facts or opinions. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interpreting federal law, simply stating what the federal law is as well as what the provincial law is. There is no interpretation, only fact. About the words of the judge: they are not words..it is a legal and binding judgement and interpretation of the provincial law. I also cited other cases. The Attorney General of Saskatchewan is the chief law enforcement authorty in the province, as is in evidence in the case law. The Attorney General was present at the court case(s) to put forth the provinces position that persons can have more than one legally sanctioned spouse at a time in Saskatchewan. It seems a bit trite to say a "news reporter" or "expert observer" would have more of a handle or interpretation that is relevent to judicial and public facts respecting provincial laws than the Attorney General. About a court case being a primary source: this is not something said..at a court case.. it is a judicially official and public document that clearly states the provinces position on polyandry. The Attorney General did in fact look at the "big picture" and declared what I have already reported. His representative testimony in the case is easily observable at the canlii.com site. )Without primary sources, there is likely to be little secondary sources added to the matter, as you appear to not wish to publish the actual case law. If interested parties wish to comment on the primary evidence, they will have to see it first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto12 (talk • contribs) 19:57, December 6, 2010

January 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Don Morgan. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Specifically, internet blogs (including Wordpress) are not reliable sources, especially for controversial statements about living persons. Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]