Talk:Robert Latimer/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Please give sources! 2 Reversion war with S.T. Webb 3 My reversion of anon's latest edit 4 Response to #8 (Latimer = only mercy killer to get life sentence in Canada) 5 Request for comments 5.1 Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute 6 Response to anonymous 7 additional general comments-scope and focus of biography 8 Total rewrite

Please give sources!

See WP:REF for details on the correct way of giving the sources of information you add. Rosemary Amey 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversion war with S.T. Webb

There seem to be 2 issues here:

1. Was Tracy's killing a mercy killing?
2. Was she suffering incurable pain?

I submit that it is debateable whether Tracy's killing was a mercy killing/euthanasia, since she was unable to communicate her feelings on the matter, and that there was a possibility that her pain could have been reduced, indeed, the surgery which she was to have undergone on her right hip was intended to reduce her pain. I submit that in the interests of NPOV, it should not be baldly stated that this was a mercy killing and that she was suffering incurable pain, but rather appropriate qualifiers should be added, i.e. "Latimer and his supporters considered it a mercy killing", "Latimer believed Tracy was suffering incurable pain". Rosemary Amey 06:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If it was not a mercy killing, what was the motive you are implying ? Both the lower court and the Supreme Court ackowledged that it was a "compassionate homicide".

As to "incurable pain", kindly refer to the sworn medical testimony given by Dr. Dzus and contained in the court transcripts. She made that very clear in her testimony.

Please study the court transcripts. The medical evidence is overwhelming as to the severity of the pain which Tracy was suffering.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by S. T. Webb (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 December 2006

It is disputed that Tracy was in ongoing pain. Maybe occasional pain, because she didn't get the feeding tube, because her parents were afraid of it. This is all debated stuff- people feel the Latimers killed her for her inconvenience. So yes, NPOV is needed, among other things. Was this written by Wikipedians, or was part of it copied and pasted from the Supreme Court decisions? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Amey raises several good points which should not be dismissed so casually. CanadianCaeser should follow his own advice and study the court transcripts, and not just the arguments presented by Latimer's defense. Latimer's lawyers asked Dr. Dzus if Tracy's pain would be gone the day after her surgery. The obvious answer (no) has been twisted by Latimer supporters to suggest that the surgery would not relieve Tracy's pain. In fact, thousands of children have the same kind of cerebral palsy that Tracy had (too much muscle tone) and they these surgeries are effective and relieve the conditions causing the dislocations and hence, the pain. The kind of pain Tracy experienced would have been very severe at time, but she was not in constant, unremitting pain. Her mother admitted this on the stand when confronted with her own notes in Tracy's communication book which was sent with her to school in the days before she was murdered. Laura Latimer described a happy child, who had had a good weekend including a sleepover. Tracy was also not bed-ridden as the article currently states. In fact, she was going to school every day. Tracy also did not have "the mind of a four month old". Although many doctors, bioethicists and media people regularly use this kind dehumanizing language to describe people with intellectual disabilities, there is no foundation for such analogies, and they are almost always misleading - as in the case of Tracy, who enjoyed many things that a four month old is unable to comprehend. Tracy was a real person with her own life to live, even if her father thought it wasn't a life worth living.

The article currently reads as though it were written by Robert Latimer's defense team. Many of his claims are presented as facts in this article despite the fact that they were unsubstantiated and were rejected by the court. First and foremost, Latimer was convicted of murder, not mercy killing. After his hidden crime was discovered (an important part of this story is that he gassed her to death in his truck while the family was at church and then placed her in her bed to be found by Mrs. Latimer. When the polic confronted him with the toxicology report, Latimer claimed it was a mercy killing and that he did it because of "Tracy's pain". This was uncritically accepted by the media and by many bioethicists who were more anxious to debate the ethics of such a situation than to find out whether this really was such a situation.

I think I would be sympathetic if this really was a situation in which a father killed his daughter because she was in unremitting pain with no hope for pain relief. Despite Latimer's claims, this was not such a case.

The final sentence in the article is simply false. Latimer was not convicted of "mercy killing".

The German doctors who created and ran the Aktion T4 (so-called) "euthanasia" program also used mercy as their rationale for gassing thousands of people with disabilities to death in 1939-41. Same act, same justification, same verdict: murder. Not euthanasia, not mercy killing, not compassionate homicide. Murder. Read the transcripts and the verdict. Phred07 01:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• A point of clarification that it was S. T. Webb who gave the advice of reading the court transcripts and not CanadianCaesar. This was not clear until recently because of an unsigned post. --Slp1 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. This is my mistake - my apologies to CanadianCaesar! 24.68.202.100 05:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1. What good points did your Amey raise which were casually dismissed ? Please name them. Or are you refusing to accept the documented medical evidence which is contained in the court transcripts ? If so, why ?

2. The article states that she was in "almost unrelenting pain". It does not say that she was in "constant, unremiitting pain" as you suggest.

3. Re your claim that the next surgery would cure Tracy's pain, you obviously stopped reading the doctor's testimony before the cross-examination was concluded. PLEASE READ THE REST OF THAT SECTION OF THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.

4. .."thousands of children have the same kind of cerebral palsy that Tracy had" implies that her condition was a common form of cerebral palsy . This is certainly not the case. READ THE DOCTOR'S TESTIMONY WHICH DESCRIBES THE EXTREME SEVERITY OF TRACY'S CONDITION.

5. Tracy was a client/patient of a therapeutic facility which adjoined a school that was set up to provide such things as physical, speech and occupational therapy. TRACY LATIMER WAS NEVER A STUDENT IN A CONVENTIONAL EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT.

6. It is THE SUPREME COURT DECISION that refers to Tracy's mental capacity as that of a three to four month old baby.

7. The article states that Tracy was bedridden MOST OF THE TIME - not All the time as you suggest.

8. The courts acknowleged this as a compassionate homicide . Is that not a mercy killing ? Can you name any other person in Canadian history who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for such a crime ? IF SO, PLEASE TELL US.

9. As if Robert Latimer and his family have not suffered far too much already, there are some lobby groups and their supporters who appear to derive some sort of satisfaction or even perverse pleasure by continuing in their efforts to torment them; and please don't infer that the vast majority of Canadians who believe that Robert Latimer's sentence was cruel and excessive are Nazi sympathizers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.189.60 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 22 January 2007

Whoever wrote the above, on Talk pages it is customary to sign your name by typing ~~~~, please do so in the future to avoid confusion over who said what. As for your various claims, please give exact references, particularly in the article where I've added {{Fact}}. All claims in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Please see WP:REF for information about how to add references. Thank you. Rosemary Amey 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re; Your removal of the sentence, " Robert Latimer is the only person in Canadian history to be sentenced to life imprionment for a mercy killing. "

1. You have avoided providing a response to #8 above. Under the circumstances, these are legitimate questions which deserve answers.

2. Please follow your own advice - 3:42 - 9 December - 2006. " Don't delete facts you don't want to read." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.189.60 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 January 2007

My reversion of anon's latest edit

The anonymous 70.66.189.60 deleted the words "he believed" in the sentence "Robert Latimer claimed to have ended his daughter's life because he believed she was in incurable, excruciating and almost unrelenting pain." This is unacceptably POV as it asserts that Tracey really was in incurable, excruciating, and almost unrelenting pain. That is an opinion or conjecture, rather than an undisputed fact. It is an undisputed fact that Robert Latimer believed that Tracey was in incurable, excruciating, and almost unrelenting pain.

Also, the anonymous user 70.66.189.60 changed the word "much" to "most" in the phrase "bedridden much of the time", however, this is not supported by the reference given, which says "much". Please see R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 1, I 6.

Also, don't forget to sign your name when you comment in the talk page by typing 4 tildes (~~~~), which Wikipedia will automatically change to your name and the date. Rosemary Amey 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that, "It is an undisputed fact that Robert Latimer believed that Tracey was in incurable, excruciating, and almost unrelenting pain." It is reasonable certain (questionable, at the very least)that he believed her pain wasn't "almost unrelenting" given the court testimony by Laura about her situation in the days prior to her murder (doing well, fun during sleepover, etc). All we know is that he said he believed this (more or less, I don't know that he used that phrasing). Perhaps (understandably) he couldn't see past the hip release surgeries (she would probably have needed the other hip done too). There are other perspectives, such as Brian Hutchinson's March, 1995 article in Saturday Night magazine which suggests that Latimer believed that Tracy had been through too many operations and that "enough was enough". The article states that:

"Although doctors say it should not have been a concern, the Latimers feared that mixing painkillers with Tracy's anti-seizure medication would conceivabley have left her unable to swallow, forcing her onto a feeding tube. The Latimers felt that would have crossed a boundary they had established for Tracy years earlier. 'We just felt that some things can't be fixed, that maybe we should let nature take its course'." (this is on p. 42 of the article; it's not clear whether the last quote is attributed to Robert or Laura).

This article seemed to suggest that it was actually the issue of the feeding tube that may have been the key turning point for Robert. In videotaped interviews (sorry I don't have the references at the moment) Latimer has stated that life with a feeding tube isn't worth living (which might be a surprise to some people who live with one). So, while the pain story was most useful for Latimer's defense, perhaps he had just had enough and as others have suggested, he put her out of "his" misery. Ultimately, we don't and probably never will know what he believed. I wonder if he even knows. 24.68.202.100 05:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to #8 (Latimer = only mercy killer to get life sentence in Canada)

Please see WP:V. According to this page, which is official policy on Wikipedia, "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." Rosemary Amey 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the statement "Robert Latimer is the only person in Canadian History to be sentenced to life imprisonment for a mercy killing" again. I considered just adding a fact tag, but I think POV concerns require that it be fully referenced before being added to the article. This statement rests on two unreferenced assertions:

1. The killing of Tracy Latimer was a mercy killing
2. Latimer is the only person to receive a life sentence for such an offence.

The second assertion is easy enough to prove, no doubt. The problem is that it rests on the first assertion. Whatever he and his supporters believe his actions to have been, in law he was found guilty of murder. Calling his act a mercy killing is a POV statement. - Eron ^Talk 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

This is a request for comments on two issues in the Robert Latimer article:

1. Should the article state that Tracey Latimer was in incurable, excruciating and almost unrelenting pain, or should it state that Robert Latimer believed she was in incurable, excruciating and almost unrelenting pain?
2. Should the article describe the killing of Tracey Latimer as a mercy killing, or should it state that Latimer and his supporters consider it to be a mercy killing. 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

Comment by Rosemary Amey

1. The nature, severity, and in particular the incurablity of the pain Tracey Latimer was in are subject to debate. Wikipedia should remain neutral on this question, rather than asserting that the pain actually was incurable, excruciating, and almost unrelenting. Putting in the phrase "he believed" in the sentence "Robert Latimer claimed to have ended his daughter's life because he believed she was in incurable, excruciating and almost unrelenting pain." conveys Latimer's reasoning without taking sides on this question.
2. It is subject to debate whether this actually was a mercy killing. The very phrase is POV. Therefore Wikipedia should not refer to this killing as a mercy killing, though we can safely say that Robert Latimer and his supporters consider it a mercy killing. Rosemary Amey 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Anchoress
I agree with Rosemaryamey on both counts. The article should state that Latimer believed those things (if a suitable reference exists), and the statement about the only life sentence for mercy killing should be removed. Anchoress 02:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Tintina

I agree with point two on Mercy killing.

Point number one may in fact be verified or additional text supplied via material from medical professionals or experts on the disease. Tintina 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Bearcat

We've long known that the Latimer case inspires strong and passionate opinion on both sides of the debate. However, Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies are pretty clear; Wikipedia cannot unequivocally take one side or the other in a debate such as this. We must fairly represent both sides of the debate as the beliefs and opinions of those involved in the debate; we cannot represent only one side as "the neutral facts" unless they can be objectively sourced. As Tintina points out above, point 1 may be verifiable if expert medical opinion concurs with it, but until such time as a consensus of medical authorities can actually be found to verify the statement, we simply cannot represent it as anything more than Latimer's belief. "Mercy killing" is also a very emotional and agonizing debate, but again, we have to stick to the verifiable facts that the Latimer case was described as one by Latimer and his supporters; we can't take sides. Bearcat 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Phred07

My response to the request for comments is: 1. The article should state what Robert Latimer said he believed – I think it would be best to actually quote him so that there can be no question about accuracy of the wording of what he says he believed. I think the article should refer to what he has said (the CBC story has lots of his comments in this regard) and not to what he believed (because no-one can know this). 2. On the second point, I agree that it is most accurate to state that Latimer and his supporters consider his actions to be a mercy killing. Phred07 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to anonymous

I won't address all of Anonymous's points 1 to 9, as the key ones are already being discussed, but wish to offer the following:

Tracy's condition is not as rare as Anonymous (and many news reports) suggests. I have worked with many children with the same kind of cerebral palsy as Tracy had, involving the same surgeries, etc., which is why I have taken an interest in this case and why I take exception to the oft repeated negative and dehumanizing language and stereotypes about Tracy and her condition (and the pejorative judgments made by Latimer and others about the value of the lives of people who live with these disabilities). In 2001, Dr. Richard Sobsey from the University of Alberta estimated that there are about 8,000 children with this kind of cerebral palsy in North America - here is a segment of an article of his:

Across North America, approximately 8,000 children have severe cerebral palsy like Tracy Latimer had. Between one-quarter and one-half of them experience dislocation of one or both hips sooner or later. The amount of pain experienced with these hip dislocations varies greatly, but when pain is significant, treatment is recommended. The treatment normally recommended for this problem is surgery, not carbon monoxide poisoning. Several different surgical procedures are used, but the one recommended by Tracy Latimer's own physician is often used for children who cannot walk or stand because the removal of bone in the hip makes a recurrence of dislocation impossible. (from http://chealth.canoe.ca/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=1080&news_channel_id=155&channel_id=155&relation_id=4006 )

THE SUPREME COURT did not characterize Tracy's mental capacity as that of a three to four month old baby - they stated that she "was said to have the mental capacity of ...". Some judges involved in this case did state that they felt Latimer acted out of compassion. They also called his claims and justifications into question and they rejected all of his appeal arguments, including the arguments of necessity, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. No-one can know Latimer's motives. All I know is that he was not convicted of mercy killing, he was convicted of murder, so I see your final sentence (the one I deleted yesterday) as unfounded, biased and sensational.

Your point in #9 is misleading. Only you have referred to Nazis. I made specific reference to the so-called euthanasia program advocated for and implemented by German doctors during World War 2 - I referred to this program because they used the same method as Latimer (gassing) and gave the same excuse (mercy) for killing people with disabilities. Those acts were judged to have been murder, despite the perpetrators' claims. What is important for people to understand is that the idea that killing children with disabilities is a kind and merciful act has been around for a long time and continues to be proposed. Those who have promoted this idea during the past century have usually not been political idealogues - they have been academics (Binding and Hoche in 1920's Germany), doctors/psychiatrists (Karl Brandt and Gerhard Wagner in 1930s Germany, Foster Kennedy and others in the American Psychiatric Association in the 1940s) and more recently, bioethicists (Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s, Peter Singer and others currently). All have argued that killing such individuals is not wrong, that it is for the good of society and merciful for the individuals themselves. Fortunately, civilized societies continue to reject these arguments and people with disabilities themselves continue to refute and disprove others' negative assumptions about them. Phred07 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The Doctor Richard Sobsey you refer to is NOT a medical doctor and any comments he has to offer on Tracy's medical condition should make that very clear. At any rate, his credibility on this whole subject is highly questionable to say the least.

2. In their written decision, the Supreme Court stated , "IT WAS THOUGHT she experienced a great deal of pain", and "Tracy WAS THOUGHT to be in pain before the surgery." Regardless of the overwhelming medical evidence which they had before them, the Court thus tried to convey the impression that there was some doubt as to whether Tracy was actually suffering any pain. It is not surprising then that they would use the term, " WAS SAID to have the mental capacity". However, there was no such uncertainty when they included such firm and unequivocal statements as, "Tracy enjoyed music, bonfires, being with her family and the circus." Two very different standards for a tribunal which is supposed to be unbiased.

3. Since the trial judge who actaully heard the second trial described this as a "compassionate homicide", and the upper court judges certainly did not dispute this characterization, it would be grossly unfair and misleading to state that only "Latimer and his supporters consider his actions to be a mercy killing". Chief Justice of Saskatchewan, The Honourable Edward D. Bayda, also considered this this be a compassionate homicide and made that clear on his retirement.

S.T. Webb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.189.60 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 January 2007

1. Dick Sobsey has an international reputation as an expert in a number of areas relevant to this discussion. He has a medical background (nursing) with considerable practical and research experience in issues facing people with multiple disabilities including cerebral palsy. He has a doctorate in education and has done considerable research on issues affecting people with disabilities, especially, children with multiple disabilities like Tracy had. Along with Fred Orelove, Sobsey published several editions of the text, "Educating students with multiple disabilities: A transdisciplinary approach" which has been used as a text in colleges and universities for two decades - it provides excellent clinical and practical information about cerebral palsy - including the kind of c.p. that Tracy had and related treatments and care considerations. This text also deals with issues affecting families, teachers, doctors and the other various disciplines involved. Sobsey has also done extensive research and writing about violence, abuse and disability. His book, "Violence and abuse in the lives of people with disabilities: the end of silent acceptance" is regarded as a landmark publication in raising awareness and understanding of the dynamics of abuse, including the attitudes which make people with disabilities vulnerable to abuse, often in the name of treatment. Sobsey has also been the parent of children with disabilities and has first hand experience dealing with complex health issues of children. I can't think of anyone with more credibility to speak about these issues than Dick Sobsey.

2. Perhaps the reason that the Supreme Court accepted the information about the things that Tracy enjoyed, is that no-one disputed these assertions. Conversely, perhaps the reason they qualify their statements about Tracy's pain and her mental capacity is that there was considerable dispute and contrary evidence presented on these matters.

3. Latimer was never on trial for "mercy killing", so it was not necessary for the prosecution or the Judges to address this claim specifically. Legally, it was a red herring and a distraction from the specific crime Latimer was charged with. Despite this, the Supreme Court of Canada did consider Latimer's claim of "necessity" in his appeal, but after considering all of the evidence, they rejected this argument unanimously. Judge Bayda was indeed sympathetic to Latimer and said that he thought Latimer was a person of good character. What you haven't mentioned is that Bayda was in the minority and was offering a dissenting opinion - the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decided 2-1 (Bayda was the 1), to uphold Latimer's conviction. Bayda thought Latimer's punishment was "cruel and unusual" but his fellow Appeal Court judges in Saskatchewan and those on the Supreme Court of Canada considered the same evidence and disagreed with him. I think you will need to be satisfied with the statement that Latimer and his supporters view his actions as a mercy killing. You and they are entitled to your opinions, however, there is considerable controversy on that point. Many people disagree with that version of events and there is no evidence to support your argument that your view is factual. To state as a fact that this was a mercy killing is grossly unfair and misleading. Phred07 08:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My sole involvement with this subject has been through the recent RfC, but I agree with Phred07. The article should attribute any claims regarding Tracy's pain to the source of those claims, and should attribute any characterization to Robert's act to the source of such characterization. Specifically, I think the sentence "Supporters of Latimer say that since this was a mercy killing he should not be punished as harshly as those committing common murders" would be better phrased "Supporters of Latimer say that his action should be considered a mercy killing, and that therefore he should not be punished as harshly as those committing common murders." This would more clearly attribute the characterization "mercy killing" to the supporters, as well as the "should not be punished as harshly" claim. PubliusFL 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not been involved with this article either, except for the few typos/phrasing that I have just corrected on reading the article. But I have worked for years with people who have severe disabilities, including many as disabled as Tracy. The story is a very sad and emotive one, but these should not affect the neutral point of view presented here. I am very concerned about the non-cited and clearly point of view statements, especially in the last part of the article. These either need to be balanced with the side accepted by the courts, or deleted, as I agree with Tintina below that this article veers well away from a Latimer biography into a rerun of trial (and mostly defence!) arguments. --Slp1 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And what is so terrible about not going to a "conventional educational environment" and being very delayed developmentally anyway? How can this be a relevant? --Slp1 03:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

additional general comments-scope and focus of biography

I've just made a quick reading of the article. At present it reads as "the trial" of Robert Latimer rather than the "biography" of Robert Latimer. Granted - the trial created the notability -but might be handled a little differently in the overall biography. His background etc needs to be expanded.

Personally I would "report" the "facts" of the trial, rather than diverge into ethics via the biography, with reference (and links) to the debate on euthansia. Perhaps if you flesh out the bio and article first it will be easier to deal with the trial. I'm working on another article that is part of what is referred to as an "essentially contested concept" and they are difficult to manage. I'll try and contribute where I can.

Tintina 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• additional comments: can this be handled as an aside topic.

check out essentially contested concept it might have some relevance to this, and help in handling it.

Tintina 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Total rewrite

I've tried to rewrite it as more of a biography, but I'm having trouble finding info on Robert Latimer aside from the murder. I think I've kept in everything that was there before except for a few claims which I couldn't find a citation for (e.g. "...two steel rods connected to her spine by multiple wires and steel plates which were bolted to the front and back of her spine, plus bolts inserted into holes which had been drilled into her pelvic bone. This subsequently caused further severe pain because one of these steel rods had protruded and lodged into her right hip joint.") People wanting to add information, please provide proper references. Also, need a reference for when and where he is serving his sentence. Thanks! Rosemary Amey 07:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This might help. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/latimer/

Tintina 17:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A POISON PILL IN A FANCY PACKAGE, BUT A POISON PILL NEVERTHELESS ! FORTUNATELY, ANYONE WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH THE TRUE FACTS OF THIS TRAGIC CASE, WHEN READING THE THIS MAJOR REWRITE BY ROSEMARY AMEY WILL RECOGNIZE THAT MUCH OF THE TEXT SHE HAS INCLUDED IN THIS REWRITE IS LIFTED STRAIGHT OUT OF THE VINDICTIVE PROPAGANDA PACKAGE SHE AND HER LOBBY GROUP COHORTS USE AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO SMEAR ROBERT LATIMER.

S.T. WEBB

Are you accusing her of a copyright violation, and do you have a link, or proof? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what S.T. Webb's gripe is. The re-write by Rosemary Amey removes only the most outrageous characterizations. I would think the article should still appeal to Latimer's supporters as it contains most of the things they like to emphasize. Over time, a balanced picture should emerge as the article is edited further. Ms. Amey's re-write does not smear Latimer in any way. I've made a few minor edits aimed at presenting a balanced view of the role of the intervenors (as opposed to "negative interveners") in the Supreme Court hearing. Phred07 03:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

S.T. Webb, if you have specific suggestions for improvements to the article, please make them. By the way, I am not involved in any lobby groups and spent hours writing the article from scratch, consulting the numerous references I cited. I tried to present both sides fairly. WP:AGF please! Rosemary Amey 18:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rosemary, Thanks very much for your rewrite which I think is a great improvement on the previous version. Your hours of labour are greatly appreciated. I do have a couple of suggestions though. I think there are a few vocabulary choices that could be modified to be a bit more neutral. One example that specifically comes to mind it the sentence about the feeding tube. I will try and work through the article and make some minor changes of this sort and people can let me know what they think. My other more major concern is the long quote from the Crown evidence. This should be balanced by submissions put forward by the Defence. I realize that the bulk of their arguments are spread about the article, but it does seem to be non-neutral to have the quote in quite the way it is presented. I might be inclined to get rid of the quote and simply summarize the major arguments of both sides. But like I said, you have made a great start and a massive improvement on the other version. Thanks! Slp1 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article MUST be neutral as per wikipedia guidelines, as Phred07 mentions "appeal to Latimer supporters" it should not appeal to anyone in particular, but be factual and neutral. I'm sorry I haven't had time to make any significant contributions. Although I am aware of the case, I am not familiar with every detail, so at this point can only offer input from my NPOV and language and usage etc.

I think the original conviction date should be presented. It provides the reader with a start point for the time line (other the murder itself). Rosemary's rewrite is a good improvement, I agree. I have no views one way or the other on Latimer's action.

Tintina 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the original conviction date needs to be in the intro, especially since that trial's decision was overturned and a new trial ordered because the first trial had some flagrant abuses of process. BTW, Tintina, it is good to avoid using tabs or spaces at the beginning of lines, since it makes strange boxes on the pages if you do. If you want to indent then a colon does the job. I also like the asterisk which gives a pleasing box;) Slp1 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Slp1 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not even clear to me what should be considered the conviction date: the first conviction, the second conviction, after the appeals, ? So I agree with Slp1 that we don't need a conviction date in the intro. Rosemary Amey

As it stands now there is no reference point as to date. It doesn't matter that the original conviction was overturned. 1994 is in fact the date that he was convicted of murder and everything happened as of that date and as a result of THAT conviction. It's subsequent to the conviction of murder in 1994.

I don't think the reader wants to sort through dates. I have looked a bit also for incarceration date as that also needs to be specified. These wiki articles aren't dated so everything has to provide an historical context and timeline. I'll try again to find incarceration info and dates. Tintina 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

          READER BEWARE   !     READER BEWARE   !     READER BEWARE   !     READER BEWARE   !     READER BEWARE   !

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

THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS BY THE AUTHORS ...... THE TRUE FACTS OF THIS CASE HAVE BEEN DISTORTED AND SUPPRESSED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO MAKE THEIR MALICIOUS CASE AGAINST ROBERT LATIMER...... ALL ATTEMPTS TO CORRECT THIS HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY DELETED AND REPLACED WITH DECEPTIVE MISINFORMATION...... TO MORE FULLY APPRECIATE THE EXTENT OF THE EXCRUCIATING, INCURABLE AND ALMOST UNRELENTING PAIN WHICH TRACY LATIMER WAS ACTUALLY SUFFERING IT IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED THAT READERS REFER TO THE DOCUMENTED MEDICAL EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS AND DECISIONS WHICH ARE LISTED AT .............................. www.RobertLatimer.net ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... S. T. Webb 00:49, 19 February 2007

I find that the above comments and their style are in violation of talkpage guidelines. All caps are not considered polite. Assuming good faith of other editors is an important tenet of this project and will make reaching consensus on this article much easier --Slp1 02:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr/Ms Webb, Please do not edit talkpage comments (even your own talkpage comments). This too is against talkpage guidelines. Please see that page to check why your recent contributions (capital letters, later edits, even the content) are in violation of WP guidelines and why they have been reverted. --Slp1 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

TO SLPL: Just to set the record straight,the majority of my contributions were not deleted because they were in violation of WP guidelines. Practically all of my contributions which were deleted were direct quotes from the court transcripts, including the sworn medical testimony provided by the orthopedic surgeon who was performing all the many and extremely painful surgeries on Tracy, plus the published lower court and Supreme Court decisions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by S.T. Webb (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 March 2007

Mr/Ms Webb, You will be glad to know that your opinions regarding your contributions have been very easy to understand and have needed no clarification! My comments about WP guidelines were related to your breaches of WP talkpage guidelines, specifically the content and style of your recent additions to this page, though I note the greatly improved civility of your last message. But for your information (and that of other editors) my understanding of the past history of this article is that some of your contributions were deleted because they were not reliably sourced e.g. "life imprisonment for a mercy killing". In addition, another WP policy is neutral point of view and that has proved challenging given your admitted POV on this matter. There is always the possibillity of change to the article. I suggest you follow the suggestions made by Sancho McCann (an outside voice) on your old page at S. T. Webb --Slp1 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.