Talk:Robert Latimer

message: I have been trying to work with you, S.T. Webb, and have not removed most of the content you have recently added, just formatted and referenced it correctly, moved it to places where the flow is better, and removed point-of-view wording where appropriate/incorrect. I have reverted your latest additions because I do not believe that the extra details and quotes add anything substantial to the article. You also removed sourced information about possible pain control in hospital. Wikipedia needs to have an article that is of neutral point of view a "neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject".  The pattern of your edits (as well as your history) suggests that you are trying to push your sympathetic point of view about Robert Latimer by giving Undue weight to certain pieces of information, which is unhelpful for the article.--Slp1 11:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right about this. I apologize for presuming your intent of your remark, though given your previous comments such as ,  and , my error is perhaps somewhat understandable.--Slp1 01:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I recently removed (twice) variations on  "In his article published by the Winnipeg Free Press on January 11, 2008, Professor Schafer also points out the fact as established by legal scholars such as the late Barney Sneiderman (Canadian Medical Law - 3rd Edition) and Bernard Dickenson that Robert Latimer is the only person in Canadian history to spend even a single day in prison for a mercy killing. ( robertlatimer.net - Professors and Professionals - Arthur Schafer - Justice denied..... Latimer case exposes flaws in legal system )"
There are several reasons: Firstly, in his article Schafer makes no mention of the late Barney Sneiderman or Bernard Dickenson.. Secondly, while Schafer in his opinion column does say that "Interestingly, Robert Latimer is the only person in Canadian history to spend even a single day in prison for a mercy killing" that does not make it "a fact as established by legal scholars". Statements like this need to be verifiable and this sentence is not.  A minor issue is that article was actually published in the Free Press on December 7 2007, not January 11, 2008 as stated.  However the article itself is interesting, and I added it along with an extension of Shafer's opinion of the case, to the article, though with a link to the Winnipeg FP, not the copyright version at Latimer's website.  I thank you, S. T. Webb,   S.T. Webb  and    IP 70.66.167.200   (whom I presume are all one and the same) for bringing the new article up.--Slp1 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: It is not clear to me, despite all the argument here, why the citation from Dr Dzus' testimony, as transcribed on the Robert and Tracy Latimer website, would be rejected. It is also certainly not the case that "aspiration pneumonia" can be subsumed under "breathing problems", which might be a description of a common cold. As the paragraph stands, the rhetoric of the description of how Tracy was likely to be affected by stronger pain medication, ending as it does with "constipation" diminishes the severity of the reactions it would have caused. Jusstiss (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone is rejecting the citation.  However, a secondary source (from a newspaper or magazine) would be preferred per WP:NOR, as described in the discussion above.   But to include the aspiration pneumonia we do need the details of the citation. It is not enough to say "testimony of Dr Dzus" as you did.  You say you have a verified copy of the court transcript: let me know what the title of the document is, the date, the publisher, and any other identifying information, and I will help put a citation together for you.  --Slp1 (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: If you want to know why the text on the Robert and Tracy Latimer website was not considered reliable, see this . If you don't agree you might want to comment there. --Slp1 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Addendum 2. I shouldn't respond so quickly!!!  Here is the text of from the Saskatoon Star Phoenix which I used to source that sentence. "Tracy's hip had been dislocated for several months, but she couldn'ttake painkillers because she was on anti-seizure medication which could cause complications, including renewed seizures, breathing problems, stomach bleeding and constipation." Notice that I stuck very closely to the original reliable secondary source. While I am not actually opposed to adding aspiration pneumonia if you have a reliable source for it and can provide the citation, note that it really is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine that ""constipation" diminishes the severity of the reactions it would have caused" as you said above.  It is not up to us to try to highlight things WE think are important, rather than the things the reliable sources think are important.  Doing this is original research and especially WP:SYNTH, and is not allowed here. That is also what is dangerous about using primary sources, such as this court transcript, because it means that a Wikipedia editor is deciding what is important, rather than leaving that to journalists and other writers whose texts are reviewed, fact checked and edited. In fact I note that as far as I can tell, based on a Factiva, Newscan, Academic Search Premier, and Web of Science search of newspapers/magazines/scholarly journals worldwide, there is not a single secondary source  mentions aspiration pneumonia in the context of Latimer or his daughter, which suggests, that for whatever reason, it was not considered a notable feature of the case, and therefore probably should not be highlighted especially by Wikipedia --Slp1 (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  aspiration pneumonia 

message: S.T. Webb, User:S. T. Webb and the  various serial Calgary IP addresses s/he uses (latest one 70.66.189.158) continues to use this article contrary to WP policies.  The user is a single purpose editor whose sole purpose is to promote his/her view of Robert Latimer.  S/he edit wars, is incivil, assumes bad faith, adds original research and commentary, misrepresents sources  and pushes his/her point of view. For further details see other posts on this page. 
The  sentence in question is sourced to an article 31 October 1997 article "Tracy faced lifetime of surgery, doctor says". Some of the edits S. T. Webb/70.66.189.158 added were fine (because they were in the a Star Phoenix article).  However the addition of "the" to the beginning of "Post operative pain can be incredible" to is not in the Star-Phoenix article, which reads exactly (and as I pointed out on the IP talkpage 
"Once again, the surgery wouldn't necessarily end the pain. "Post operative pain can be incredible and difficult to manage for the same reasons already mentioned. We can put in an epidural catheter and freeze the bottom half of her body, but that's only good while they're in the hospital," she said."
S.T. Webb/70.66.189.158 insists on readding "the".  This is a misrepresents the source quoted and is thus inappropriate.  As I have stated multiple times, a reliable source is all that is required for this edit. I cannot myself find a reliable secondary source that includes the article "the", though I have looked.  Find a source, cite it and all will be well. I will leave the article for 24 hours for this to occur.  If no reliable source is then cited for the edit, then I will delete it again, since it fails verifiablity and will pursue further dispute resolution again if I am reverted again.Slp1 (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ST Webb's latest edits

message: I would like to make several points. First of all, in the Tracy Latimer section of the article it describes Tracy as being in "continual pain". This, I think, is a POV. The viewpoint of supporters of Robert Latimer is that Tracy was in "continual agony". However, most disability rights activists (the other side of the dispute) would say that she was not in continual pain at all (see. http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/309347, http://www.ccdonline.ca/publications/latimer-watch/0500g.htm, http://dawn.thot.net/Tracy_Latimer.html).
Another point this article talks about how this issues "This case sparked a national controversy on the definition and ethics of euthanasia as well as the rights of people with disabilities, and two Supreme Court decisions, R. v. Latimer (1997), on section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and later R. v. Latimer (2001), on cruel and unusual punishments under section 12 of the Charter." I think it has also sparked controversy on the rights of the disabled. The argument that this is about "cruel and unusual punishment" is the POV of Robert Latimer supporters. Disability rights activist would argue that this is about disability rights and would not at all about cruel and unusual punishment. Supporters of Robert Latimer as well as Catholics and Evangelicals would argue that this is about Euthanasia. Most disability rights activists, however that this is not about euthanasia at all (see. http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=06277eb4-2015-4fce-946f-c4c931fdd565, http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/euthanasia.html).
A third point, from what I understand, there is a big long history of people with disabilities being murdered under the pretext of euthanasia. "Mercy killings" (euthanasia without consent) was practiced by the Nazis and the Eugenics movement (see. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-euthanasia.htm, http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/).
A fourth point, I believe the response to Susan Smith murdering her children was the exact opposite to the killing of Tracy Latimer by Robert Latimer. Society (both in Canada and the US) cried for Susan Smith's blood whereas there is public sympathy for Robert Latimer. Both Susan Smith and Robert Latimer initially lied to the police, both later claimed claimed they killed their children out of "compassion". Susan Smith was dealing with a divorce and her children were taken from her. The chance that Susan Smith was under severe stress was just as likely as with Robert Latimer. Also, the case that Susan Smith killed her children out of "compassion" can just as logically be argued as arguing Robert Latimer murdered his kid out of "compassion".
(see. http://www.normemma.com/artaleof.htm)
Finally, apparently their are a number of neo-nazi groups that support Robert Latimer they include:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/robert-latimer-denied-parole-444322.html Stormfront White Nationalist Community
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1308899 Stormfront White Nationalist Community
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/abuse-medical-technoloy-39054.html Stormfront White Nationalist Community
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/canada-customs-harass-nationalists-120965.html Stormfront White Nationalist Community
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/euthanasia-terry-shiavo-case-revisted-187376.html Stormfront White Nationalist Community
http://www.vnnforum.com/archive/index.php/t-63112.html Vanguard News Network 
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32828 The Phora
Leon Trotsky 11:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Points 

message: Comrades,
I am writing to express my outrage that the link to the blog about the Murder of Tracy Latimer  was deleted. I notice that RobertLatimer.net is included as a link that I really don't think this is any less partisan than this blog (although they stand on opposite extremes of the issue). I have not included any information from the blog in this Wikipedia article. I just put the link at the bottom. This blog is POV, but has links to opposing views. RobertLatimer.net doesn't even have links to opposing views. The blog has an 'about me' section. Robert Latimer does not. I am not convinced that this is anything other than a grotesque double-standard and an act of political censorship and demand that whoever keeps deleting this link desist from their actions.
Trotskyist Greetings,
M.G.
Leon Trotsky 16:26, 5 January 2009
P.S. Robert Latimer was convicted of murder and his site is included as a link. Censoring something highly criticle of him I think is a grotesque double standard.
Leon Trotsky 16:30, 5 January 2009
Hi MG.!  I'm afraid I am not much up on Troskyist greetings so I'll just say bonsoir!  The reason why the blog is being deleted is because it doesn't meet our external links guidelines for two reasons: first, all links to blogs (whatever they are about) are inappropriate, and they are all deleted by a 'bot' which goes about doing these things blindly, which is who (what?) deleted it the first time.(see see links to be avoided no. 11)  In addition, because this is a biography of a living person,  "derogatory" sources are not allowed, and unfortunately the blog most likely falls into this category.(see In biographies of living people Finally, Latimer's own site is permitted for sure (see what should be linked).  It really isn't a question of censorship, or double standards simply following the rules. And BTW, there are some critical ELs in the article too, just not blogs. Is it by any chance your blog?  If so, that's another reason not to readd it.  It's a bit of a conflict of interest, you see.  Anyway, sorry about this, and I hope you understand, comrade. --Slp1 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is rather neutrally written for the topic. Probably most of the external links could be removed, leaving one if the subject has an official blog or website. User:Leon Trotsky might need to have his external links examined in general, if he edit wars to keep this type of link in an article. This might be a matter for AN/I, the user that is, and his tendency to insert inappropriate external links. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let us try some civil conversation and discussion first, IP69. It generally works far better. --Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not with an edit history like this user's. But, I don't intend to do anything right now, other than look at other links he's inserted. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm>Yes, a terrible edit history.  10 edits in the last nearly 3 years. Dreadful abuse of WP.<sarcasm/> Take a chillpill please. --Slp1 (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: (Trying again) This editor has only many 10 edits in the last nearly 3 years,  hardly a terrible edit history really. And discussion and conversation should always be tried first, no matter what the edit history. --Slp1 (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm>Yes, civility should be in your area of expertise. I will now go drug myself. Oh, wait this is an article talk page.</sarcasm> --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: You're not entitled to use wikipedia articles and talk pages of living persons for contentious external links. Please leave the link off of this page. That's why your comment was edited, to remove the link. Stop replacing it. Read WP:BLP and the note at the top of this page. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: If you read the pink notice at the top of the board you will see the wikipedia policy. If you disagree with this policy, you cannot change it with anything you post on this talk page. However, you can discuss the policy with other users and see if others feel the same as you do. That discussion should take place here. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Thank you Leon for stopping resinserting. It is appreciated. The problem is the first word of the title, which is not only POV but quite derogatory. If you renamed the blog, I  don't think there would be a problem with the name of the blog being included, though still not a link either here or on the talkpage if the content of the blog is the same. But I really don't think there's a need for the name of the blog anyway.  If people what to check what we have been talking about, they can always check the article history etc. Hope you understand. --Slp1 (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I've posted a link for you on your user talk page. I've also pointed out the BLP note, the pink box, above. I've pointed it out twice, once more on your user page, and here again. Please read it and the policy page I linked to. These will help you understand wikipedia policies on what you can and can't post on wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's for neutral articles on subjects that have notability created from reliable secondary sources. None of your links fit these criteria, so they have been deleted. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link deletion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Robert Latimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090221033243/http://www.winnipegfreepress.com:80/subscriber/westview/story/4089793p-4688105c.html to http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/westview/story/4089793p-4688105c.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Robert Latimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221061453/http://www.canada.com:80/reginaleaderpost/story.html?id=bbb63cc4-1486-4d42-8c8d-7cb3812440ad&k=6162 to http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/story.html?id=bbb63cc4-1486-4d42-8c8d-7cb3812440ad&k=6162
*Added  tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=338933
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221061345/http://www2.canada.com:80/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=408be2e0-b8a4-4dd3-980e-1b6ea30556d1&k=9116 to http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=408be2e0-b8a4-4dd3-980e-1b6ea30556d1&k=9116
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204737/http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=760 to http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=760
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ccdonline.ca/law-reform/Intervention/Latimer
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105055054/http://www.macleans.ca:80/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20071219_68881_68881 to http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20071219_68881_68881
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Robert Latimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/story.html?id=bbb63cc4-1486-4d42-8c8d-7cb3812440ad&k=6162
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014124501/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060921/Robert_Latimer_060921/20060921?hub=Canada&s_name to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060921/Robert_Latimer_060921/20060921?hub=Canada&s_name
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Canada&story=%2Fnews%2F2000%2F06%2F14%2Flatimer_wed000614
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=408be2e0-b8a4-4dd3-980e-1b6ea30556d1&k=9116
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ccdonline.ca/law-reform/Intervention/Latimer%20factum%201997.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20071219_68881_68881
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert Latimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720090406/http://scc.lexum.org/en/2001/2001scc1/2001scc1.html to http://scc.lexum.org/en/2001/2001scc1/2001scc1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified