Talk:Robert Latimer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent edits[edit]

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)[reply]


TO Slp1: Excuse me, but Wikipedia administrators themselves are supposed to tbe fair and neutral. Time and time again, you are proving yourself to be neither. You lecture me about having a neutral point-of-view, but you immediately and systematically edit or delete any and all information which could be considered favourable to Robert Latimer's case.

For example, you left in the direct and extremely inflammatory direct quotes from the Crown prosecutors' brief but removed both the direct quote from the Supreme Court judgment which described the severity of the latest surgery planned for Tracy AND the direct quote from Dr. Dzus' sworn testinmony concerning the incredible pain associated with this surgery. These you replaced with your own filtered version of events. You also deleted the fact that the doctors involved suggested that further surgery would be required in the future, again a direct quote from the Supreme Court decision.

For months, you left in a statement that would lead readers to erroneously believe that the surgery planned for Tracy was a rather routine hip replacement. You didn't edit or correct that until after I had pointed out the truth.

For months, you left in an introductory description of Tracy's condition which didn't even mention the pain she was suffering. You didn't edit and correct that until after I had pointed out the truth.

For months, you left in the first names of the Latimers' siblings. You didn't bother to edit that; someone else had to do it.

Readers can refer to the RobertLatimer.net website and then decide who is being factual, honest and fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S. T. Webb (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello S.T.,
I am afraid you are mistaken about a few things. Firstly, I am not an administrator. Secondly, I am not responsible for this article. Thirdly, your 3 "for months" statements are incorrect. See for example [1] [2]. Fourthly, I do not have a point of view about this very sad story, except that there are two sides to be told. The fact that you describe the clearly (and appropriately) partisan Latimer website as "factual, honest and fair" shows your bias yet again. There is no problem with pushing a pro-Latimer agenda on that website, but this is Wikipedia and this article needs to be balanced. I am afraid that your obvious (and understandable) sympathy for the man means that you may not be the best judge of what neutral is, and that has showed in your edits both in the article and on the talkpage of this article. Slp1 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


TO: Slp1

It is obvious that nothing constructive will result from our continuing this exchange at this time, except to offer an indisputable and self-evident correction concerning you comments with reference to the RobertLatimer.net website. I did not describe the RobertLatimer.net website as "factual, honest and fair" as you claim. I am confident that interested readers are quite capable of making such a judgment on their own. What I said was, "Readers can refer to the RobertLatimer.net website and then decide who is being factual, honest and fair." —Preceding unsigned comment added by S. T. Webb (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right about this. I apologize for presuming your intent of your remark, though given your previous comments such as [3], [4] and [5], my error is perhaps somewhat understandable.--Slp1 01:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

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.[6]. 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. [7] 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)[reply]

I have again removed the edits of S. T. Webb/IP 70.66.167.200. [8] Here are my reasonings this time:

  • I removed several of S. T's signatures from the top of the page, likely inserted in error.
  • I removed the addition that "could possibly kill her" because it is a misrepresentation of the source given. The defence lawyer said `might well conceivably kill her' not Dr. Dzus.
  • The letter by Dr. D.B. Stewart is not considered a reliable source by WP since it has not "been published by a reliable, third-party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (see verifiability for more info.) In addition it is not clear why Stewart's opinion on this subject is notable or even interesting given that he was an obstetrician [9] [10], and therefore would have little knowledge of feeding tubes in the disabled and how they are tolerated. He certainly does not qualify "as an established expert on the topic of the article". His opinion has not been cited by any other third party source, based on a Factiva newspaper archive search. Finally, and irrelevantly because original research, my personal experience indicates that Stewart's comments about children with PEGs needing to be tied down are in fact false.
  • I returned "pointed out" to "argued". "Pointed out" is a Point of View vocabulary choice in relation to Schafer's comment as it implies that his statement is true, which is contrary to WP's policy on neutral point of view
  • I removed the addition of the following piece of unsourced opinion and apparent original research. "This is pure conjecture on Coyne's part and he provides not scientific evidence whatever to support his speculation"

Slp1 (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the latest edit [11] from S. T. Webb/IP 70.66.167.200 while leaving a bunch of his/her edits of earlier this week which are fine by me. I have two reasons for this... S. T. Webb/IP 70.66.167.200 has long been trying to use this page to push his point of view of Tracy's situation, contrary to WP:SOAPBOX, and this edit continues this trend. Secondly, S.T's recent trend has been to include large chunks of testimony from Dr. Dzus, a primary source which that can be used "but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". See WP:PSTS for details of the policy. I believe that the most recent edit is just such as misuse, as S. T. Webb/IP 70.66.167.200 is using cherry picked quotes in order to advance his/her position that Latimer's actions were appropriate, contrary to NPOV. Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I also think we need to think about whether this testimony hosted on Robert Latimer's website qualifies as a reliable source. I have asked for the opinion of other editors here,[12] in case anybody wants to give their opinion there. Slp1 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

I have requested a third opinion on this article and its editing here.[13]. For full information I copy the post I made to the administrator's noticeboard and the suggestion made by another editor to request a third opinion, including the fact that there has been a complaint about my editing.[14]--Slp1 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am User:Monkeytheboy. I have read the article and I have read your discussion.
Firstly let me point out that although I do not believe in murder, I am one that does not NOT support euthanism. That being said, my opinion on your discussion is that S.T. Webb has a tremendous amount of compassion and bias towards people that believe and practice euthanism. Therefore I believe his contributions do have some amount of bias, something that is unacceptable to have in a Wikipedia article. However, I would like to know both sides of an argument and if the previous statements made by S.T. Webb regarding Slp1 are true, then there is some information that is being filtered, which is something I disagree with as well. I have not had the oppurtunity to click on the links Slp1 has placed to contradict STW's remarks but I will leave a note here when i do.
Secondly, I would also like to note that Slp1 has always recognized his errors and has being exceedingly polite based on the responses that are given to him by STW. This leads me to believe that Slp1 is using better reasoning and is trying to WORK with STW whereas STW's comments evoke emotionalism and do not TRY to work with Slp1's comments. STW's responses are words away from becoming personal attacks. I would suggest that STW try to comprehend slp1's POV reason against that instead of complaining about slp1's edits. Monkeytheboy (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Monkeytheboy for your feedback and comments. I am not sure if you are looking further into this situation, but in case you or other editors are, I would like to amplify my own comments a bit further about this article.
The subject of this article is a hot topic in Canada, and the cause of much debate. Disability rights activists argue that what Latimer did was wrong, while his supporters argue that he did the compassionate and right thing. Wikipedia's policy is that this (and all topics) must present a neutral point of view on the subject: in other words that the article should present facts in a fair and balanced way so that the reader can make up their mind for themselves. I and other editors believe that the article is of reasonably neutral point of view at the moment, but S.T.Webb clearly disagrees, and has disagreed with other editors on this subject for much longer than I have been involved (please see the archives for details). As you note, S.T.Webb's style of communication is not terribly conducive to collaborative, consensus based editing, but in addition to pushing a particular point of view of this matter, S.T.Webb has had difficulty understanding some core policies of what can and cannot be included in a WP article. Specifically,
S.T. Webb and the various IP addresses have most recently framed this as a conflict between we two. However please note that from the article and talkpage that other editors were objecting to his/her edits long before I got involved. The last revert of his most recent edit was not mine at all.[22] Also observe that many of S.T.Webb's edits remain in the article, since many of them were constructive and were within policy.
A final point. After the reliable sources noticeboard recommended that we not use the material hosted on Robert Latimer's website,[23] I went to the trouble to find other sources. Where possible I sourced existing statements from the new articles I had found. Or I found alternative quotations which were reliably sourced that made the same point (for example, regarding the pain Tracy endured.)[24]. I removed a statement about how well Tracy had recovered from previous surgeries because I could not source it.[25]. I deleted a piece of original research and synthesis that suggested that having these kinds of surgeries is to be expected in kids with CP.[26] I added that her parents gave her excellent care, as well as sourced information about the severity of her disabilities.[27][28]. I added that she had had rods placed in her back [29] I reworked one sentence to include more secondary sourced material rather than the primary source of the Crown counsel transcript (as also recommended at the noticeboard)[30] I copyedited and removed some duplication.
Almost all "pro-Latimer" edits and yet the reaction was this [31]!
If independent editors really think my editing "is deceitful and malicious, and [my] excuses are absolutely disgusting" based on these or any other edits, please let me know. If other editors think the article is not of neutral point of view, then let's discuss how to fix it. --Slp1 (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

......................................................................................................

It is interesting that Dr. Dzus' sworn medical testimony, as contained in the offical court transcript, was accepted without question or challenge by both the Crown prosecutors and the defense lawyers, and parts of it were quoted by both the lower courts and the Supreme Court of Canada, but her testimony is not considered acceptable by some Wikipedia editors. BTW, I can now certify that I have a copy of her testimony, and the wording is identical to that published in the RobertLatimer.net website.

....................................................................................................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.167.249 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such information would be perfect for the article. When adding it please make sure to reference your source. Also I would like to note that upon looking through some of the previous versions of this article, I've noted Slp1's edits and found nothing wrong with them. At all times he has been respectful and has not accelarated towards inflamatory remarks as STW has. My opinion is that STW should be more careful of his remarks and perhaps not go by what he belives to good and true, rather by what is factual and verifiable. Monkeytheboy (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for your comments, Monkeyboy. Actually, I am not sure that I totally agree that the court transcript will be perfect for the article, though if STWebb has a copy it is certainly acceptable. The reason I say that it is not 'perfect' is that the court transcripts are a primary source (per WP:PSTS) and according to WP's No original research policy, the article should be based on secondary sources such as books, newspaper articles etc that are one step removed from the primary source. "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." My view is that we should aim to remove all the primary sources ie the judgments, the Crown Prosecutor's brief, witness statements etc. by trying to source them (or something similar) to secondary sources rather than primary sources which are so easily misused. This was also the view of User: Nil Einne, a very experienced editor who commented at the Reliable sources noticeboard.[32] Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It looks like you're right. WP:PSTS does mention "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Monkeytheboy (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


.............................................................................................................

My reading of the Wikipedia guidelines does not place the official transcript of Dr. Dzus' sworn medical testimony in the catagory of an unusable primary source. Dr. Dzus did not interpret, analyse, or publish her own testimony and it is not a synthetic claim. It has been accepted as a reliable source by both the lower courts and the Supreme Court of Canada, is published by the Government of Canada, and is "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." To suggest that Dr. Dzus's testimony can only be published by means of quoting or paraphrasing articles by a horde of newspaper or magazine reporters, most of whom are working against a publication deadline and have an agenda of their own to promote, is ludicrous. The Wikipedia rules are so complex and, in many cases contradictory, that an editor can always find an excuse to exercise the censorship of material which they don't want readers to see. The bottom line of these rules reads, " Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and THESE ARE GENERAL RULES. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occassion is a MATTER OF COMMON SENSE and good editorial judgment, and should be discussd on article talk pages." (Which is what we are doing.) I personally believe that well documented, truthful information which "does no harm" to anyone, and living persons in particular, should be published without censorship, leaving the decision as to what to believe or not believe with the individual readers. To do otherwise, is in my opinion, a disservice to Wikipedia, and both a disservice and an insult to the intelligence of the public at large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.189.158 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, STWebb for discussing here and giving your comments. As I noted above, I agree with you that the Dr. Dzus original medical testimony is a useable source in this article as long as it is sourced to the original document with all the information provided so that others can verify it if they wish. I agree that there are no problem with analytic or synthetic claims that would make it problematic, though I doubt very much that it has been "published by the Government of Canada" as you claim.
However, whether you like it or not, or whether you find it ludicrous or not, Wikipedia by policy prefers secondary sources ("Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" and "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication)", as you can see on the policy page WP:No original research. You may wish to try and change the policy, but this is not the place to do it. Try here if you do[33] As I mentioned above, I will at some point in the next few months be rewriting the article to exclude all primary sources, as recommended by policy, but until then you should feel free to add sourced information from Dr. Dzus' testimony, as long as it allows the article to remain of WP:Neutral Point of View
Yes, by policy, the article must be of neutral point of view, and you cannot use the article to push your opinions about the rightness of Latimer's cause (also a policy WP:SOAPBOX. I realize that the rules are complicated here, but there are policies and guidelines to editing here that you must abide by, however ludicrous you find them. If you don't like the restrictions, then get your own website and publish your views there. You realize I am sure that the more pro-Latimer edits you add here, the more other information needs to be added to balance things.
Here is a concrete reason why primary sources are best avoided all around. Let's say a disability rights activist drops by here and gets hold of (say) the testimony of the people who worked with Tracey at schools and the group home etc. What would you say if the editor picked out of their testimony some quotes "proving" that Tracey was a happy little camper? Would you really be happy and accepting of great chunks of their various versions of the "truth"? Do you really want that that "well documented, truthful information" included, details that no newspaper or magazine has determined to be important except in a very short summary? The reason why primary sources are dangerous and should be avoided is that they are easily misused by editors wishing to push a point of view, with emphasis placed on the information the editor thinks is key rather than what an independent person (a journalist, author etc) has determined is relevant, fair and balanced.
Your continued accusations of censorship are inaccurate and unhelpful to the discussion, and I would be grateful if you would stop. --Slp1 (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I hope you remember that there are two living people who will be significantly affected by including the doctor's material, Robert Latimer and the doctor who you are quoting. There are also other people who may be affected, e.g. Laura (who is mentioned). Slp1 has already explained fairly well why primary sources are best avoided. To put it a different way, let's consider the court transcript in question. How long is it? I would suspect many, many pages long with the testimony of quite a number of people, likely including a number of experts in a variety of fields on a variety of things usually in great depth. How do you decide which one of these many long things is important? Even the testimony of 'Dr. Dzus' is I would presume, a lot longer then what we currently include. Do we simply include the whole court transcript? Further, putting aside this specific case, many court cases involve conflicting expert testimony. It is not appropriate for wikipedians however to decide that this testimony is conflict and it is also usually not acceptable for us to try to summarise this testimony. All these reasons and more are why primary sources are best avoided. Whatever your opinions on them, "newspaper or magazine reporters, most of whom are working against a publication deadline and have an agenda of their own to promote" are generally considered (within wikipedia) much better then wikipedians in deciding what is important and what is not, and in deciding what someone meant by something. Secondary sources are not perfect, they do make mistakes and in a particularly well covered case, we will usually have an abundance of things which could be included. (Although even in these cases, we will rely more on stuff like how many sources cover it and is the source simply covering the cases day by day or was it a summarising of the case?) Some judgment by wikipedians is always necessary but this does not mean using primary sources is acceptable (the level of judgement is usually too much, it's far to easy to fall into [[WP:OR and WP:UNDUE). The only time primary sources are really advisable is to back up secondary sources, for example, if there is a dispute over the wording. BTW, I haven't looked into this specific case in enough detail to comment on any specific issue so I'm not trying to rule out the inclusion of any specific information simply trying to explain why you need to avoid primary sources, regardless of whether there is any doubt they are truthful. P.S. I have to agree with Slp here, drop the accusations of censorship, they add nothing to the discussion and simply generate illwill for no reason. Please WP:AGF that everyone here is genuinely trying to improve this article and does not have an agenda to 'hide the truth'. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aspirating pneumonia[edit]

Para 2 in "Tracy Latimer". I have revised my original addition to this section in accordance with the requirements of Wkpd. The quotation I have used is from the sworn testimony of Dr Anne Dzus, and I certify that it is identical to her words as posted on the robertlatimer.net website.

I am having difficulty following the footnotes, by the way: some of them seem (understandably considering the amount of activity on this site) to be out of order. Any hints? Jusstiss (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your contribution for now because of the footnote problem it created. I will try and fix it up later when I have time.--Slp1 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't fix it because you haven't give the full citation of your source. We need the full title, publisher, date, etc etc so that others can verify the document. If you post it here I will format it for you properly in the article, if that would help. Please note that aspiration pneumonia is actually the "breathing problem" as already mentioned in the article. I am not clear why we need the technical term in the article, but since you seem to think we do, then we can just link the word aspiration pneumonia as I have done here, so I don't think we will need the description of what it is. --Slp1 (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


...........................................................................................................................


Re Publisher: At the Supreme Court of Canada Registry Office, Ottawa, Ontario, access is freely available to the entire file of the Robert Latimer court records. These records include the testmony of Tracy's orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Dzus. Mario Laurier, Supervisor of the Records Office, has advised that, " You can come to the Court and view the entire Supreme Court of Canada File # 26980, Latimer v. Her Majesty the Queen, Appellant's Record Book." A photocopier is available and you can make photocopies at $0.50 per page, or we can do it for you at $1.00 per page. You must phone one day ahead of coming in (613 996-8666) so the file can be sent up to the Registry Office. In spite of Slp1's doubts as expressed above, the "Supreme Court of Canada File # 26980" is, of course, a Government of Canada publication it would not be available in the Supreme Court of Canada Records Office, and available for copying by the public, if it were not.


Slp1 has expressed her concern about the possible over-use of Dr. Dzus' sworn medical testimony. However, in her Wikipedia write-up dated 4/14/2008 about Robert Latimer, she uses an article published by the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, which was published October 31, 1997, seven ( 7 ) different times. She also refers to publications by the CBC five ( 5 ) times and Macleans Magazine four ( 4 ) times.


I take it from what you are saying above that the inclusion of Dr. Dzus's medical testimony constitutes "pro-Latimer edits". This is an interesting conclusion on your part.


I would again refer you to the bottom line in the section on, "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources", which reads, " Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and THESE ARE GENERAL RULES. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE and GOOD EDITORIAL JUDGMENT ..."


I sincerely hope when you do your re-write that you will bear in mind that Laura and the Latimer's three children, the youngest being just 14 years of age and attending public school, are trying to live in peace and dignity.


I see that someone has attempted to include "aspirating pneumonia" in describing why strong pain relieving drugs could not be given to Tracy, and that this, too, has been deleted by Slp1. The term "breathing problems" covers a very wide and diverse range of medical conditions, from a slight cough to something as severe as aspirating pneumonia. As Slp1 very well knows, this term was used by Dr. Dzus in her sworn medical testimony, but rather than trying to help the person attempting to make this very important distinction, Slp1 advised this person that "We need the full title, publisher, date, etc etc so that others can verify the document."


S.T. Webb ............................................................................................................................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.189.158 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, S.T. Webb, I sourced information from several reliable secondary sources (newspaper and magazine articles) multiple times. Referencing multiple times from a secondary source is not a problem. Referencing from primary source is a problem. It is the primary vs secondary source that is the difficulty.
  • You urge us to remember that "Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE and GOOD EDITORIAL JUDGMENT". Well my common sense and my editorial judgment, as well as my knowledge of policy and guidelines says that this article would be better and more neutral without the cherry picking of quotes from primary sources. I don't appear to be alone in this view.
  • Robert Latimer clearly thinks that Dzus testimony helps his case, as it is the only piece of witness testimony he hosts on his website. I actually don't think she is pro-Latimer, though the quotes selected from it by you were certainly always aimed in one direction.
  • Yes I did offer to add aspiration pneumonia for a new editor and to help format of the citation that is required by WP:Verifiability per "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question". Since I do not have the transcript, how can I be expected to know what the citation is?
  • You can rest assured that I will certainly be bearing in mind WP:BLP when it comes to the rewrite. As you know, it was me that actually deleted the other children's names from the article. They, as Nil pointed out, are another good reason why this article is best sourced from secondary sources.
  • I still don't think a photocopy of Supreme Court records counts as a Government of Canada publication. See this for what the Government of Canada thinks its publications are: [34] But whatever.

--Slp1 (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aspiration pneumonia[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Addendum: If you want to know why the text on the Robert and Tracy Latimer website was not considered reliable, see this [35]. If you don't agree you might want to comment there. --Slp1 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

aspirating pneumonia[edit]

Re: Aspirating Pneumonia: If readers so wish they can confirm by contacting the Supreme Court of Canada Registry Office and requesting a copy of Latimer v. Her Majesty the Queen, Appellant's Record Book, File # 26980, Examination-in-chief of Dr Anne K. Dzus (called by the Crown).

Alternatively, this file name and number could also be used as the article reference in place of RobertLatimer.net. However, I note that the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (#25) is used as a reference, which, for obvious reasons, is no more unbiased or reliable a reference than RobertLatimer.net, so I favour the latter as this would keep the footnotes shorter.

I hope this answers Slpd1's anxieties.Jusstiss (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed reference. The version on the Latimer website has been determined not to be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes,[36] so I will be removing that reference but will cite the original document as recommended, and as you suggest. Unfortunately you haven't addressed the concerns I and others have about using primary sources, in this case gives undue weight to 'aspiration' and 'aspiration pneumonia' when no other reliable source has mentioned it or found it to be important. But anyway, for now it is fine.
You have made an interesting point about the Council of Canadians with Disabilities website hosting the factum of intervenors document. One difference here is that this document does contain "basic information that will be found on any official transcript... such as the case name or the date" and the text has not been modified by highlighting etc. (see the Reliable Source Noticeboard post) But the most important distinction is that it is being used only to source the fact that disability groups intervened in the case, and what they said in general. This is information that could very reasonably be sourced from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities website. But as above, secondary sources would be better and I will be looking for secondary sources to replace this one too. --Slp1 (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ST Webb's latest edits[edit]

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[37][38], adds original research and commentary[39][40], misrepresents sources [41] 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 [42]

"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,[43][44] 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)[reply]

Several Points[edit]

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)[reply]

Hello Leon, Thanks very much for your post here. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter and especially that you choose to discuss your ideas here first. As you know, this is a highly controversial subject, and things can be a bit fraught at times! It makes a change to have someone arguing from your perspective, since mostly pro-Latimer supporters seem to drop by. I will respond to your ideas point by point:

  • The article actually quotes the Supreme Court judgment in saying Tracy was in continual pain. It doesn't say that she was, but attributes that POV to them. The article also describes the testimony of her teachers etc that she was sometimes happy and smiling. The two sources you give don't actually say that she wasn't in pain, just point out the same point that she appeared to enjoy life at times. Also note that one is an opinion column, and the other two are advocacy websites, both problematic as reliable sources.
  • Disability rights: this is a good point, and I see has been changed already.
  • Your comments about euthanasia and about Susan Smith. These are interesting but unfortunately we cannot include them because they appear to be your ideas and analysis. We can only include information about Latimer that has been published by a reliable source, and is verifiable. Our rules against synthesis of material together to prove a point mean that the article cannot connect Latimer to Smith or Nazi euthanasia unless a reliable source (not a blog, forum, etc) has done it first.
  • The same goes regarding support from neo-nazis. As far as I can tell, no reliable source (mainstream newspaper, book etc) has mentioned this either. We cannot include this information until they do, per no original research and verifiability. I'm sure you understand that it would be very wrong to smear Latimer's name with this kind of unsavoury (and no doubt unwanted) support that noone else has seen fit to mention.

--Slp1 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Some more points[edit]

Another point I would like to make. I there are people editing this article who are in favour of citing robertlatimer.net. Personally, I don't think that is credible and by no means non-partisan. I really don't think information should be cited from that website as undisputed facts.

Another point still is the mainstream media on this issue. The mainstream media I think, as well as many others, has had a pro-Robert Latimer bias. I think this should be taken into account when citing the mainstream press. Leon Trotsky 23:12, 27 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.160.145 (talk)


Link deletion[edit]

Comrades,

I am writing to express my outrage that the link to the blog about the Murder of Tracy Latimer [45] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Please let us try some civil conversation and discussion first, IP69. It generally works far better. --Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
<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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
<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)[reply]


Someone keeps changing my comments on the discussion page. I would like them to please stop deleting my comments. I think I am at least entitled to keep my comments intact.

Leon Trotsky 17:53, 5 January 2009

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)[reply]

You can, however, seek reliable sources (WP:Reliable) with information discussing other aspects of this article, if you feel the article is unbalanced. If you have reliable sources and add the material in a neutral manner it can be used in the article. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon, please stop reverting. Ip69 is right that the link to the blog is inappropriate on the talkpage too. You will end up being blocked if you continue. Please listen. --Slp1 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped putting up the link to the blog in the discussion. Yet I notice it is being deleted further. The very mention of the name of the blog. This, I think, is completely unreasonable. I think, it is clear that nothing will come of this. I think it is quite clear that their are people here who are quite intent on censoring. Can I not even mention the name of the blog? Leon Trotsky 18:53, 5 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Trotsky (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

People are deleting stuff on my OWN page now. Can I at least keep stuff up on my own page. Leon Trotsky 18:42, 5 January 2009

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Latimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Latimer&oldid=1212471011"