Talk:George Tiller/Archive 2

Untitled
Archive: Talk:George Tiller/Archive 1

Death
I removed the "Response" sub-section from the "Murder" section and changed that to "Death". People, let's keep a cool head here. Most of us (at least myself) see this as a great tragedy. But we must work to keep clear POV out, as well as sections that are really a memorial. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Cool heads, folks! Also, can an Admin semi-protect this article from IP edits? This article is going to become a target in the coming days. Proxy User (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I created the "Reponse" section. Clearly, this should not become a memorial--but some comments, such as those by the president, do seem notable and imporant. It would be unfortunate to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  I am not going to reinsert, but I'd ask that others think about this carefully, so we can reach a consensus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.113.180 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SEMI "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users." Favortie (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely this was an example of "murder" - unless you want to call it "assasination" - are there any substantial grounds to dispute the notion that Dr. Tiller was indeed murdered. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * salim, the term "murdered" should be held off until the research has been done into the motive...if the reason for his killing was self defense of those innocent children that he was going to soon kill then the term itself is not so obvious to use. don't get me wrong, I am against all extremes such as unnecissary violence (and even more against this case since it was in church), but Dr. Tiller has murdered enough himself...nealmc 75.89.33.198 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although no trial has yet taken place, 'murder' is the appropriate word to use in this context. George Tiller was intentionally killed, in a way that is self-evidently unlawful under the law of the United States. Even if no one is ever convicted for his killing, it would still undoubtedly be murder. Robofish (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed he was murdered. But the section is about his death. That he was murdered is a detail of his death. "Death" is the proper heading because he died. His death was the result of murder. Proxy User (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd go further and say that - at this point - we can't even say he was murdered (even if we believe it was murder). Right now there's a murder suspect, but it's possible (even if unlikely) that the suspect will be found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. When and if a guilty (or murder) verdict is returned, then the section can be titled "murder". Until then it's WP:POV. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse the vulgarity, but that is utter bullshit. One need not have a person convicted of a crime in order for that crime to be murder.  He was intentionally killed.  That is murder.  The only way it could not be murder would be if the killing was somehow justified because of exigent circumstances.  Specifically, in order to prevent the imminent demise of another human.  Doctor Tiller was in his church, attending worship services.  He wasn't endangering any other humans.  Ergo, his killing was murder.  The political aspect, in fact, makes this not just a murder but an assassination.  The murder suspect, it turns out, made statements that Tiller would be his personal target.  So do not try and blow smoke up our collective bums and say it might not be a murder.  It was a murder.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.55.0 (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The suspect could be found guilty of manslaughter. Hell, the suspect could be found to be innocent. Regardless, at this point murder hasn't be proven in court. When/if it is, then describe it as murder. Until then, murder is just a WP:POV. One I share, incidentally, but my views - and your views - shouldn't influence the article. And please try and moderate your language. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but once again that is bullshit. The intentional, unlawful killing of a human being is murder, regardless of whether the suspect is found innocent.  The crime isn't defined by the result of a trial, but by the circumstances of the crime.  If I am stolen from, and the primary suspect is acquited, it doesn't change the fact that I was stolen from.  Neither does a murdered man somehow become "unmurdered" if the primary suspect is acquitted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.55.0 (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Do you know - can you cite - at this point that it was definitely intentional? Do you know that the person who did it was of sound mind, for example? Do you know that the person who did it acted with malice aforethought? If the current suspect is found guilty of manslaughter, rather than murder - what then? Clearly the victim can't go from being murdered to being "unmurdered" - hence my reluctance to state "murder" at this point. Murder is a WP:POV at this stage - your POV, clearly, mine too, but a POV all the same. At this stage we can't say with certainty that an intentional killing has occurred - all we can say is that a killing has occurred. Incidentally, it's possible to engage in a debate without suggesting that your opponents are spouting "bullshit" or "blowing smoke up your arse". There's a reason I'm saying this, and it isn't to confuse or befuddle the ignorant masses. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 02:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the source or verification that the shooting was "anti-abortion violence?" The circumstances would indicate it's likely, but has the alleged shooter made a public statement? Until the motive is clearly stated then reference should be deleted.  According to Wikipedia guidelines: "Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it." Edokin (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)edokin


 * What are you referring to? If you're referring to the 1993 case, then calling the perpetrator an alleged shooter is no longer necessary or appropriate because the shooter was convincted with no apparent remaining dispute that the person convincited was the shooter. I'm not aware if the shooter has specifically stated they they did it because of their opposition to abortions although it seem possible perhaps even likely since "she testified that there was nothing immoral about trying to kill Tiller". But it doesn't matter if the shooter has never stated the precise reason if the vast majority reliable sources agree that it was anti abortion violence and there's no substanial dispute on that point. If you referring to the category or the see also, then these are should be there because of the 1993 case (and other cases) regardless of the reasons for the killing (don't tell me that you think someone who has been shot in both arms due to their performing abortions is not the victim of anti abortion related violence). We do not (currently or the version that I presume was there when you made your comment ) call the killing anti abortion violence except perhaps in describing the opinions of some notable commentators Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason for the section in question not to be entitled "Assassination." -- Fifty7 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, that is an accurate description and an appropriate word to use for the title. Whatever404 (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the editors who point out that it's inappropriate to use "assassination" or "murder" at least until someone has been convicted of the crime and their motives have been established. Documentability, verifiability, etc. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm one of them (although I personally think it was murder, and I'd be highly surprised if the suspect was found not guilty). However - I'm agitating for the relevant sections to refer to "Killing" rather than "Death". To my mind, "death" - while accurate - makes it sound like he could have been hit by a bus. "Killing" reinforces the point that he was killed, whether accidentally (aye, right!) or deliberately. It's accurate, but neutral. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings as to the exact wording although I lean toward the less sensational terms. I think though we need to give future readers a little credit.  The section could be titled Death, Brutal Slaying or Passing Away and it doesn't change what the text below says.  Any reader is going to see that he was shot in the head at point blank range.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the term "killing" here. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can think of a reason to entitle it something other than 'Assassination' - that being that it would be more appropriately named 'Terrorism.' I'm a pro-lifer, but that includes this doctor's life too.  This was a terrorist attack, and I resent that my religion is being used as an excuse for it.  Subjugator (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why "citation needed" was added recently to the phrase "anti-abortion violence." Regardless of strong differing opinions, this is a factual statement. johnpdeever —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

In reading this article I realized that the intro section, while mentioning he was "shot and killed" links to another article, but it does not make it clear that it was (allegedly) by a different person than had previously shot him (Shelley Shannon)  As Shelley was given an 11 year sentence in 1993, it's conceivable even without parole that it could have been her. The text alone (without the citations) reads as if it's the same person, but I can't think of a good way to clarify it in the summary. Note I'm not debating guilt or innocence or death/murder/assassination, nor implying Shelley else shot him, just pointing out the way the article reads and the implication of no name being mentioned after a name being mentioned in a previous shooting. This should be clear without having to jump to another article. Gushi (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrible lead
He "was a physician specializing in women's healthcare in Wichita, Kansas in the United States. He was the medical director of an abortion clinic in Wichita, Women's Health Care Services, one of only three nationwide which would provide these controversial procedures."

This gives the impression that he ran one of only three abortion clinics in the country. Surely it's meant to refer to certain late-term abortions specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.155.96 (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're correct, and that's what it used to say before someone POV sanitized it. I have returned the original wording. Proxy User (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This lead as it stands ("was a physician specializing in women's healthcare in Wichita, Kansas in the United States. He was the medical director of an abortion clinic in Wichita, Women's Health Care Services, one of only three nationwide which would provide these controversial procedures.") seems POV. Shouldn't it reflect that he was killed. Whether it was "murder" or not seems to be more of an issue with the alleged killer. This was indeed murder as far as the victim is concerned, according to verifiable sources.lyonspen | (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Specialization
It's been switched back and forth a couple of times now, but the line in the lede about Tiller specializing in women's healthcare is being changed to specializing in abortion. I've reverted the change, my reasoning is that physicians don't generally specialize in abortion. They specialize in health care, the abortion matter and his involvment with the clinic are covered in great detail in the next sentence and the rest of the article. It seems that saying he specialized in abortion is oversimplification of his history. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You say "physicians don't generally specialize in abortion. They specialize in health care". In this case you are incorrect. Dr. Tiller specifically specialized in "late-term" abortions which is a leagl medical procedure. For example, from the article: "Tiller's father had performed abortions at his practice. After hearing about a woman that had died from an illegal abortion, Dr. Tiller stayed in Wichita to continue his father's practice". Discuss changes like this before you make the change. Review WP:OWN Proxy User (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, one specializes in a discipline, such as obstetrics, gynecology, cardiology, or what have you. Though his clinic is notable for performing late-term abortions, abortions are not the only thing such a clinic does.  In my opinion, calling him an "abortion doctor" of an "abortion clinic" is an example of using loaded language. Liberal Classic (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We are not "Generally speaking" here. Dr. Tiller, by his own biography, specifically specialized in "late-term" abortions. Fact. Proxy User (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Late-term abortion" is not a specialty. Your quote as proof, "Tiller's father had performed abortions at his practice. After hearing about a woman that had died from an illegal abortion, Dr. Tiller stayed in Wichita to continue his father's practice" doesn't show that he specializes in late-term abortions but that it is simply one thing he does. He does abortions that are not late-term, and as other clinical duties. Here: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/doctors/doctors-and-physicians-by-specialty.htm is a list of specialties, you will notice "late-term abortion" or even "abortion" is not a specialty. Avalik (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiller was a physician. His encyclopedia entry should say so, without using loaded language. If he had board-certified specialization, it would have been OB/GYN. Liberal Classic (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ProxyUser, I've left a warning on your page and I'll repeat it here, you're at 3RR right now. Please don't edit war. Simply because a doctor performs abortions doesn't make that his specialty. Furthermore, saying things like "fact" don't really help you gain consensus,here. Please discuss in good faith. Dayewalker (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted. The material that PU wishes to include is unsourced, and, as the current consensus is against them, I've reverted.  PU, if you wish to have it your way, gain consensus, then you can change it.  Not before, that is not the way it works.  As I said before, this addition is unsourced, so I have reverted it, not to mention the MOS violation of loaded text.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How is he described by reliable sources?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For example, he is described in the LA Times as a "abortion doctor" and a "late-term abortion provider."-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that describing him in those terms is equal to saying that was his medical specialty. As an example, Jack Kervorkian is still listed as a former pathologist even though he's far more famous for his involvement in assisted suicide. Dayewalker (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Time magazine says Tiller was a "specialist in late-term [abortion] procedures." ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  08:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Tiller's clinic described its services as "Late abortion care" and per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:Wikipedia is not censored (which specifies that WP "may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive"), I've restored the "specialism" field as "late abortion care," appending the primary source of Tiller's website along with the 2ndarty source of the Time magazine piece above. ↜Just M &thinsp;E  here&#8202;,&#8202;now  16:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrt "profession" field

 * I've "{/{fact}/}"-tagged the infobox's "profession" field's designation "gynecologist." ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  17:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. spelling style.

Infobox shows "Profession Gynaecology". Article is about a USA-based topic, and therefore should use US spelling "Gynecology". (WP:STYLE: WP:ENGVAR) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC) -- WOULD PREFER THAT PEOPLE NOT "CONSOLIDATE" MY POSTS REQUESTING LEGITIMATE STYLE FIXES IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY GET "LOST". (My all caps.) Thanks. -- Anybody care to make that style fix I mentioned? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * undefined ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A surgeon? Ob-Gyn? Family Practioner? If not certified in any specialty, Tiller was by default a General Practitioner, yet, there are skads of 2ndary sources showing Tiller to have been the US's premiere surgeon in a subset of Ob-Gyn, an area in which he perhaps even published about his expertise/research, even if he lacked calligraphed and sealed parchment scripts that said either surgeon or obstetrics and gynecology on his wall. As for Tiller's self-styling, due counseling/years of experience caring for the families of those seeking abortions, he apparentnly generically labeled himself an (un-board certified) family practitioner. Which appelation/s is/are most encyclopedic? ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: there's no doubt the certification from Tiller's Naval Aero-Space Medical Institute Flight Surgeon Course. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Spelling: There is one problem with the request for Gynecology. The Wikipedia article is Gynaecology. If you don't like the spelling of the article, discuss it there. Until (or unless) the article is changed, this article should follow the standard set in the article in question. Dems on the move (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you could pipe-link the profession:  ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What would be the point? --Dems on the move (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we'd have the US spelling here, and we'd be linking to the correct article without any redirect. The alternatives are to either use the Commonwealth-English spelling (suits me, but fails WP:ENGVAR) or use the US spelling without a pipelink, as it was before (fine, although in general it's better to avoid redirects). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:ENGVAR, "No variety is more correct than another". To me this indicates that whatever the article uses, is what should be used. But I really don't care to fight or argue over this silly thing. Dems on the move (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, yes. The salient part of WP:ENGVAR here, though would be "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation". My point is that we can spell "gynaecology" however editors here choose; there's no need to feel constrained simply because the article spells it differently. My preference is for the Commonwealth English spelling, but I suspect I'd lose that argument on the talk page for a strongly US-centred subject ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys! There is no need to "fix" links to redirects that are not broken!  Gynecology </tt> is just fine, really! Tim Pierce (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 1963 - 1967 University of Kansas School of Medicine 1967 - 1968 Internship U.S. Naval Hospital - Camp Pendleton, California 1968 - 1969 Naval Aero-Space Medical Institute Flight Surgeon Course 1969 - 1970 U.S. Navy Flight Surgeon - Oakland, California 1970 - present Private Practice/Family Medicine - Wichita, Kansas 1975 - present Director/Owner Women’s Health Care - Wichita, Kansas 1980 - 1991 Team Physicians, Wichita Wings, Major Indoor Soccer League 1987 - 1990 Medical Director, Women’s Alcoholism Treatment Services - Sedgwick County Health Department - Wichita, Kansas -- indicates no certification in Ob-Gyn despite his universally recognized expertise in still-births/intrauterine feticidal surgery.) ↜Just M &thinsp;E  here&#8202;,&#8202;now  17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Family Practitioner. Due Dr. Tiller's multiple decades of experience in the area he had been designated "Diplomat of the American Board of Family Practice Physicians," so it could reasonably be claimed, despite his lack of an official residency/board-certificatation therein, that he had been literally grandfathered in as a recongnized Family Pratitioner. Comments?
 * 2) Per WP:NOR, WP:RS we're required to follow wherever the sources lead us, so I'm reattaching the {/fact/} tag to Gynecology until we reach a consensus about the most appropriate appelation(s) here on the talk page. (Eg please note that Tiller's C.V.:
 * I am inclined to agree with this. Even the militantly anti-abortion site dr-tiller.com acknowledges: "Even though he has done little besides abortion for many years, he still considers himself a "family practitioner" continuing in the footsteps of his late father.  He maintains his membership in the American Academy of Family Physicians.  He signs his name George R. Tiller, MD, DABFP."  I suggest changing the "Profession" field to simply "Medicine." Tim Pierce (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I really must request once again that the U.S. spelling be restored. USA vs British spelling is admittedly a trivial issue, but for some reason an irritating one. This article is about a U.S.-related topic. Per WP:ENGVAR we should use U.S. spellings. Therefore, Tiller's profession as shown in the infobox should be spelled as Gynecology (rather than the British spelling "Gynaecology"). As you can see, that links quite nicely to the appropriate article. Please fix. Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Known for
Lets discuss what Tiller was "known for" and what this means. In my understanding "known for" means what the MAIN thing or activity the person in question was "known for" NOT necessarily their cause of death. In some instances their cause of death IS what they were most known for. An example of this would be the non-famous Manson Family victims. However, Dr. Tiller was VERY well known prior to his death, and did many many other things than be murdered. I've watched this be changed several times in the last 10 minutes, including an edit of my own, so I feel this should be discussed and a resolution be reached. Thanks ElphabaKathryn (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO since Dr. Tiller's work as an abortion provider is included in the "specialism" field, "known for" should provide notable info the infobox otherwise would be lacking. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  08:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should this have a Cause of Death line then instead? ElphabaKathryn (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * undefinedMoved info to "death cause" field; thanks, ElphabaKathryn. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  09:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Specialism
Infobox says "Specialism". Specialism??? This is the correct word? Specialization perhaps? Proxy User (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this was used because it's shorter? (Come ta think, words with an "-ation" suffix themselves are as often as nelogistic or more than words with the "-ism" suffix, but I've no clue which of these two is considered suspect usage-wise, if either. (Although I am vaguely aware that the "-wise" suffixe I just used is but informal usage....) Anyway, apparently specialism means "a field of specialization"; so, it can be said, "Otology is a specialism of medicine." In any case, here's a wikilink to → Template:Infobox Medical Person. ↜Just M &thinsp;E  here&#8202;,&#8202;now  22:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also specialty. I'll try to Google and see what fine grade of distinctions are recognized by usage freaks. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  22:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well I did find a quote from The Oxford Illustrated Companion to Medicine (pub. 2001; p. 773) that uses all three synonyms:"Today the great majority of specialists, now admitted to the consulatant ranks, practice within a recognized specialty . Individual specialism necessarily preceded  the emergence of these recognized groups and may now initiate subspecialization. For ambitious young doctors some element of specialization is part of the enterprise culture by which they assert their their individual abilities...."The way the authors use the variant specialism here is to indicate an informal type of specialization that predates recognized specialties (and even goes on to say that even within recognized specialties today there is a process of informal specialization whereby docs demonstate their unique areas of expertise). Maybe these authors make the lexical choice of specialism to imply "an older kind of specializations" -- prior to there being board certifications and the like -- due to the fact that the word specialism itself is sort of more antique than the word specialization(?)

In any case, in the infobox, I think specialism means "specialty, whether board-certified or not"(?) ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  22:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Randall Terry's statement not included in the section "Reactions from pro-life groups and individuals"?
From the article on Randall Terry:

George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder. Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.

Sources: http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8967610531.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053101181.html

I am posting them here, rather than in the article directly, as an act of good faith editing and not pushing a particular point of view. Terry, being the founder of Operation Rescue, is one of the more notable pro-life activists in the U.S. His comments are conspicuous by their absence. If another author believe this statement belongs in the article, I ask they add it to the appropriate section. Liberal Classic (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think these sections are getting bloated. We don't need a quote from every group, especially if the sentiments are similar. We could instead summarize and make things more concise, along the lines of something like: "Pro-life groups such as x, y and z, have condemned the killing and offered sympathy for the family. Group x said 'this', while group y had this to say." Same for the pro-choice section. -Andrew c [talk] 13:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree. Having too many quotes provides an opportunity for soapboxing. On the topic of soapboxing, I'm a little uncomfortable with the section on The O'Reilly Factor. Two of the three sources in this sub-section are from Fox News. Liberal Classic (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also agree (I think - that is, I also don't disagree!) The pro-life and pro-choice quotes are two long, and I found the order odd - I'd have expected pro-choice quotes to come first. Shortening and combining the two (both pro-life and pro-choice groups condemned the attack, with comments ranging from ... ("Pro-Life Group A") to ... ("Pro-Life Org B")) would neatly solve that. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 15:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of trimming some of the quotes and consolidating the sections into one. Liberal Classic (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, thanks! There seem to be two Operation Rescue quotes (one from OR, one from Randall Terry) - could one be cut? (It seems a bit tilted towards the Pro-Life camp, but I'll refrain from editing on the grounds of being partisan towards the Pro-Choice side... I'd hope my biases wouldn't affect my editing, but I'm aware this a contentious issue). Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought about that. I'm aware Terry's statement is controversial, but given Terry's notoriety I felt it should stay.  Terry founded Operation Rescue, but he is no longer at the helm. I felt it was reasonable to retain the statement by the current Operation Rescue, as well.  As for the others, I trimmed the quotes by friends or business partners of Tiller, as well as pro-life organizations from other U.S. states and Canada. Liberal Classic (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries - I'm unfamiliar with Operation Rescue (I'm UK-based), and your argument makes sense. I suppose it's notable that pro-life groups are commenting, so it does kind of make sense to have more comments from that side of the fence. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently made major edits to the structure of Operation Rescue (Kansas) and Operation Save America, moving much of the material at both of the articles to History of Operation Rescue. Statements from Randall Terry (who stepped down from OR-cum-OSA two decades ago) and OSA (headed by Flip Benham) I think are secondary to those from OR West-cum-OR (led by Troy Newman), the Kansas organization which focused most of its efforts on shutting down Tiller's clinic. Whatever404 (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that this section is getting too bloated. How about this edit? One quote from OR_(Kansas), one from Terry, one from Kansan's for Life, one from the NRLC, one from NOW, and BO. I feel this edit covers the bases well enough from prominent national organizations, as well as local ones.  If you don't like this edit, feel free to revert it. Liberal Classic (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Terry's words should be included. See also Army of God who calls the murderer "an American Hero". It's inaccurate to only post quotes from people who think killing him was bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.210.150 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In case there's still any doubt, Terry held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC and garnered a great deal of media attention for his remarks. Cgingold (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Summarize some, quote some
Quite a few of the quotations from the "pro-life" camp are similar -- we disagree with Tiller's actions but we also don't think killing him was a good idea. The article doesn't need multiple instantiations of that. I suggest that, after the Operation Rescue quotation, we say, "Similar views were expressed by Mary Kay Culp, director of Kansans for Life, and by David N. O’Steen, director the National Right to Life Committee ." JamesMLane t c 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully endorse JamesMLane's suggestion. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tiller's practice
I'm curious about an aspect of Tiller's practice which isn't mentioned in the article (but perhaps may be in some reliable source). Is there any record of either Tiller or a consulting physician to his practice ever denying any woman an abortion because her case did not meet the health requirement for a late-term abortion? In other words was it basically Tiller's policy to provide abortions at any stage in a pregnancy for whatever reason was presented? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to know that too!! 98.244.79.227 (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, he did have to turn away women who did not meet the health requirement. I don't have access to documentation, but I used to work with a center that at times referred patients to Women's Health Care Services, and our assessment that the patient needed to go there did not always match up with the Kansas requirements -- meaning some of our patients could not be seen there. But I would not be surprised if the proportion of denials was low, due to the "selection process": aside from being a candidate for referral in the first place, would-be patients also had to have a phone consultation with the clinic before they even got to the point of having the independent consultation, so there were many stages during which unlikely candidates dropped of the process. Hope this made sense.  Underdrew (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)underdrew
 * According to Slate, "Because post-viability abortions are relatively rare—representing about 1 percent of the procedures nationwide—Tiller was among a handful of doctors who had significant experience in the area...." The article goes on to explain that while a Kansas doctor is allowed to determine when a fetus has reached viability, once that threshhold is reached, the doctor is supposed to limit abortions to instances where purportedly the mother is in danger of "serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  03:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that in a 1997 National Review article, Tiller's spokesman Peggy Jarman is quoted as saying to a newspaper reporter in 1991 (perhaps inaccurately), "about three-fourths of Tiller's late--term patients are teenagers who have denied to themselves or their families that they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it." ↜Just M &thinsp;E  here&#8202;,&#8202;now  04:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete
See also: Christian Terrorism?! No one ever said the suspect did this in the name of God. That is an unfounded, anti-Christian bit of bullcrap and should be removed. Proposal for deletion has been hereby officially made.98.186.160.235 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All you people who want this article deleted, shut up. There are many articles here on Wikipedia about completely trivial things that no one cares for, yet nobody opposes to them. 188.60.132.160 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Does no one agree with this? 98.186.160.235 (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please add comments to the bottom of sections, not the top. You don't propose the deletion of an article by asking for it on the talk page.  You go to WP:AFD and follow the link there.  Be warned that you'll have to give a reason why George Tiller should not have a Wikipedia article about him.  Objecting to the current content of the article is not a reason: you'll be told to go and fix it yourself.  The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, IP, according to Roeder's one-time theological mentor David Leach's statements as well as those of his radical anti-abortionist comrade Regina Dinwiddie and also the descriptions of Roeder's motives by his ex-wife, Lindsey Roeder, Roeder apparently believes himself a "biblically sanctioned," Christionist, "godly" avenger and protector of unborn life, hence a "see also" wikilink to the "Christian terrorism" article is apropos. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  02:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, he wasn't charged with the killing at the time that was written. He was only a suspect. Speculation should be kept clear of a page which is supposed to contain only fact, no? However, now that he is charged, I withdraw my request for deletion. 98.186.160.235 (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User 98.186.160.235 seems to be using "deletion" to mean the removal of the "See also" link (as opposed to the WP:AfD meaning of deleting an entire article). Thus, it seems there's now agreement on the talk page to include the link, so I'm restoring it. JamesMLane t c 07:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it actually known that the shooting was prompted by the shooter's stance on abortion?
I haven't seen that reported anywhere yet. Just a lot of assumptions. I admit this is the likely reason, but are we jumping to conclusions against Wikipedia policies by reporting it as such before any trial and conviction? 67.135.49.42 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't appear to say that it was (at least not at the current time). It does say that Tiller was frequently targeted by anti-abortion activists, and that the suspect had a history of strong anti-abortion rhetoric, but both statements are very strongly sourced and the article does not make a more explicit connection than that.  Is there a particular statement that you're concerned about? Tim Pierce (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The assassin was indeed a known pro-lifer. It was reported on PBS's Democracy Now!. View the actual news report here:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.122.4 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but was it that which prompted the shooting? (I know, it almost certainly was - but can we provide a reference that makes that claim?) Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He was caught red handed getting ready to bomb the clinic a while back. I guess he was pissed off and waited for the opportune moment to finalize his utmost desires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.122.4 (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The key word there is "guess". Yes, it's highly likely that you're right - but Wikipedia doesn't operate on we believe, but on what we can confirm. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To jump back a little bit, the original poster was concerned that we should not jump to the conclusion that the shooting was prompted by the shooter's stance on abortion. I agree that the suspect's anti-abortion stance is well-established, but that's not really what's at issue here.  The article doesn't actually make that explicit connection, so I don't think there's a great problem here. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

???
anti-abortion rights activist, what is it? anti-abortion activist is correct, no?--Hypnos St (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, gosh. This is a very old political effort on each side to label people. The side against abortion prefers the labels "pro-life" for their side and "pro-abortion" for the other side, and side liking abortion prefers "pro-choice" for themselves and "anti-abortion rights" for their opponents, frequently shortened to "anti-abortion." It's arcane and stupid, but matters greatly for the appearance of being neutral. I suggest that at some point we may want to copyedit the article, using some sort of consistent format. Ray  Talk 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Hypnos St's query was more about the two variants: "anti-abortion rights activist" and "anti-abortion activist" - why use the former, surely the latter is correct? Both look correct to me, but for consistency I agree with you that we should copy-edit. I also take your point that this should probably be "pro-life" rather than "anti-abortion". Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 21:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who writes "anti-choice," or "pro-abortion" on this article outside of quotes from third parties should be swiftly topic banned. We use "pro-life" and "pro-choice" here. It is "pro-life" activist. Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are euphemistic terms, and should only be used when there is a particular reason to do so. "Anti-abortion" is both clear and neutral, as is "abortion rights". Cgingold (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Abortion rights" is far from neutral, implying specifically that there is/should be such a right. It comes straight out of the pro-abortion rhetoric. I agree that the other two terms are euphemistic and bad style; however, our neutrality policy trumps considerations of style. Speaking personally, I would prefer "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion," but that would be an unusual construction. Standard practice among people seeking to be neutral is to let the partisans of each side name their own sides, in this case.  Ray  Talk 00:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian terrorism?
What I'm seeing suggests that the killer was a right-wing crazy, but not necessarily one principally motivated by religion. You're creating massive POV-bait here. Ray Talk 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more than the apparent killer. You've overlooked the fact that Shelley Shannon was most certainly a Christian terrorist. Check out Army of God (USA). Cgingold (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but she admitted that her actions were religion-based. Until we get all the facts, the term shouldn't be applied here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth is your point? We're talking about a See also link, not a description of the killer. Cgingold (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Apologies for being dense, but I'm not sure I see the logic. Shelley Shannon is in see-also'd to Domestic terrorism in the United States, and is described as "a Christian Pro-life activist [who] shot Dr. George Tiller". If she admitted her actions were based on her religion, surely that's an argument for see-also-ing Christian terrorism here, given her shooting Tiller?
 * I do agree with trying to avoid WP:POV here, but this see-also does seem valid, unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible - I've wiki-ed out at the moment!)
 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It does insinuate that there is something peculiarly related to Christianity in these killings, which is inaccurate (political fanaticism can handle these things on its own, thank you very much), but the insinuation is at a remove. It's tied in to an effort on one side to tar anti-abortion types as fundamentalist lunatics, and on the other side to insist that there are legitimate moral reasons not tied to theology to oppose abortion. Ray  Talk 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot about the 1993 shooting. I was thinking only of Broeder. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrt to the "terror" label itself
WPaedia's saying such things about more militant factions of anti-abortion activists -- to include even, say, David Leach's publication -- as that they are supportive of terror would be controversial and require POV sourcing and balanced defenses, before it could be considered for encyclopedic mention. Nevertheless, terming such a thing as the fatal shooting of Dr. Tiller itself as an act of terror would not be controversial, supported as it is by news sources, governmental reports, and commentary by pundits from across the political spectrum. If any source objects to this label, then it could be included as a minority POV. In any case, I'll come back with a listing of citations for this observation, as I come across them, to be placed immediately below.
 * 1) A quote from the essay WP:NOTOR: "Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented."
 * 2) Headline in today's The Nation: Domestic Terror and The Death of Dr. Tiller ↜Just M &thinsp;E  here&#8202;,&#8202;now  21:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Ezra Klein: "[...] One way to  stop terrorism  is  by enforcing our laws . We should absolutely do that. But another is to make it clear that terrorism doesn't work. We should do that too. And the best way I can think of is to change our present situation, in which only a handful of doctors perform late-term abortions.
 * 4) The American Prospect: "Terrorism is the deliberate murder of civilians or destruction of property in order to achieve a political objective. I think this definition works because it covers everything from cross-burnings and lynchings to the Weathermen bombings to the attack on the World Trade Center. Viewed in this light,  the murder of George Tiller is undoubtedly terrorism ."
 * 5) Title of commentary by John Aravosis: Pro-life terrorist opens fire in church, kills doctor
 * 6) Title of commentary by Matthew Yglesias: A Kind of Terrorism that Works
 * 7) Blogger E.D. Kain: "The killing of George Tiller will be politicized. And it is indeed a blow to the pro-life cause, as well as a blow to the rule of law, as intimidation and lawlessness are used to frighten and drive away law-abiding, if misguided, doctors.   This sort of terror , as Ygelesias noted above,  works at the micro-level .  More broadly, however, it plays into the hands of the pro-choice cause, and the adamently and unflinchingly pro-choice President we now have; and it creates a climate in which this issue is even more difficult to discuss, to find common ground upon, to yes, even compromise."
 * 8) The Kansas Jackass:"I know that he believed in justifiable homicide,' said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City anti-abortion activist who made headlines in 1995 when she was ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of any abortion clinic. 'I know he very strongly believed that abortion was murder and that you ought to defend the little ones, both born and unborn.'""Roeder also was a subscriber to Prayer and Action News, a magazine that advocated the justifiable homicide position, said publisher Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist from Des Moines, Iowa."I met him once, and he wrote to me a few times,' Leach said. 'I remember that he was sympathetic to our cause, but I don't remember any details.'""Leach said he met Roeder in Topeka when he went there to visit Shelley Shannon, who was in prison for the 1993 shooting of Tiller.

"'Sympathetic to our cause.' A cause that seriously believes murder in the name of Jesus Christ is justifiable. Can you even believe it?

That's were  many in the modern American 'pro-life' movement are  today, though- they're people who have allowed themselves to be  so caught up in their rhetoric to actually turn into terrorists , exactly as dangerous and exactly as worthy of mass-arrest as al Qaeda.

Thankfully, the vast majority of American Christians, just like the vast majority of global Muslims, reject terrorism as a means toward any goal. But, still, there are people nationwide positively gleeful at the assassination of Dr. George Tiller and that, my friends, is depraved.''
 * 1) The Oregonian: The first time Dr. George  Tiller was shot by an anti-abortion terrorist  was also soon after the election of a pro-choice president.
 * 2) Michelle Malkin: Tiller's suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, is white, Christian, anti-government and anti-abortion. The gunman in the military recruitment center attack, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, is black, a Muslim convert, anti-military and anti-American. Both crimes are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism.
 * 3) National Review: " If there were no pro-life movement in America, or it muted its claims, the likelihood that anyone would twist its premises to violence would be lower . That observation applies just as well to many other movements.  Without abolitionism there would probably have been no John Brown. Without anti–Vietnam War activism, no Weathermen . (At the very least, disturbed and violent people would have found other outlets for their rage.) The abolitionists and the antiwar movement could not reasonably have been asked to foreswear passionate advocacy of their causes in order to minimize the chance of violence." ↜Just M &thinsp;E  here&#8202;,&#8202;now  02:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Bill O'Reilly: "Investigators in Kansas have presented strong evidence that late-term abortion doctor,  George Tiller, who was murdered by a domestic terrorist , destroyed viable fetuses for trivial reasons."
 * 5) Title of post by Hugh Hewitt: "Covering Domestic Terrorism" ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  03:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) "District Attorney Nola Foulston[...]said a reasonable person would believe the suspect [Roeder] has engaged in 'alleged acts of American terrorism.'"


 * I've got no problem with calling this terrorism, but that's part of a very old debate about whether terrorism is a subjective label. I don't think it is. However, I do think "extremist" is a subjective label and should be avoided. Ray  Talk 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for being totally dense
Okay forgive me for being totally dense, but what on earth are we discussing here. The article does not currently describe the perpetrator of the killing as a terrorist, Christian or otherwise; nor does it call the killing as an act or terrorism; except perhaps in quoting commentary on the killing. From what I can tell, it never has either. Is someone proposing that we explicitly call the killing or the perpetrator a (Christian) terrorism/terrorist? If the answer is no, the the only considerations here are the see also and the category and perhaps mentioning that he's a victim of terrorism. For this, there are several considerations here. Were any of the other earlier attacks (e.g. the Shelley Shannon attack) acts of Christian terrorism? Is the killing an act of Christian terrorism? If the answer to either of these is yes, then there's no point further debating this since we do not name any specific instances here as terrorism. In other words, unless you are contending that none of the attacks on Tiller were acts of Christian terrorism or are proposing we name some specific act as an act of terrorism I don't think you need to go off on what's basically a tangent explaining why you feel a specific act is or isn't terrorism. I hope I'm not being too abrupt, but this reminds me of the earlier complaint about saying he was a victim of anti abortion related violence which was extremely clear cut (this one less so but it remains important editors remember to consider all attacks not just one). Edit: I see there is a Category:Terrorism deaths in the United States. Is someone proposing we add him to this? Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate assassination article?
I posted this on Talk:Scott Roeder and thought I'd ask for thoughts here? Right now the information about Tiller's death heavily outweighs the rest of this article. Additionally, we have a separate Scott Roeder article, which is most likely going to have a lot of duplicate information from the section on Tiller's death in his article. I was wondering if perhaps the solution would be, as per WP:ONEEVENT, to change the Roeder page into Assassination of George Tiller or Murder of George Tiller, and then merge the majority of the "Death by Shooting" section of this article into that new page? Then we can tighten the information about Tiller's death on this article into one paragraph or so with only the most important information, and include a Main Article link tag leading to new Assassination or Murder article. Any thoughts on this? (And please forgive me if this was discussed about and I missed it...) —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree in theory, however per WP:NPOV I'd suggest "Killing of George Tiller" for the time being, with a view to renaming it "Murder of George Tiller" once the case has been tried. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your name suggestion. —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  23:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This had occurred to me yesterday, but it seemed premature to suggest at that point. In principle I think this is probably what should be done. Cgingold (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems premature, but we might go to a breakout article. should we do so, I don't think there's a POV issue with calling it "Murder of George Tiller." A murder is a specific crime, and it's obvious this crime was committed, in the colloquial if not the legal sense. We walk a fine line b/w POV and sacrificing content to avoid giving offense, but I think we'd be in the clear here. Ray  Talk 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There seemed to be a consensus at both talk pages, so I made the change. Any feedback is welcome. —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"Violent extremists"
I'm afraid characterizing anybody as an extremist is probably not kosher with WP:NPOV -- see the extended discussion at WP:EXTREMIST. I removed it earlier and left the reason in the edit summary, but it appears to have returned. I invite cgingold to discuss his reasons here, if he wishes. Ray Talk 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No Dr McHugh?
Why is there no mention of the testimony provided by Dr Paul McHugh (Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins) that vast majority of abortions committed by George Tiller were in fact illegal under Kansas law as there was no evidence to substantiate the need for the procedure in question? I for one found his testimony shocking! None of the individuals whose case files were reviewed by Dr McHugh had a legitimate psychological need for the procedure, as was required under state law. I really think this should be included in the article. SpudHawg948 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * McHugh is a fairly controversial figure - one who is deeply associated with the Catholic church, and serves as a formal advisor to the Vatican on sexual matters. This must be taken into account if any of his claims are to be mentioned in the article.


 * His claims are also fairly preposterous. I'm not really sure where this bizarre idea that pregnant women just have late-term abortions for kicks come from, but it's pretty irrational. Most of Tiller's practice regarded very much wanted pregnancies that either a) threatened the life of the mother, or b) where the foetus had horrendous developmental issues and was going to die painfully soon after birth. Rebecca (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where the bizarre idea of women having late-term abortions for kicks came from either. I didn't say anything to that effect, and I don't recall Dr McHugh saying anything about it either. On the contrary, he flat-out stated that the cases he examined came down to matters of convenience. No one said anything about doing it for fun, which I think is a cross mischaracterization of the issue at best, an attempt to make a caricature of the anti-abortion side of the debate at worst. SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you verify these claims in reliable sources? Did these allegations have a significant impact on Dr. Tiller's life, so that they should be included? Those are the standards you need to meet to insert something into a biography. Ray  Talk 04:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Media coverage from O'Rielly here. Nevard (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, a Google News Archive search reveals a number of stories on McHugh commenting on Tiller- generally in the context of the successor to the attorney-general who began investigating Tiller shutting down the investigation. Nevard (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Tiller was a highly controversial figure, and some transcripts and offhand mentions seem a touch light for this guy to be brought up as a major critic. I think the standard should be that he should have been significant enough in his criticism that it directly affected Dr. Tiller's life, or that it's sufficiently major scholarship to form a major part of the historical record surrounding his life. That's the standard I usually apply to biographies of politically controversial figures, and this doesn't quite cut it. If you have some proposed text, I suppose we could look at it here ... Ray  Talk 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to correct something stated in this article and in the associated press which is incorrect and misleading. Dr. Tiller's clinic was one of three clinics in the country to offer abortion *after the legal limit* which is after 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy. The term "late-term abortion" is ill-defined, and should be avoided. There are innumerable clinics and medical centers in the country which safely and commonly provide abortions up to the legal limit. Multiple sources have stated that Dr. Tiller's clinic was only one of three that provide abortions after 21 weeks, which is incorrect. It is also incorrect to imply that fetuses are viable after 21 weeks. Viability is generally considered possible, though not always, around 24 weeks, depending on the weight of the fetus, not just the absolute age in weeks.Gynegirl (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the 'Viability' disambiguation page, I see that 'viability' has sometimes been defined for some purposes in the same way LD50 is- the point where 50% of children born at that point will survive. Now, I don't think pro-lifers are bothered by potential lives being terminated beyond a statistical definition of the likelihood of survival- but the point at which a child could be expelled from the womb and cared for until adoption rather than being killed is a more relevant issue.
 * More importantly, the reliable sources we cite discuss late-term abortion. Certainly, we should be clear what they mean- but that doesn't mean we should avoid the term. Nevard (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh brother. If we're gonna post the yammering of every right-to-lifist crank who maligned Dr. Tiller, there won't be enough computer space. McHugh may be a prof of psychiatry, but in this he was acting purely as a propagandist for the Catholic Church. Really, it opens up the question whether Catholics should be allowed to hold medical degrees. How can we rely on them to follow medical professionalism if it conflicts with instructions from the Pope??? There is a divided-loyalty question and it's not bigotry to say so.
 * (The preceding piece of unsigned anti-Catholic bigotry was written by user SingingZombie who was subsequently blocked indefinitely and blocked again as a sockpuppet. Hats off to wiki administrators!) --Kenatipo (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion to the article
It is not appropriate that the last words in the article are "I am glad that he is dead". Some sort of summary is required.Trishm (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've re-jigged the final section so that it's in a more chronological order: killing, post-killing comments, and then the closure of the clinic. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 12:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's much better.Trishm (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Patriot Guard Riders?
Just curious. In this picture it appears that the Patriot Guard Riders may have been present at Tiller's funeral. I was just wondering if anyone had more info. I know they attend servicemembers funerals to keep those Westboro Baptist Church nuts away. And even though they are a conservative group, I wouldn't be surprised if they made an appearance here as well. SpudHawg948 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. See : The service also drew 50 motorcyclists from the American Legion Riders, who honored Tiller's service in the Navy. Their leader, Cregg Hansen, also from Derby, said Tiller's family asked them to be there... "We don't get involved in politics," Hansen said. "We're here 120 percent for the veterans." -Andrew c [talk] 01:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Link needs to be tweaked?
Infobox gives his profession as "Family medicine", cited to http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:http://www.drtiller.com/medir.html. Clicking this gives me a Google error message "Your search did not match any documents", though I was able to locate Google's cache of the page. How to fix? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly material
Shouldn't at least part of the Bill O'Reilly material be moved or copied over to Assassination of George Tiller? That page currently doesn't mention O'Reilly at all, although e.g. his "Tiller the baby killer" has been in quoted in explicit context of the murder, e.g. at HuffPost by RJ Eskow. 87.79.170.93 (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Excommunicated by Lutheran -- Missouri Synod
Recently the following passage was removed from the article."...Tiller was excommunicated from Holy Creoss Luthern Church (Wichita, KS), his former church congregation, a part of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod."Here is a piece from the conservative News Busters website wrt Tiller's excommunication by the conservative denomination. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was one of the ones that reverted that - though not the only one, it's been added back a few times - and my rationale was that these aren't reliable sources: a blogspot post, Operation Rescue calling for Tiller's excommunication, a post by a "Mollie" at getreligion.org who claims to have been in Tiller's church, and a typepad post. Of course it can be added back, but I still don't the verison I reverted was properly sourced per WP:RS.  Dawn Bard (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is very much worth including and represents a major blind spot in mainstream news coverage, which has been depicting Tiller as a faithful church-goer. Faithful, yes, in a theologically liberal, pro-choice denomination.  But he was shown the door in a theologically conservative, pro-life denomination.  We've just got to find a good source to cite.  71.164.61.93 (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that WP could say something to the effect that some Missouri Synod pastors have indicated Tiller had once been excommunicated from their denomination(?) (The blogspot blog, Walt's World of Religion and Politics, is specific to Lutheran matters and accepted a letter to its editor from three Missouri Synod pastors Jody R. Walter, of Immanuel, Frederic; David Emmons, Zion, Turtle Lake/Immanuel, Clayton; and Mark Schoen, Shepherd of the Valley, St. Croix Falls, which says that a sister congregation of theirs had excommunicated Tiller. Their statement is is a primary source (or close to it) from these Missouri Synod pastors, whose single editorial oversight was "Walt's" acceptance of the statement for publication on his blog concerning Lutheran issues. As for the question, Are primary sources never appropriate for reference on Wikipedia?: I'm sure there have been some amount of examination and debate on the use of primary sources (and also self-published sources and the like) somewhere on Wikipedia pages if we wanted to search for them. But giving my offhand $.02 I'd say primary sources can be authoritatively cited if their content has not been deemed controversial, that is, if responsible secondary sources deem them, or else the selfsame information, to be authoritiative with none suggesting otherwise (and note that in the present case, the secondary source of News Busters has reported the same information). And then my take on the use of a self-published source is that I believe there is the rule of thumb that WP considers it authoritative with regard the biographies and beliefs of the writers of the self-published source themselves.) ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  16:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is an issue with using primary sources for something like this - I think the biggest issue with primary sources is people trying to use them to establish notability - but I don't really see the blogspot post as a primary source. Since it's posted on a blog, it's coming from an unreliable secondary source.  A primary source would be coming directly from the church that excommunicated him; this is just coming from some some people who say that a sister church excommunicated him.  And is News Busters considered a reliable source?  (I don't know, I'm asking.)  It just seems to me that if this information is definitely true and verifiable, it would have come up in more mainstream, news sources would have picked up on it.  I'll see if I can find anything - if true and verifiable, his past excommunication is certainly appropriate for inclusion in his Wikipedia entry.  Dawn Bard (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * NewsBusters is not a reliable source. It never was. It never will be. What it is is a giant waving red flag. Don't fall into the trap. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Assassination or Murder?
Should the section be "assassination of Dr. Tiller" or "murder of Dr. Tiller"? How important does one have to be to go from "murder" to "assassination"? Ryan1159 (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to participate in the discussion at Talk:Assassination_of_George_Tiller, which has already started to try to hash this out. It's easier if the conversation all happens in the same place. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Subjective
In this line of the "Assasination" section:
 * A few others held the opposite view; anti-abortion activist Randall Terry described Tiller as a "mass murderer" (but did not overly express approval of the actions of his murderer)

The part that says "but did not overly express approval" seems awfully subjective. One person's "not overly" is another's "way over the top", and yeat another's "not at all". This should be reworded. Proxy User (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...The case of a typo of overtly? ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * More or less the same issue...Proxy User (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the word "overtly", how about "explicitly" ? I believe the author is simply trying to convey that these people implied they approved of the murder, even though they didn't come right out and say "I approve of the murder".  It's not really all that subjective. 148.87.1.171 (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia. We shouldn't infer things and hide behind the "he implied" defense.  People either say something or they don't.  Feel free to quote someone if they gave any indication that they might have approved of said murder and let the readers decide, but don't decide for them and deny them the access to make up their own mind. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the weasel wording. "...But did not overtly express approval" is a bit vague, so I instead included a quote from the already cited article ("We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches"). Any issues with that? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jacob Sullum Comment
Lumping libertarian Jacob Sullum in with a bunch of delusional idiots is unfair without context. The point of Mr. Sullum's column was to suggest that the pro-life argument is inherently untenable, and that the assassin merely followed the argument to its logical extreme. Without this context, readers might assume that Mr. Sullum is advocating murder. He is not. He is ridiculing the pro-life argument. Perhaps the editors of this article are not partial to libertarians. But to suggest that Reason Magazine is a bastion of theocratic thought is outrageous. Mr. Sullum is mocking religion and the anti-abortion movement, but the syntax of the paragraph suggests he is supporting such ideas. Daveroo69 (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Technology Development
Hey why did someone remove my entry about Dr. Tiller's technology development? He pioneered the technique of ultrasound-guided intracardiac injection to induce fetal demise, which prevents "born-alive" errors and protects docs from the "Partial-birth" ban.

If I don't see an explanation why this was deleted, I'm gonna restore it. 68.173.17.250 (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, we keep track of who makes what edits to an article be means of the "History page", which can be accessed through the "history" tab when viewing the article page. Also, when you edit the article, there is the "edit summary" box where you can type a comment summarizing your edit. You can view all the edit summaries on the history page. By doing this, I found this edit here, that removed that section, with the edit summary "He may have indeed pioneered such technology but we don't take a Wikipedia editor's word for it. Find a reliable source." So it seems like if you can find a reliable source to cite to verify this information, then you should feel free restoring that content with the new citation. Hope this explains things. I know Wikipedia can be a bit overwhelming at first, and we do have a lot of rules, policies, and guidelines. If you have any questions or concerns, I'd be glad to try to help further. Hope this helps. -Andrew c [talk] 04:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't seem to find an online source--the net is polluted with right-to-lifist shock stories that come up when you try to google this question--but I know he was one of the key players in developing the procedure (inside info).  OK, I'll leave it unposted. SingingZombie (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Addiction?
The only source for the claim that Dr. Tiller was addicted to drugs and alcohol is from the blog the Daily Beast (link here: http://63.119.11.61/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-25/the-last-abortionist/p/), and appears to be entirely hearsay. The blog claims that Tiller had his license suspended because of his alleged addiction, but I can find no other evidence for either the addiction of the suspension of his license. - 207.224.74.97 (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious motivation
User:CatholicW removed the "Victims of religiously motivated violence in the United States" Category twice, saying in his or her edit summary "Tiller's shooter said he killed the doctor NOT because God, Church, or Religion but becuase he wanted the killing of children to stop."

I disagree, and think this is a pretty easy choice. That category is not exclusively for people who were directly told by their religion to kill somebody; it's religiously motivated violence, not religiously ordered violence. It's uncontroversial that Roeder's view that abortions = killing of children = worthy of violence to stop it was motivated by a switch to an extremely fervent Christianity; from what his ex-wife said:
 * And he went from there and got into the anti-government, got into the militia, got into the Freeman, and along those lines anti-abortion issues came up and he started becoming very religious in the sense that he finally — he was reading the Bible. But then, after we were divorced, his religion took on a whole new right wing of itself.

Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

...and Roeder's ex-wife would be a WP:RS because...? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A) Are you alleging that she's lying? Obviously divorces do lead people to make bitter, overblown accusations but this doesn't sound like it.  It's not a story about how evil her husband was, it's talking about how he went in a new direction that led him away from her.
 * B) The fact that Roeder got into both anti-government organizations and fervent Christianity is attested to by his friends and associates as well in those organizations anyway. And the anti-government side of his ideology seems a bad explanation, because he shot an abortion doctor not a judge or the like.
 * C) And all the above doesn't even matter because we should be going by what the reliable secondary sources say. From Roeder himself, as reported by the newsmedia: "That day [in 1992] I knelt down and I did accept Christ as my savior," testified in court, presumably Roeder thought it was relevant since he began thinking about killing Tiller in '93. "It is not man's job to take life – it's our Heavenly Father's."  TIME thought it was relevant to mention "the gunman's powder-blue getaway car decorated with a red rose — an antiabortion emblem — and a Jesus fish."   This is based off the first few Google hit results, not hard to find at all.  It's definitely the way the media has covered the story, and Wikipedia pretty much follows their lead, or at least is supposed to (WP:NOR). SnowFire (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)