Talk:Murder of David Gunn

Christian terrorist Reference

I added the Reference to Christian Terrorism. This edit was reverted and it was noted that there "is no reference" to this Reference. This is true of several References on this page and there is a consensus on the Joe Scarborough talk page that Griffith fits this definition. Again, I request that those who question this kindly joine the discussion rather simple revert the edit. Thank you. Kek15 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't a concensus on the Scarborough page and the dsicussion is irrelevant without a reliable source describing the person as such. He may very well be a Christian terrorist but BLP prevents it being used here without a source and precludes it altogether on the Scarborough page (at least the way it was presented there.) --DHeyward (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Middle East, Muslim extremists who strap on suicide bombs or set off IED's are regularly referred to as "Muslim terrorists." And this activity is generally referred to as "Islamic Terrorism." No further sources are needed for these descriptive terms as the actions speak for themselves. (And it is well understood by most people that these actors represent a small minority of Muslims; just as it is understood that not all Christians are members of the KKK.) One needs to read the Wikipedia article on Christian Terrorism. This reference should stand. Kek15 (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There must be consensus on this, no matter what. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What Cobaltbluetony said! TheProf - T / C 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - I think User:Seicer's caution of Kek15 on his talk page is a little harsh. This is more of a content dispute than Kek15 actually trying to disrupt wikipedia! TheProf - T / C 13:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Griffin was not a murderer acting alone. He was a member of a group. See this articele http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E2DC113AF936A35750C0A962958260 He is very much connected with Rescue America a Christian national group.

The man in the NY Times article who is identified as Griffin's teacher, advisor and the local leader of Rescue America: "Mr. Burt, a 55-year-old minister and former member of the Ku Klux Klan...." In the Christian Terrorism article, there is a picture of the KKK burning a cross at the top of the article and there is a section devoted to the KKK within the article. The KKK is one of several Christian terrorist organizations discussed in the article.

This man (Griffin) is clearly a terrorist and connected to terrorist organizations. But I have agreed not to revert this article and include the term and I will stick to that as it is not all that important to me either way. There is no doubt however that it is beyond doubt. Kek15 (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered one of my own questions. I wondered aloud whether Wikipedia referred to ANYONE as a Christian terrorist. The answer is yes - abortion clinic and Olympics bomber Eric Robert Rudolph is referred to as a Christian terrorist but there appears to be a bit of an ongoing edit war over there regardless of 2 sources and that he was evidently NOT connected with a celebrity attorney. (And the article does mention the name of his attorney.) Many people simply just don't like the term Christian terrorism - period. Don't get me wrong - I'm Irish-American Catholic. I just realize that other religions don't have the market cornered on terrorism. Rudolph is responsible for 3 deaths and over 150 injuries; and he is more closedly associated with Christian movements than is Griffin. Kek15 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources connecting Griffin with terrorism: Google Scholar, Google Books, Google News... < Kek15 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Abortion doctor != christrian terrorist. That's a long pull right there. seicer | talk | contribs 13:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "Abortion doctor KILLER = Christian terrorist." And with proper sourcing and concensus, I would agree. Kek15 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah.... so you intend to insert the libelous term solely because you believe that abortion is linked to terrorism. That's a blatant violation of policy. seicer | talk | contribs 14:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The term is only libelous if it is not true. The link that is being established is not between abortion and terrorism, but between Griffin and terrorism. There is source material to support this on this page already. I had hoped that we knew what the issue was by now. Your accusation is truly bizarre. Kek15 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully like to remind Seicer of TheProf07's reminder not to bite the newcomers. For very strongly held views, it is important to keep a cool head, and focus on assisting the new editor of the nuances of Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy, rather than snapping back about which policies have been "blatantly" violated. In this particular arena "blatant" violations and headstrong views are expected, and should be dealt with in a calm and tempered manner.

In this vein, Seicer's invocation of WP:ASF seems to hold sway over Kek15's goal here: without definitive corroboration that Griffin 1) belonged to a group which either has been 1a) proven to be a Christian terrorist organization or 1b) widely held to be such, or 2) that Griffin himself accepted the label, we cannot draw the conclusion. Even the sources referenced do not explicitly tie Griffin's group to known acts of Christian terrorism. Between you, me, and the wall, it seems obvious. But since Wikipedia attempts to speak to the widest possible audience, we must prove that such opinions are widely held. In this case, without such proof, we would even be guilty of attributing undue weight to this idea, no matter how simply true we personally feel it is.

This is exceptionally frustrating when we are "certain" of the view, and even feel that it is the only logical conclusion. But it's not just the fact that others might disagree with us and feel equally justified in doing so, nor is it the concern of publishing libelous information about a living person: it's that for everything in Wikipedia, there must be external evidence that such views are widely held, or at least by a significant minority. We presume anything significant enough is documented enough so as to give such statements the sourcing required; without it we cannot pretend to be scholarly and ethically faithful, and Wikipedia loses its integrity. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how reminding a user (again) that such libelous text is a serious vio of BLP is "biting the newcomer." Other administrators have gone to a great length to try to discuss the matter, and when it's dragged through the mud, and when various false accusations are made at AN (e.g. "John Reaves is a nasty admin"), then patience wears thin. seicer | talk | contribs 16:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear as mud, then? ;-) I don't see it as so serious a violation (not like we're calling Bush a communist, or Obama a flaming homosexual prostitute!); we just don't have the sources required to confidently use it here. Multiple warnings are commonplace, even among much less controversial topics. I truly do understand your frustration, so I am simply asking you to try and remain calm. There are procedures in place -- first and foremost community consensus -- to take the stress of trying to enforce a policy off of your shoulders alone, and allowing multiple users to reinforce (or even diffuse) your view as the agreed-upon interpretation of the policy. Kek15 is a puppy among the packs of voracious hyenas trolling around Wikipedia, shoving their views and interpretations down others' throats -- he(she?) being much more civil. Remember, an eye for an eye produces a world of blind men: don't return incivility for incivility, even when you feel fully justified.

Kek15, just to reiterate: we don't have clear enough referencing to confidently use the term. Feel free to continue to search for such, but expect continued challenges. Such is the way of Wikipedia: try not to invest emotionally, at all, if possible. It's just not worth IRL stress. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tony very much for your measured and informative contributions here. I had stated days ago that I understood that there was not enough sourcing or concensus to re-introduce this term into the Griffin or Scarborough article - and I will honor this. I was simply adding some additional source material (that someone else gathered) to this page. This for some reason elicited a decidedly sharp response. I agree that Wikipedia must maintain editorial standards. (I did not create or name any entries on WP:AN; I contributed to a thread where I was mentioned.) What's IRL? (in real life - got it) Thank you. Kek15 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

John Burt

Suggest link or reference to John Burt in this article as Michael Griffin is mentioned in John Burt article. John Burt is really only noteworthy due to his connection with Michael Griffin.Kek15 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Michael F. Griffin → Murder of David Gunn — Per WP:ONEEVENT. Groupthink (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Or in the alternative, merge to David Gunn (doctor). Groupthink (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has been renamed per the above move request. Groupthink (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Material from Talk:John Burt

Michael F. Griffin

There is a link to Michael F. Griffin in this article; and it is his connection to Griffin (the first abortion doctor killer) that makes John Burt noteworthy. I suggest adding a link in Giffins article to John Burt. Kek15 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

John Burt → Murder of David Gunn — Per WP:ONEEVENT. —Groupthink (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Or in the alternative, merge to David Gunn (doctor). Groupthink (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has been merged to Murder of David Gunn per the above move request. Groupthink (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Christian terrorist"?

The suspect says that his motivation was neither religious, nor to inspire terror. I don't see how labeling him a "Christian terrorist" or definitively stating that this act of violence was religiously motivated is appropriate. - Schrandit (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not what his web page says, sir. Groupthink (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)