Talk:Henry Morgentaler

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Ontario / Quebec / Toronto / Montreal Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Montreal (assessed as Mid-importance).

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Picture

I think the picture featuring Jack Layton is misleading. While Mr. Layton and the NDP are strong advocates for Women's rights in Canada, I fail to see why the party's leader needs to be included on the page. I'm quite confident other political leaders have had their photos taken with Dr. Morgentaler as well. But perhaps other political leaders would not welcome being in a picture with him on Wikipedia, linking themselves to this character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.166.142 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NDP is the only party that has been consistently and publicly pro-choice instead of waffling and sidestepping. Jack Layton, the party leader pictured, used to attend clinic defences to protect the Morgentaler clinics from crowds physically trying to shut them down. Morgentaler attended his funeral. He deserves to be there. Monado (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Layton protected him eh? Was that when what he was doing was still illegal?

"Worst Canadian" poll

Are the results of online polls of the general public considered encyclopedic? I'm not sure that the "worst Canadians" poll deserves a mention in the article, because the magazine that ran the poll even admits that the results are unscientific. These things are so easily skewed that they are really meaningless. I think that mention of the poll should be deleted altogether. Any thoughts? Dawn bard 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, information must be sourced. just look at the top box. To be removed.

I won't grieve if this "worst of" thing remains deleted, but it was sourced --twice, in fact. Shawn in Montreal 18:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps sourcing is not the right term to use, but reliable source would be. If the publisher doesn't feel the results are valid, then they do not belong here. statsone 05:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Shawn in Montreal 14:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information was properly sourced, using a valid source - CTVNEWS. The publisher never said that the poll results weren't valid, only unscientific. The results don't have to meet the standards of what natural science would consider scientific in order to be valid - FYI I am a PhD student at UofT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.157.251 (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your appeal to your own credentials as a source of authority in this context is not necessary to the discussion at hand. Moreover, the inclusion of this trivial bit of information might be useful in the context of rebuilding the historical zeitgeist, but this is not the intention of it's inclusion. Perhaps with a more detailed description of the times which might accompany a historical analysis, this trivia could become useful, but this article is far too succinct to achieve this goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.163.49 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gynecologist and abortionist

According to his biographers, Morgentaler's practice was as a family physician before he began performing abortions. I am unaware of any evidence that he ever had any specialized training in gynecology. The mere fact that someone performs abortions, even if that person is a medical doctor, does not make him a gynecologist. In any case Morgentaler does not claim to be a gynecologist on his clinic's website.

Morgentaler is not a gynecologist but he has invented improved -- meaning safer -- abortion techniques such as vacuum curettage. Monado (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for "abortionist" there are those who view it as a POV term. As such "gynecologist" and "abortionist" should be avoided. — ABCXYZ (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An abortionist is someone like Frank Sinatra's mother, "Hatpin Mary," not a medical practitioner. Monado (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict on when abortion restrictions invalidated

One paragraph ends "This ruling essentially ended all statutory restrictions on abortion in Canada," as of 1988. Yet the next paragraph has him 5 years later winning against provincial abortion regulations. Apparently the sentence quoted is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian law against abortion was voided, but provincial regulations around abortion, if they didn't implement the TAC policy, were still good, and they assumed that abortions took place in hospitals. Thus Morgentaler had endless insurance battles trying to persuade provincial governments that a clinic was equivalent to a hospital and abortions in clinics should be included under insured services. Some provinces banned non-hospital abortions to block Morgentaler. So you see there was lots to do! It became easier after 1995, when abortion was added to the list of essential medical services in the Canada Health Act, the overarching medical law for Canada. Monado (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Canada

The doctor was named to the Order of Canada, one of the country's highest honors. The announcement was made July 1 but actually took effect the previous April according to the news story though the actual ceremony is to be held at a later, unnamed date. The newspaper reported some disagreement with the award. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080701/morgentaler_order_080701/20080701?hub=Canada&s_name= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not mention the previous April, anywhere I can see. ??? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Henwood, a writing consultant and freelance writer in Halifax, wrote an Opinion piece for The Chronicle-Herald (July 16, 2008). In it, she notes that, as a McGill University ethicist, Margaret Somerville has spoken against same-sex marriage. Henwood also notes that Margaret Somerville's nomination to the Order of Canada two years ago was declined. Henwood notes that, according to the Montreal Gazette, "she was deemed too 'controversial' to receive an Order of Canada medal." Do you think Morgentaler may be controversial? I wonder if there is any liberal bias here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.166.142 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid revision 233734778 by TRuthsVictory (talk) simply because it's irrelevant to Morgentaler article the controversy is already stated there, to go deeper it would better to go for a dedicated article about his nomination to the Order of Canada. --Michaudjp (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The results of a major opinion poll are not "irrelevant" (particularly when the opinions of individual politicians are already cited in the article). If (and I do not expect that this will ever happen) this section gets excessively large, then it would be appropriate to have a dedicated article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a stronger and way more serious poll on the subject. --Michaudjp (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the paragraph and hope it's sufficient. Personally, I think the CLC poll is probably biased, though blogs aren't the most reliable of sources to argue this. I think that the sources of the polls (i.e., CLC versus Ipsos-Reid) will speak for themselves and, as written, readers will know that the latter is more reliable. justinfr (talk)

Can we clearly call this poll unreliable in regards of Wikipedia standards? The KLRVU main phone number ((204) 999-7446) is pointing to a cell phone and the address to residential house. The most interesting facts found about this supposedly serious firm are here. I'll wait for more inputs from user but clearly this fake poll should be removed on next week. --Michaudjp (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough for me. I'll edit my paragraph and remove the reference. justinfr (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a reference for which level of Order of Canada Morgentaler received? Companion, the highest, would seem appropriate since it's for people whose contributions are of national significance, but he's not on Wikipedia's list of recipients. Member, the lowest, is for people with significant local or regional contributions or in a particular field. Again, Companion seems more appropriate since his service is to all women or all families and not just, say, trout farmers or lacrosse fans. Officer, the middle level," is for an "outstanding level of talent and service to Canadians." It's possible a deserved Companion or Officer was downgraded to Member because he's controversial. Does anyone know? Monado (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Never mind! I found it in the attached list, for which I created a legible link. I added "Member of" to the description. Monado (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life/pro-choice wording

How can the term 'pro-choice' be acceptable but the term 'pro-life' is not? This double standard in unacceptable and does not belong on wikipedia. I can think of ways that both can be considered POV terms. They are either both in...or both out!24.37.126.33 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In Abortion, which as the main article is probably the most definitive source for Wikipedia's NPOV stance on abortion, the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are both used to describe the groups, rather than the terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." Therefore, I think we should use the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" in this article. It follows set precedent. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per Rising from ashes. They seem to be the most NPOV terms available. justinfr (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we then change all 'anti-abortion' to 'pro-life', considering the term 'pro-choice' is already there on the article?24.37.126.33 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life is not an NPOV term since a) it's inaccurate - there are many supporters of abortion rights who also favour "life" b) it implies that opponents are pro-death or anti-life.

The term pro-abortion is inaccurate since many people favour a woman's right to choose without personally favouring abortion. "Abortion rights advocates" would be more precise than "pro-abortion" if people want an alternative to "pro-choice". 142.204.16.10 (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Pro-choice' can just as well be considered inherently inaccurate, as the baby is not given a choice as to whether it can be born or not. I am not debating the issue of abortion, but rather the point-of-view of certain people. Needless to say, there ARE groups out there that are considered 'Pro-life' and others 'Pro-choice'. We can't have a double standard here, the language used must be fair and accurate.24.37.126.33 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then use "abortion rights advocates" because if you want the language to be accurate this is more accurate than "pro-abortion".142.204.16.10 (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in favour of using the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' until you protested. It's not a question of what I want, but rather what should be considered as language that is reasonable, accurate and fair. FYI, 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are frequently used lingo in the abortion debate.24.37.126.33 (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That something is frequently used doesn't mean it's reasonable, accurate or fair. Anyway, to back up my argument about NPOV usage see this Washington Post article which, aside from the proper names of organizations, refers to "antiabortion" and "abortion rights" groups. 142.204.16.10 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here the Globe and Mail also refers to "abortion-rights activist" and "Anti-abortion activists", not "pro-abortion" or "pro-life". 142.204.16.10 (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you bring this up before instead of simply undoing all my edits to make the language fair, leaving instead an article that lacked the fairness and accuracy it deserves?24.37.126.33 (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you kept inserting POV phrases like "pro-abortion" and "pro-life". I also brought up "abortion rights" earlier in this thread and you ignored it. Anyway, I take it that you now agree "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" are the most NPOV phrases? 142.204.16.10 (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents: I have to agree with anon. 142.204.16.10; terms that are frequently used in the mass media are not always correct or without bias. --G2bambino (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the terms that are to be used should be fair, consistent and reasonable. If we're going to use 'pro-choice', then we also use 'pro-life'. Conversely, if we use 'anti-abortion activists', we should use 'abortion rights activists'. I never suggested anything to the contrary. I had a problem with the term 'pro-choice' being used while 'pro-life' was considered unacceptable.24.37.126.33 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the self-descriptive term, not those used by opponents, hence "pro-life" and "pro-choice". We should not care about implications because these problems are part and parcel of the matter. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your previous edits because the consensus here seemed to be "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights", as per comments by 142.204.16.10 and G2bambino. If we're re-opening the issue, I actually agree with Str1977 that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" seem to be the most NPOV, if only because those are the labels the groups use to describe themselves. I've searched in vain for an applicable WP policy, so if anybody knows of a relevant discussion I'd love to see it. justinfr (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is at least the solution that was applied in the Abortion article, at least when I last looked. In the above I do not see any clear consensus either way. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, maybe, "The last comment suggested those terms and nobody objected," would be a better summary :) I agree, that's what Abortion uses, so it's probably a good idea here too. I note that one thing on the todo list of Project Abortion is to come up with clear terms to use, which means it's not yet done, I assume. justinfr (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the wording "for the right of women to obtain the procedure." is POV, suggesting the correctness of such a fight (i.e. that such a right exists) and uses the onfuscating term "the procedure". Str1977 ^(talk) 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that phrase is fairly neutral, but I would certainly compromise if it's perceived as otherwise. However, I think the current wording is definitely too vague. (That is, he's fought numerous legal battles? About what?) What about, "He is a prominent pro-choice advocate and has fought numerous legal battles so that women can obtain legal abortions." That doesn't imply a right, but rather addresses the legality of the act. Thoughts? justinfr (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the procedure" is certainly not neutral. Using euphemisms or unclear wording in regard to abortion is is one of the areas of contention.

Also, you can only fight for something that exists.

Re the vagueness: one of course could argue that he has fought legal battles about a lot of things, including his own criminal acts (notwithstanding anyone's views, the criminality of the act was a fact at the time), but I am open to any suggestions that avoid slanting the intro. I will give it another try myself.

Finally, I do not understand how you could write your penultimate posting ("that's what Abortion uses, so it's probably a good idea here too") and simply revert at the same time. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was focused on reverting some vandalism and just wasn't thinking. Apologies... Also, "that cause" is great. Good choice. justinfr (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - "you can only fight for something that exists." The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the 1969 abortion law violated Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Henry Morgentaler fought in good faith for a right he believed existed: a woman's right to have an abortion and to control her own body and protect her own health. And it turned out that he was correct, because when he was able to bring that point before the Supreme Court, they agreed with him. Even if someone couldn't fight in good faith for a right he believed exists, history has caught up with Dr. Morgentaler. Consequently, talking about a women's right to have an abortion is neutral point of view and agrees with the facts of Canadian law. Monado (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, "pro-abortion" is not accurate because no one advocates for making women have abortions nor persuading them to have abortions. The struggle is to ensure that if women want or need abortions, they will be able to get them safely; hence, pro-choice. "Anti-abortion" is accurate because there are organizations, prominently the Roman Catholic Church, that act to make abortion illegal and to prevent women from getting abortions, even if their life is at stake (See Abortion in Nicaragua or today's news story, "Teenage girl can't get cancer treatment because of anti-abortion laws". So the term "pro-life" is not accurate. We could call them "the right to life of every fertilized egg even if it kills the mother" and the "right to legal abortion as the lesser of two unpalatable choices" groups. Monado (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logic behind Morgentaler

In a program on Vision’s own in-house programme, “Credo”Dr. Morgentaler talks about his family’s experiences in the Holocaust, and speaks on his beliefs about the abortion business and advocacy.

In this program he states, or suggests that he saw the Hollocaust first hand, and what damages could be done by 'an unwanted child' i assume in reference to Hitler, so that it was now his mission in life to ensure that 'unwanted' children not be born, to save humanity from another 'hollocuast.'

Vision TV "Credo" episode.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your intent is in posting this. In any case it's unclear which of these quotes you're attributing directly to Morgentaler and which you're inferring from his words. Please note that nothing based purely on your own interpretation of Morgentaler's meaning can be put into the article. --Saforrest (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there's nothing in that link describing the actual program content, so we have only your summary of it. Lifesitenews is hardly NPOV. justinfr (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I have some time, I will look up the transcript of the interview. (as a past recording secretary I am quite certain of his words...but I would like to make certain)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

- Again to restate the words I noted were not my interpretation of his words, but his words !

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Returned medals

We're up to four people who have returned their Order of Canada medals in protest of the Morgentaler appointment. I would hope that section of the article doesn't just turn into a list. As a solution, if there are more people, I propose that we only include people notable enough to have their own WP article. Thoughts? justinfr (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In the event the list grows to more than what we currently have now, listing only those who are most relevent would be a good idea. I think turning the section into a list would not be a good idea as it would probably then need to be in its own section.24.37.126.33 (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up the names of the ones returning medals in the official Governor General Order of Canada records (http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/index_e.asp?TypeID=orc), Gilbert Finn, Lucien Larré and Frank Chauvin are still members of the Order of Canada. Furthermore, Catherine Doherty was a member of the Order of Canada and membership to the Order is not inheritable; as such, the Madonna House Apostolate cannot "return" its membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.61.2 (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Halifax opinion piece

142.163.166.142 (talk) has been adding a paragraph from a Halifax editorial that, in my opinion, doesn't add anything to the article. It is already obvious that his Order of Canada appointment was controversial without needing to belabour the point. I don't want to get in trouble with WP:3RR but if anybody else feels the same way, please feel free to take over. The anon IP also added the paragraph to Margaret Somerville, which seems a much more appropriate place for it. I tried discussing this on the IP's talk page to no avail. justinfr (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just learning how this system works. I agree with removing my post on the article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.166.142 (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, everybody is new once :) Again, I'll just restate that it's already been made clear that the appointment was controversial. A freelance writer stating that in an editorial opinion doesn't add to the article. justinfr (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that although numerous editorials may be written on the man, they don't necessarily merit inclusion, even if published by a mainstream newspaper.Bless sins (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. This one merits inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoe anon (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johndoe anon, please refrain from making unconstructive edits such as this one and this one. Vandalism tends to make your talk page arguments less credible. justinfr (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP dispute

I've placed a BLP dispute tag until such time as statements about him lying about medical studies in Europe are either a) referenced or b) removed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done The links referenced said nothing about medical studies, unless the sister-in-law's book does, but since "Book says not a single thing about HM's medical studies" is not exactly proof, I've taken out the references to studies in Europe (and Bono Weiner's life in Australia). I've added the one concrete thing that Chava actually said about HM in Lodz, which is that he was afraid to go to school because Polish Christians used to throw stones at him. Monado (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up Drapeau cartoon example

{{editsemiprotected}}

In "Media and cultural representations", it currently says

A famous Montreal Gazette editorial cartoon by Terry Mosher lampooned Montreal Mayor Jean Drapeau's proclamation that the debt-ridden 1976 Summer Olympics could no more have a deficit "than a man can have a baby."[32] In the cartoon, an apparently pregnant Drapeau is shown placing a telephone call to Morgentaler.

I think the following makes the order of events clearer: first the prediction, then the olympics, then the cartoon.

A famous Montreal Gazette editorial cartoon by Terry Mosher lampooned Montreal Mayor Jean Drapeau's infamous prediction that "the Olympics can no more have a deficit than a man can have a baby".[32] After the financially disastrous 1976 Summer Olympics, a pregnant Drapeau is shown placing a telephone call to Morgentaler.

I don't think we need include the weasel word "apparently" before "pregnant" because this is a fictional cartoon world; it it he is pregnant, and obviously having regrets. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. The source had a slightly different quote, so I adjusted your text to match. Celestra (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry's and Abraham's immigration adventures

As fascinating as the minutiae of Henry's brother's movements, residences, and statements to U.S. immigration might be, I don't see how they are relevant to Dr. Morgentaler's biography, especially as they seem to be original research referencing individual Red Cross reports. Does anyone else have an opinion? Monado (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards - reasons for

We should try to get the citations for these awards: Humanist of the Year, UWO Doctor of Law honourary degree, and Canadian Labour Congress Award for for Outstanding Service to Humanity. It's vexing to read, "He got an award in X year from Y people without finding out why they thought he deserved it. Monado (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of HM at Layton funeral

I have a picture, of Henry Morgentaler attending Jack Layton's funeral, which is a photograph of a television showing the CBC live broadcast. If he was mentioned in the voice-over commentary, I missed it; and I don't know of a public guest list. I'd like to include it as documentation that he was there, honouring someone who supported him. CBC would hold the copyright of the original broadcast, but the photo credits them -- their logo, etc. are included. However, there are other people in the photo. A "screenshot" of a TV broadcast can be acceptable under fair usage laws. It's fairly low resolution, only 430 x 323. You can see tie image itself by following the link. Can this qualify for fair usage? Monado (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morgentaler.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Morgentaler.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright?

I took the photograph but it's of a CBC broadcast, so I think it's copyright Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. My fair use rationale is that it's a record of Morgentaler's honouring Jack Layton by attending the funeral of his long-time supporter. Is that acceptable? Where do I put it? Is it OK to re-upload the picture? If not, is it acceptable to link to it as a Flickr image? —Monado (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference template

As the References section now has more than 60 in-line citations to respectable sources, I've removed the "needs refs" template. If this is inappropriate, feel free to add it back. —Monado (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glorified

The career section contains a glorifying view of Henry Morgentaler's abortions. Added template — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.230.100 (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Comments like " After learning of the many women desperately wanting to abort their pregnancies" in the lead seriously detract from the neutrality of the article. The entire article should be edited for NPOV. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am happy with the introduction now as long as it is clear that "unjust law placing burdensome restrictions" is Morgentaler's assessment rather than ours. We might mention his involvement in Canada no longer allowing an appeals court to reverse a jury acquittal without ordering a new trial and we might mention the violence and death threats, but I have a preference for bite-sized leads. The rest of the article still needs the NPOV comb; better focus on the actual subject of this biography should help a lot of it - I can take a stab in a few hours. FiveColourMap (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

I have removed this link to http://chavarosenfarb.com/photos Photos of Chava Rosenfarb and her family, including the Morgentalers, with captions family photos which does not mention Morgantaler by name and which cannot serve as a reliable source for the material cited. It may be a relevant external link if it can be verified. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Henry Morgentaler. 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 to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Henry Morgentaler. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090605152812/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/montreal/story/2009/06/01/order-of-canada001.html? to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/06/01/order-of-canada001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry Morgentaler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020110719/http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II to http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/06/01/order-of-canada001.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry Morgentaler. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Henry Morgentaler. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Henry Morgentaler. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Morgentaler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170729005006/https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/05/31/remembering_dr_henry_morgentaler_a_difficult_hero.html to https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/05/31/remembering_dr_henry_morgentaler_a_difficult_hero.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating required

Dr. Morgentaler died many years ago. There is no mention of this. Moreover, the article is written in the present tense, as if he were still alive. An editor, and perhaps the original author, need to update and revise the biography. Gwelfman (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also the date of his death is listed as one particular date at the top of this page and as a different date at the bottom of the “Life” section. 2001:569:7C25:B900:6881:7F1E:A84D:B5CA (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I believe I was mistaken, in that the death date for Chava (his spouse) seems to be different in these sections. 2001:569:7C25:B900:6881:7F1E:A84D:B5CA (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]