Jump to content

Talk:George Tiller/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Sentence on funerary services

I'm moving this here. The article is about Tiller not his clinic, and I don't think it belongs in the lead-in. I'm not sure that these services are actually unusual or notable, particularly when dealing with the stillborn or fetuses with severe birth defects.

The clinic, Women's Health Care Services, is unusual in that it offers funerary services to its patients. Some of these services include photographs, footprinting and handprinting, baptism, cremation, arrangement for burial in or out of state, and arrangement for amniocentesis and/or autopsy.[1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal Classic (talk • contribs) 04:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The clinic was apparently run by Tiller so its policies do belong on the article. I do agree that it isn't important enough for the lede. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Remembrances and Special Requests". Women's Health Care Services. Retrieved 2006-06-10.

Shelly Shannon not a drifter

In the opening paragraph it describes Shannon as a drifter. This is false since she had a home in Oregon and when she wasn't out fighting her war against birth control and abortion she was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talk • contribs) 23:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversies section

This section finishes poorly. The last heading, Late-Term Abortion, describes more his medical activities. I think it would fit better under Background, to preface the Controversies section. Everyone knows abortion is controversial, but what role did he play in it?

Will wait for comments before changing. Drienstra (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Better Finish: I'm a longtime reader but rarely edit Wikipedia entries. So I'm not sure why the fourth item in this Controversies section which I added was removed, an item that resolved the concern just mentioned:

Offered Memorial Services George Tiller offered to patients a memorial service, held inside his Women's Health Care clinic, which included photographs of the dead fetus.[27] An abortion protest website purports to show such authorized photographs, claiming they are used by permission and displaying a handwritten note from the female patient, including photos of her with her aborted fetus during one such in-clinic memorial.[28]

Which linked to these references: 27.^ Foster, Julie (2001-08-11). "Late-term abortionist gives babies funerals". WorldNetDaily. http://70.85.195.205/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24020/. 28.^ "Anti-abortion "memorial" website - TheGeorgeTillerMemorial.com". http://thegeorgetillermemorial.com/. Retrieved 2009-10-27.

Is this controversial? It is extraordinarily controversial for two reasons: It involves photos of aborted children, which itself is a significant controversy. And late-term abortion techniques (including intact D&E) is one of the greatest American controversies of the last twenty years, and for an abortionist to offer photos of such late-term abortions is a startling controversy, evident by the extraordinary response of countless people who have viewed those photos online.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobEnyart (talk • contribs)

Neither of those sources meets WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not the place to document "controversies" that went unreported by respected mainstream publications. Prolog (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your reasoning. As to verifiability and reliable sourcing, not only did Tiller never deny, but his own website advertised memorial services with photos. As to reliable sourcing, WorldNetDaily has a Jerusalem Bureau Chief, a White House Correspondent, Staff Writers, their reporter Robert Unruh was a journalist with the Associated Press for two decades, and long-time newsman Joseph Farah is editor. They've been independently rated to host millions of visits per month. Can I get a reconsideration for this section? Call-in talk show host, M-F 5pm E.T. at KGOV.com 800-8Enyart (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, you can hear George Tiller himself describe the baby viewing process, available photographs, etc., in this 2-minute audio mp3 file. There is no verifiability issue with this matter. It was advertised, and openly admitted. So the question is WorldNetDaily, and that is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards (even though it has a right-wing slant). Call-in talk show host, M-F 5pm E.T. at KGOV.com 800-8Enyart (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice it before but this had already been discussed below. The writer of the WND editorial seems to have supported the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis (a fringe theory) in her other articles, which further dampens the credibility of that source. However, the clinic's official website is considered reliable per WP:SELFPUB. A mention of the clinic's services should not give undue weight to any particular services. Prolog (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Prolog, it's unfortunate that you cherry-picked a criticism of WND to oppose them as a reliable source. Regarding your selection of abortion-BC as a fringe theory, are you aware that the Nat'l Cancer Institute's senior researcher, Louise A. Brinton, the scientist largely responsible for getting the NCI to deny the abortion-breast cancer link, has now reversed herself, and co-authored a published, peer-reviewed study which describes significant breast cancer risk factors including "induced abortion." Brinton and her co-authors in the Cancer Epidemiology journal of the American Association for Cancer Research writes: "Specifically, older age, family history of breast cancer, earlier menarche age, induced abortion, and oral contraceptive use were associated with an increased risk for breast cancer." The study also says that these risk factors are "consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women." "Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer," Brinton, et al., American Association for Cancer Research, 2009. There is more at http://AmericanRightToLife.org/cancer Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And did you tell the crowd that Bob Enyart is a real life anti-abortion activist? The Banner talk 20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversies section 2

Forgive me for being a Wikipedia newbie, but I may not be "discussing" this using proper procedure. Regardless, I believe it should be noted that on March 19, 2008, a video was released to the public showing Dr. Tiller admitting to "aborting babies a day before the mother's due date":

NowPublic News Coverage www.nowpublic.com/health/dr-george-tiller-admits-performing-abortions-day-delivery#ixzz1YLdlgpYv

- Also, the article seems to paint Dr. Tiller as a humanitarian who strictly aborted unhealthy fetuses, or those whose birth would endanger the life of the mother. This is highly misleading and a clear case of POV sanitizing, as there is much evidence to support the fact that Tiller routinely aborted (or tried to abort) many perfectly healthy fetuses. The case of Sarah Brown is one notable example:

"...Tiller began the abortion by injecting a poisonous syringe through the pregnant teenager's uterus and into the upper left side of the unborn baby's face. He then instructed the teenager to return the next day for the completion of the abortion. 

   To everyone's dismay, the baby did not die during the intervening hours.  After the teenager began to complain of serious abdominal pains, her parents rushed her to a local hospital where the baby was eventually born --alive.  The delivery room staff felt that life-support would be futile, so they wrapped the baby in a bassinet without attendance.  The teenager and her parents quickly left the scene.

   Even without medical care, the baby remained alive.  After many hours had passed, the delivery room staff decided to give her treatment.  Miraculously, she managed to survive through the entire ordeal.  "Sarah", as her adoptive parents later named her, lived until the age of 5, when she succumbed to the developmental harm done to her body during the abortion.  The KCl solution that had been injected into the side of her face had left her permanently blind and brain damaged.

Prior to the abortion, Sarah was a perfectly normal baby. The relevant medical records indicate that she had no disabilities or deformities. If Tiller hadn't attempted to poison her, she would be a healthy 9 year old girl with an entire life ahead of her. Instead, she is in a grave."

From http://www.abortionessay.com/files/Tiller.html

"[Dr. George Tiller] presented the results of a study involving 2750 women aged between 10 and 45 who underwent abortions between 1994-97. The average gestational age was 27 weeks. The vast majority-2051-were performed because of either maternal health problems, with the remaining 699 abortions performed because of foetal abnormality." (Julie Ann Davies, "Abortionist Backs Sex Selection", The Age: 15 Nov 1999, Internet Edition)

Fetal abnormality, as it is used in this context, can include things like down's syndrome, hydrocephalus, cystic fibrosis, and other disabilities that are problematic, but not incompatible with meaningful life. Still, 3 out of 4 of the babies that were evaluated in the study were not abnormal."

This statistic is further confirmed in the Executive Summary for Fetal Indication Termination, http://www.drtiller.com/fasum.html, contained on Tiller's website. He claims that from January of 1989 to May of 2001 he aborted roughly 2,009 post-15 week fetuses for reasons of fetal abnormality. This means that, on average, only 167 of the post 15-week fetuses that he aborted each year were abnormal. As the data he provided to the state of Kansas indicates (with links below), he aborts roughly 600 post 22-week fetuses each year.

- Also, it should be mentioned for the sake of disclosure the amount of abortions performed by Dr. Tiller, which is a notable figure.

Some information left out, it seems... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's been almost two months. What's going on with any of this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 May 2013

Delete--> Cause of death: Gunshot wound Replace with -->Cause of death: Murder by Gunshot

108.220.83.57 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The cause of death was a gunshot not murder. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculously broad definition of the word "violence"

The notion that Bill O'Reilly's repeated mentions of George Tiller somehow qualifies as "violence directed at Tiller" is an absolute joke. Criticizing Tiller and calling him "Tiller the Baby Killer" only qualifies as violence if you want to push(yeah, that's really encyclopedic)the bogus narrative that Bill O'Reilly is somehow responsible for Tiller's death. The way that section goes from the details of a firebombing of Tiller's clinic into the a discussion of O'Reilly's show with the phrase "Tiller was also discussed in 28 episodes of the Fox News talk show The O'Reilly Factor" is an absolute disgrace and is clearly meant to draw some sort of moral equivalence between O'Reilly's actions and those of someone who committed multiple felonies. Sorry, but forcefully criticizing someone on a talk show is not "violence", and the inclusion of O'Reilly in that section is almost as pathetic as including an external link to a George Tiller Memorial fund in an entry that is supposed to be encyclopedic. This entry is yet another long line of Wikipedia entries that ends up being hijacked by those with a political agenda.74.134.160.246 (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, what's the deal here? Too much weight is given to Bill O'Reilly's commentary about Doctor Tiller in this presumed biography of the man. Also, whatever O'Reilly material we do include in the article should go in something like a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section not in a "Violence directed at Tiller" section." Badmintonhist (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks like you've moved that material out of the "Violence directed at Tiller" section and into the main section of the article. I agree with that move. — Hunter Kahn 19:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE: Wherever the discussion of O'Reilly's comments belongs, it CERTAINLY does not belong in the "Career" section! O'Reilly's opinions have little or nothing to do with Dr. Tiller's career. I have moved the paragraph about O'Reilly to a new section. Goblinshark17 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Addiction to prescription painkillers--can anyone find a source please?

Dr. Tiller struggled with a long addiction to prescription pain killers. He overcame his addiction and served on a board of experts on pain-killer addiction among doctors, which determined what action to take against doctors whose addictions were interfering with their ability to function as doctors. I know this from research I did in the early 2000's, when this info about Dr. Tiller was readily available online, but I cannot find any mention of it online now except for one bio page which says that he was an Associate of the American Society of Addiction Medicine. Can anyone find a source for Dr. Tiller's addiction to painkillers on line so I can put it in the article? Thanks. Goblinshark17 (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE I have found a reference to "substance abuse" in the NYTIMES' long profile of him. Goblinshark17 (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
FURTHER UPDATE After being reverted twice, I have added an entry which uses only the words used in the NYTimes article, "struggle" and "substance abuse", not "addiction" or "prescription pain killers", which the reverting editor objected to. Dr Tiller's success in overcoming his addiction and his service on the impaired physicians committee were a source of personal pride for him, and should not be omitted from any biographical article about him! Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

New section on O'Reilly

The description of O'Reilly's comments on Dr. Tiller does not belong in the section on Dr. Tiller's career; it has almost nothing to do with his career! I have moved it to a new section. Goblinshark17 (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Why is this change being reverted? Surely the oreilly stuff doesn't belong in the "career" section! Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

FURTHER UPDATE: I have added to the section O'Reilly's comments immediately after the murder of Dr. Tiller, in which he denies responsibility and blames "pro-abortion zealots" and "Fox-News haters" for criticizing him. With a reference to a blog which quotes him and shows video clips of him saying these things. Goblinshark17 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Professional qualifications

I have added a paragraph detailing his board certifications and professional staff positions at the time of his death. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on George Tiller. 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) 08:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Substance abuse aftermath

The section on Substance Abuse should mention the fact that he sought treatment, overcame his difficulties, and later served on the Kansas Medical Society’s impaired physicians committee. It's in the source (NY Times), and leaving it out smacks of defamation by omission. (He also became an associate of the American Academy of Addiction Medicine, but the original source for this fact seems to have died and I'm having trouble finding an active source for the latter fact.) HandsomeMrToad (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on George Tiller. 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) 04:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Tiller. 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) 21:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of the Word "Extreme"

Regarding this edit, individuals whose anti-abortion beliefs are so extreme that they are willing to take a firearm and kill someone who performs abortions are not "activists" or "advocates" like the 99% of mainstream anti-abortion activists. Because they are willing to commit murder to further their cause, society considers them to be extremists. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The word "extremist" was removed four times in the past 24 hours. It has been removed before, the last time in November 2015 seen here and restored by another editor 30 minutes later here. If it's going to be permanently deleted from the article, a consensus should be sought to that effect beforehand. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Extremist is a word that reflects opinion, as is advocate, a word that was often used to replace extremist in the article. In order for a more neutral stance to appear in the article, which reflects Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, perhaps using these words as adjectives to describe Scott Roeder and others should not be used. We could get into an endless debate on what constitutes extremism, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for facts and not debates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
We tend to call a spade a spade based on the sources available. Do you have any reliable, independent sources that call him an anti-abortion advocate? The present sources indicate that he is seen as an extremist, so you have to prove that the common opinion about Roeder is that he is an advocate instead of an extremist. Ow, and cleaning your talk page from inconvenient warnings does not help a bit. The Banner talk 20:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
If we really need a reliable source stating that Roeder was an extremist, here's one. Personally I doubt a source declaring that murderers aren't just "activists" but extremists is necessary. Anti-abortionists aren't all or even to a significant degree murderous. Huon (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's another one from the U.S. Edition of The Guardian, which leads with "Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion extremist who murdered Dr George Tiller..." AzureCitizen (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

As this page clearly mentions, words such as extremist and freedom fighter should be avoided, as they go against Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. Clearly, some editors of the Tiller page view Scott Roeder as an extremist, and others view him as a freedom fighter. By not using either one of these terms, we adhere to the neutrality policy. With the new Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which awaits Senate approval before it becomes law this year, Tiller would be the extremist if you view extremism as doing something that violates the law.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 9 January 2018

Let's get your take on it, so that we understand where you are coming from. Do you believe Scott Roeder was not an extremist? Or do you believe he was an extremist, and that Wikipedia should never refer to someone as an extremist (even if reliable sourced and reported that way)? Which is it that you believe personally, the former or the latter? AzureCitizen (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether I believe the former or the latter is irrelevant on this site, because Wikipedia is the place for factual information. Although I describe myself as being pro-life, I do not think this is the place to espouse those beliefs. Scott Roeder was convicted of murder, so I would not take issue with someone stating that George Tiller was murdered by Scott Roeder, for that is a matter of fact. However, the word "extremist" is a matter of opinion. I should also add that the mention of Scott Roeder being an "extremist" is not sourced on the Tiller page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 18:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is neutral. That is why we use sources to back up claims and not personal opinions. The Banner talk 10:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So glad to hear you say that. So please be respectful and not delete my edits when I cite sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thegoodmanisamazing: Clearly, there are plenty of situations involving people who are labelled as "extremists" by their ideological opponents in an effort to portray them as being far outside the mainstream and/or dangerous, when they really aren't. However, there are also situations where people really are extremists, and its not a matter of opinion as you suggest. The overwhelming 99% majority of pro-life supporters and activists want abortion to end, but they do not espouse, support, or morally justify murder (on anyone's part) against others who support or provide abortions. Only a very small number of outliers believe that their religion commands them to kill in the name of God to stop abortions; this line of thinking is categorically rejected by society as being extremism and a form of terrorism. With regard to your comment that "the mention of Scott Roeder being an "extremist" is not sourced on the Tiller page," I'm not able to see what you're getting at; the Tiller article contains three footnotes in which Scott Roeder is reported as being an "anti-abortion extremist". Are you not able to see them? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The word "extremist" is subjective in nature, and does not lend itself to objectivity. Stating that an individual "shot" someone describes a verifiable fact. However, stating that someone is an "extremist" is a subjective term. For instance, individual A may engage in a particular behavior that individual B would describe as extreme. Individual C, however, may not describe such behavior as extreme. Even if a majority of people agree with individual B, that does not detract from the fact that the term "extreme" is subjective. To protect the neutrality of Wikipedia, subjective terms should not be used. Under wikipedia's manual of style, "subjective and vague term[s]" should be avoided. Instead, editors are advised to "give readers information about [the] relevant" controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  • No it's not: it just needs to be well-verified. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2019 (UT

That makes no sense. I'm sure you can point to multiple articles that state Dale Earnhardt Jr. is a "great" Nascar racer, but that doesn't detract from the fact that "great" is subjective. How can a subjective term be "well-verified"? It can't. That's equivalent to saying that "if multiple news sources (which use articles to further their editorial viewpoints) use a subjective term to describe an event, then the subjective term must be true." If I am "extreme" in anything, it's being extreme in providing neutrality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments using fur tildes (~~~~). At any rate, Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifying the due weight of reliable sources. And anyway, it just doesn't seem like a stretch to say that an activist who shoots another person on the basis of that activism is an extremist. The word extremist is not inherently subjective. Not on Wikipedia, at least. You are welcome to try to argue that it should be, but this is probably not the place. If you read the discussion above, I believe you will find that most editors with experience into Wikipedia policies and guidelines also do not share that view. El_C 03:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears you engage in double speak. The purpose of "verifying the due weight of reliable sources" is to ensure truth and accuracy. Yet truth and accuracy are discarded when the use of subjective terms are permitted. I suspect that something more sinister is at play here.

In addition, wikipedia is very clear that the use of the term is extreme is to be avoided, and at least 2 of 5 commentators are against the use of the term "extremist". As such, no consensus has been reached. I posit that if no consensus has been reached, subjective terms should be avoided. Dj2570 (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying you believe the gunman in this case was not an extremist? Or do you believe that he was an extremist, but you're just arguing Wikipedia shouldn't use that word in his description? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Azure Citizen, you asked the same exact question to "Thegoodmanisamazing" on January 10, 2018. As he or she stated in his or her reply, it does not matter whether a particular individual views Mr. Roeder as an extremist. A person who genuinely feels that Mr. Roeder is an extremist, may nonetheless oppose the use of the term "extremist" in a Wikipedia article because said term is not neutral, and it is a term that expresses a matter of opinion.

Considering that: (A) Wikipedia explicitly cautions against the use of the word extremist; and (B)there is clearly no consensus on this issue (indeed, 2 of the 5 commentators (or 40%) believe the use of the term is inappropriate), then why is the word still being used? In essence, if there is a contested issue such as this one, why are we not able to find a more neutral wording that can satisfy (to the best extent possible) both factions?

Further, it seems inappropriate to me that I was blocked from editing the article for "warring", when the other individual was also engaged in "warring" but was not blocked. It also seems ridiculous that after my edit was reverted, I was asked to build a consensus, when clearly no consensus exists. Thus, I come back to this: if no consensus exists, why do the opinions of one faction, trump the requests of the other faction to use a more neutral term? Clearly, the wording currently being used is not based on an overwhelming consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6184:4900:84F6:3D8:4BD4:689 (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the IP's first edit (and they didn't thank Sinebot! Oh Sinebot!) — as for them being blocked, how are we to tell which account this is in reference to? El_C 04:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The last comment was from me. Sorry, I wasn't logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

As before, avoiding the question like that reveals your point of view that Roeder wasn't an extremist. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

AzureCitizen - It what world does my personal opinion matter? The question is about neutrality, whether or not there is a consensus on this issue, and Wikipedia's rules and regulations. Ironically, you failed to respond to ANY of the issues that I addressed in my prior post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I am a bit offended that you are projecting what you think are my personal beliefs. You have no idea what my personal beliefs are, and I am not going to take the bait by offering them to you. In any discussion such as this, one should stay objective and put aside one's feelings. As an example, a Judge may be personally against the outcome of a decision that he or she is rendering, but may feel compelled to render said decision because the law dictates that outcome.

I am new to Wikipedia, but I am very disheartened by what appears to be a lack of professionalism, and a refusal by some to engage in actual discussions. As I said before, I would like to engage in an honest discussion about whether there is some middle ground to be reached here. Clearly, the way it is currently written (i.e. using the word "extreme") does not have a consensus. It is not two people saying one thing and fifty saying another. It's two people who prefer one term, and three that prefer the other. We should be able to address this issue, but it appears that there is a lack of motivation to actually do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Editors tend to be disinterested in engaging with someone who thinks that when a persons stalks and assassinates someone for religious and/or ideological reasons, that the killer is not an extremist but instead just an activist. Accordingly, edit warring to try to forcibly replace the word "extremist" with "activist" in this article is not likely to convince others that you're just here for the sake of truth and neutrality. Editors probably haven't engaged with you here much because they're skeptical of your intentions and find your arguments unpersuasive. For example, why are you claiming that there are only three editors that for using the word "extremist" and two editors who are for using the word "activist"? There are five editors in this thread who have supported the long-standing continued use of the word "extremist" with a combined total of 65 years on Wikipedia: The Banner (13 years), Huon (13 years), Drmies (11 years), El C (15 years), and myself (12 years). Conversely, there are two inexperienced editors who want to change the long standing description from "extremist" to "activist": Thegoodmanisamazing, who made all of a hundred edits before his disruptive and abusive behaviors got himself blocked indefinitely, and you. Secondly, you seem to think that consensus means you have to have unanimity, which it doesn't. In this situation, five editors who disagree with making a change from "extremist" to "activist" means there is a de facto consensus against it. Third, there are reliable secondary sources cited in the article which use the word "extremist" to describe the people at issue. It's not as if this description was wholly invented by Wikipedia editors as a matter of subjective opinion; it really is how society views people who are so extreme that they'll stalk and assassinate others because of their religious and ideological beliefs. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

AzureCitizen - You are extremely condescending and you keep projecting my views onto me. You state that I am someone "who thinks that when a person . . . "kills" somoene ... [he] is not an "extremist but instead just an activist." You finally got me to say it: I PERSONALLY think he is an extremist murderer. I PERSONALLY think his actions were grotesque. I PERSONALLY think that he has serious mental issues. DO NOT tell me what I think. And stop making this personal. This is not personal. This is about neutrality and truth.

Your last comment was unfair, non-objective, and unprofessional. I am not here as an anti-abortion troll. I tried to make an article more neutral, basing it on fact rather than opinion. I would have engaged in a thoughtful and intelligent discussion. You, however, want to make this personal. I respectfully request that you retract your personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6184:4900:35FC:C188:81EA:8A26 (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please remember to sign-in when commenting. When asked "do you believe that he was an extremist but you're just arguing Wikipedia shouldn't use that word?", a straightforward "yes" would have quickly prompted thoughtful and intelligent discussion. Now that you've answered, we can follow up that question with this one: Do you think there are situations where it's appropriate for Wikipedia to refer to someone as an extremist (weighed on a case-by-case basis and backed up by secondary reliable sources), or do you think Wikipedia should have a policy that the word "extremist" should never be used under any circumstances, even when an individual is universally regarded as an extremist? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

And if my answer was "no", we could not have had a thoughtful and intelligent discussion? Personal opinions are irrelevant. We should have had a thoughtful discussion regardless of whether my personal opinion was "yes" or "no". Anyhow, to answer your question: an opinion cannot be backed up by reliable secondary sources. A source that is "reliable" tends to have a good track record with providing factually-accurate information. But whether someone is or is not an extremist is a matter of opinion. It does not matter if a particular source - even if said source has a history of publishing factually-accurate information - labels a person an extremist. By way of example, I am sure that you can find many publications (from sources that generally provide factually-accurate information) which states that Beethoven was a "phenomenal" composer, but that does not mean that Beethoven should be described as "phenomenal" in a Wikipedia article, as there may be a minority of musicians who disagree with such an assertion. Whether or not Beethoven is "phenomenal" is a matter of opinion, even is the vast majority of musicians would describe him as such. The same is true here. Even if the vast majority of society would describe Mr. Roeder as an extremist, that does not mean that it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article to describe him as such.

Beyond the foregoing, if we look at the totality of the circumstances, rational minds can disagree on whether the term "extremist" is appropriate in this context. Dr. Tiller was one of a handful of medical providers that conducted late-term abortions in the United States. The Supreme Court (a reliable source?) described the procedure as follows:

“At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient. This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: [The surgeon] went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used." Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).

Interestingly, 72% of Americans oppose late-term abortions such as the kind Dr. Tiller performed. See https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx (Gallup, another reliable source). Yet I highly doubt that Wikipedia would describe Dr. Tiller as an "extremist" (indeed, it should not, as rational minds can disagree).

Regardless, considering that Mr. Roeder presumably murdered Dr. Tiller to prevent Dr. Tiller from performing said procedure, it is certainly possible that a rational mind may not consider such an act to be "extreme". It is very possible that a minority of fervent anti-abortionists view Mr. Roeder's act as the "lesser of two evils".

In any event, I come back to this: rational minds can disagree on whether the act is "extreme" or not. Even if the majority (or significant majority) of rational minds view the act as extreme, that does not mean that it should be described as such in a publication which purports to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to talk pages so please pardon me if I'm missing some etiquette procedures but can we stop playing silly buggers here? I mean seriously, I just read the last response and I think I'm actually stupider for doing so. First of all, just a side-note, "late-term" abortion is not a medical term and using it is ridiculous so whatever 72% of Americans think, they've been misled by a politicized term for "Late termination of pregnancy" or "postviability abortion". You know, if you want to play games with words and whatever like the previous commenter.
But to cut to the chase, there are some really simple things that make something extremism. One would be: the killing of an individual or group of individuals by someone not acting as an agent of the recognized government at that time. That's extremism.
This is extremism.
Unless of course we're also going to continue with some idiotic reasoning like "rational minds can disagree on whether something is 'rape' or not. Even if the majority (or significant majority) of rational minds view the act as 'rape-y' that does not mean that it should be described as such in a publication which purports to be neutral."
You see what I did there? (Cf. previous commenter, final paragraph)
Again, and in summation: one really really big indicator of extremism is when someone commits the killing of another person or group of people - without the official sanction of the applicable government at that time - under the auspices of an ideological viewpoint. If you'd like to find an example of someone doing this that "rational minds" who aren't just shitposting would claim doesn't count as extremism then I'd be surprised but even if it's for a good cause - in the moral relativist sense - then it's still extremism. For example, Nat Turner's slave rebellion was definitely extremist. It was also something I personally consider - while not good, per se - fair dues. It was also extremist. Like, it was definitely extremist.
So yes, the use of the word extremist in this article is perfectly acceptable and even accurate. In fact, the term "violent extremism" is even more apropos as it eliminates the possibility we're just being mean about a pray-in and instead establishes that we're talking about a violent act. Or does the previous commenter also want to argue that calling these actions "violent" is something "rational minds" might disagree on? Perhaps you'd prefer "a little bit harsh if looked at in the right light"? DacodaNelson (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Stating that you are "stupider" for having read my post. Stating that I am "shitposting". Calling my arguments idiotic (and then ironically supporting your own arguments with logical fallacies)... Certainly, you could have made the very same arguments without resorting to personal attacks. In any event, I will not further respond to a person who refuses to engage in healthy and respectable debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You've been told multiple times now to sign your comments. Just putting that out there. It's also important to note that this is a Wikipedia Talk section: it's a place for discussion, not debate. The difference being that a debate is something people do as a public spectacle or to hone their speaking/reasoning abilities or for competitive purposes; a discussion is when people talk with the intention of sharing information and viewpoints and oftentimes to come to a conclusion about something.
Another thing to note is that rational minds could disagree on what one might call "personal attacks" or "respectable debate". I don't think it's appropriate for you to come into this discussion and accuse me of making "personal attacks" when you purport to be neutral. You and a majority (or a significant majority) might call them "personal attacks" but many rational minds might call them "playful remarks" or "innocent jokes". In the same manner, some rational minds might call what you consider "respectable debate" "shitposting".
I'm glad to hear you won't be responding further though because it means I'll get the glory of not only being correct, but of having the last word. Some rational minds might call this "petty" but others, perhaps a minority, would call it "hilarious". DacodaNelson (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Although your comments are deplorable and your behavior juvenile, and your positions unsupported by logic (i.e. the last word in a debate is not necessarily "correct"), one of the few accurate statements that you made is that I should not have used the word "debate" when I intended the word "discussion." I would have liked to have had a rational discussion on this issue. You have no intention of doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj2570 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, yes; sure, sure. I am of course a reprehensible scoundrel of the worst caliber and a scallawag to boot - these things are apparent. However, I find it hard to believe that you've come here to have a discussion in good-faith when you can't even be bothered to - after several proddings and reminders - sign your comments. You claim to want to play by the rules of logic and formality and neutrality but when it comes right down to it you're too lazy and uninvested in this to type four tildes at the end of your comments, per Wikipedia guidelines. And now that your arguments have been called out by someone like me who is reasonable but less invested in being as antiseptic and endlessly polite as the usual Wikipedia editor (much to their credit!), you've swapped from the tactic of pretending a discussion consists entirely of you repeating the same point or points ad nauseam and claiming anyone who disagrees is disingenuous or abusing their power, and you've moved on to the tactic of playing the offended party who was merely here to take a shot at the "debate me, bro" game and was treated unfairly by a great big meanie.
Now, questions for the rest of the people in this Talk section:
  • (1) Can we agree the consensus - excluding banned users - is that extremist and extremism are appropriate terms to use within this article, given the reliable sources mentioned already by others and the discussion thus far?
  • (2) Have I overstepped the bounds of Wikipedia decorum too much in this Talk section, or nah? [Edit, I forgot to sign this myself. That's embarrassing.] DacodaNelson (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been gone for more than a month (went overseas and didn't have time for Wikipedia), but judging by how this thread turned out, it's evident that the majority of contributors here continue to agree that "extremist" is an appropriate term per the reliable sources. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily column and Tiller's trial

I realize it's not being used as a source for factual claims, but surely there are better examples out there to represent the opposition to Tiller and the support for his prosecution. The statement that follows comparing Tiller to civil rights luminaries like Anthony and King is also rather hyperbolic, but it's at least not attributed to a for-profit Internet rag that banks on conspiracy theories and deliberately controversial and fringe opinion pieces. If the trial was a "cause célèbre", there have got to be other articles or statements that track more closely to the opinions of the mainstream anti-abortion crowd. WP Ludicer (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Gun?

Does anyone know what gun was used to murder George Tiller? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Assassination?

Why is this even called an assassination here, rather than a murder? We define assassination as follows: "Assassination is the act of deliberately killing a prominent or important person, such as heads of state, politicians, royalty, celebrities, or CEOs." I don't believe Tiller fits any of those categories. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You can regard physicians as important people as many people depend for life or quality of life on them. And beside that, according to the mentioned assassination page: An assassination may be prompted by political and military motives. And that political motive is loud and clear. The Banner talk 09:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Category:Murdered physicians has lots of entries. Tiller is the only physician whose death WP places in the special subset of murders called assassinations. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
A quick look on a few of them gives me the idea that some of them are mislabelled. The Banner talk 11:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Text claims late terms abortions were only performed in extreme cases, but is contradicted by source

Tiller treated patients who discovered late in pregnancy that their fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects. He also aborted healthy late-term fetuses in cases where two doctors certified that carrying the fetus to term would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

This doesn't seem to be supported by the source, which states that 3/4 of the abortions were teenagers who had hidden the pregnancy until late term. Similarly, the other late-term clinics state that the majority of late-term abortions are "elective". Ketil (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Tiller/Archive_3&oldid=1235315521"