Jump to content

Talk:Shelley Shannon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Terrorist vs. Pro-life activist

[edit]

It seems that there is an edit war over whether Shelley Shannon should be described as a "terrorist" or a "pro-life activist" in the introduction of the article. Which should be used? Andrew_pmk | Talk 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be terrorist. What do others think?

There's a slo-mo revert war going on about this question if you look through the history of the page.

We should try to reach consensus here. David in DC (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is by definition, a terrorist. So, yes on that one. K69 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for "anti-abortion activist". Using "pro-life" for someone convicted of attempted murder doesn't make much sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.123.174 (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or the best might be "anti-abortion extremist" I'm going to cahnge it to that and see if it sticks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.123.174 (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that works. Most anti-abortion people don't advocate murder, most activists of anything don't advocate murder. Just the same as most Muslims don't advocate flying planes into buildings. Definitely a terrorist and definitely an extremist.--EchetusXe (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Here's the definition under U.S. law (U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)): "(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"
Shannon and others who commit acts of violence in the service of their political ideals with the hope of intimidating others...are terrorists. Pretty cut and dry. Inoculatedcities (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Terrorist is a loaded word

[edit]

There is no doubt that Ms. Shannon is an extremist whacko, but "terrorist" is not the proper term. Terrorists fight to bring down an existing political order, or change a FOREIGN nation's policy. Shannon's efforts do not qualify, because she is merely trying to influence her own country's policy, albeit by extreme and unneccesary means.

Let's not cheapen the term "terrorist" by applying it to any insignificant criminal's actions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.245.43 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 6 July 2007

This is entirely wrong. See the definition of "terrorism" under American law cited above. She's clearly a terrorist. Not an "extremist" (which would imply ideological extremity, not necessarily extreme, criminal actions), not just an "activist" (someone who advocates a cause), but someone who attempts to influence others' beliefs through violent intimidation. This is, quite obviously, terrorism. Inoculatedcities (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't subscribe to that definition at all. Terrorists, in my definition set, use violence against innocents (i.e., people who are not members of the armed forces) in order to achieve political goals. I think most people would call Timothy McVeigh a terrorist, despite the fact that his act was against his own country. (Check out The Troubles and the Red Brigades for other examples of intra-country terrorism.)
Nor do I think of Shelley Shannon's crime as "insignificant"—not by a long-shot.--HughGRex (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound rude, but it really doesn't matter what definition you subscribe to. In the U.S. "terrorism" has a very specific meaning [[1]] Therefore, she is not a terrorist by the laws of her own country. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound rude but...definitions matter. See above. Not sure what you think the statute you linked to says but it clearly states that terrorism is: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (as I've repeatedly cited). Shannon's actions were premeditated, politically-motivated, and her acts were perpetrated against a non-combatant target by a subnational group (the extremist, religiously-allied, anti-abortion movement). Inoculatedcities (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill the cat- the definition at the link you posted reads as follows: "…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."

sounds like it fits the bill to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.156.238 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "insignificant" argument and the "foreign nation" arguments are totally specious, but since there seem to be a lot of people who think "terrorist" is the wrong word, for whatever reason, maybe there is a third word that would be a good compromise. Calling someone who has made a career of politically motivated attacks an "activist" seems very wrong to me. what about "assassin" or "thug". Jesticator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

On further reflection I really think terrorist is the correct word here. She committed a series of "violent" and "life-threatening" acts. They were illegal, and they were "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." its right there in the definition, clear as day. somebody tell me why I'm wrong.Jesticator (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--The idea behind killing doctors who perform abortions has the narrow goal of preventing the particular target from performing future abortions. The broader goal is to frighten off other doctors from performing abortions; i.e., instilling terror within them. Thus, bushwhacking (attacking by surprise when the victim is totally unprepared to defend himself or herself) abortion doctors is clearly terrorism by its very intent.

In regard to the broader question, let us use the gay marriage issue as an analogy. Dialogue between two opponents on the issue: “Bigot!” “Pervert!” ad infinitum. When two sides can’t agree on the definition of right and wrong, then the ultimate recourse is to fight it out with a gun, assuming one or both sides feel strongly enough about it. The hyper-analytical Lenin’s dictum was that morality was strictly an artificial, bourgeois construct which has no basis in reality. Power is all that matters. The faction that wins is "right." If a nation eschews the guidance of an agreed upon religious authority as the supreme arbiter of right and wrong, then Lenin’s philosophy prevails. Always remember Sir John Harrington’s classic observation regarding treason.

Therefore, terrorist should be used in an entirely objective manner in this case. Her goal was to instill terror to promote an end. Thus, she is a terrorist, without any moral judgment implicit in the mere usage of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty poor editing. First, why would the US statutory definition be controlling here? There are plenty of definitions: the man on the street, what newspapers use, what other countries' statutes (or even states within the US as opposed to the federal code) say, etc. So suggesting that the this definition qualifies her as a terrorist is pov. At the very least you should say something like "terrorist as defined by the federal code". Second, it's definitely original research to apply a statute to a person, i.e., perform the task of a jury. It's one thing if you find a newspaper describing her as a terrorist. Or if a jury convicts her--then it's appropriate to describe her as a "convicted terrorist". It's wholly inappropriate to apply the law in a way that not even a judge could. Note that this individual wasn't even indicted as a terrorist; for whatever reason a prosecutor didn't even attempt to submit that definition for application to this individual. That should make it clear to you that, even if the federal statutory definition were appopriate, its application to this individual is a leap constituting original research.Snarfblaat (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US statute is controlling because she is a US prisoner. Calling her a pro-life activist while she tries to murder people is INSANE. I fixed it. Bill Heller (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree the us statute is controlling. Because she was not charged (let alone convicted) as a terrorist under the US (or any other) statute. As to your second point I'm not sure what the "pro-life activist" designation has to do with the "terrorist" label, those aren't the only two options. In any event "pro-life activist" has a specific meaning in this context; you're beef seems to be with the fact that that designation has any currency. But it does have the meaning of "opposed to abortion", unfortunately, just look in any newspaper. It isn't wikipedia's job to adjust the use of language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarfblaat (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper?

[edit]

Why is she called a sniper? Was she a police sniper as a civilian? There is no source given for the claim.

Also, she used a pistol. A pistolier perhaps, but not a sniper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.15.128 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've substituted the good, old-fashioned word gunslinger David in DC (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpshooter?

[edit]

The fact that she shot someone does not make her a sharpshooter. Substantiate the claim that she has some history of exceptional marksmanship or this term should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.104.176 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was aiming to stop a surgeon from working. She shot the surgeon once in each arm. That's in all the sources. It's pretty darned notable marksmanship. I'm not married to "sharpshooter". I welcome a better word. Marksman? Markswoman? Gunslinger has been rejected already. An accurate word is what we're after. Anybody got a good suggestion?David in DC (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got a great one: how about "religiously motivated wannabe murderer"? Short of that I think "religious terrorist" will suffice.Inoculatedcities (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon is neither a gunslinger, marksman nor sniper - she was trying to kill Tiller, not disable him. She is a terrible shot. She is simply a religious terrorist with a gun. Neofinetia (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Neofinetia[reply]

Agreed. Inoculatedcities (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religiously motivated?

[edit]

Here is a source: Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World By Jerrold M. Post, p. 135.-Andrew c [talk] 23:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a quote from the perpetrator? - Schrandit (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, do we have any statement from the perpetrator that the action was motivated by religion? - Schrandit (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Although it was shown here that the perpetrator signed a statement linked with a religious organization and she allegedly claimed she is a "prisoner for Christ" or something similar, none of that proves that her violent *actions* were religiously motivated, especially when her alleged religion doesn't allow for such action to be taken over her types of concerns. This is a fine distinction, but, an important one that seems to be frequently glossed over. Also, please note, there does exist a non-theological, purely scientific-based view held by some in the pro-life community that life begins at conception since the egg begins to change at the point of fertilization and that change process, left uninterrupted, leads to birth. Of course, a living organism's changes don't stop at birth and continue until death. This view could be held by Ms. Shannon, as she may see herself merely as an ally of those who are pro-life from a religious perspective. 71.112.248.214 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Shelly needing an abortion in 2018

[edit]

The sentence stating Shelly would not need an abortion until 2018, is an assumption. This statement assumes she would support abortion, and she would be in need of one sometime after her release. Which at this time are only assumptions, since she is not pregnant, and does support abortion at this time. Assumptions and statements not supported by fact, are not to be included in Wikipedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathinjersey (talk • contribs) 03:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's NOT a Pro Life Activist - She IS a Pro Life Extremist

[edit]

That's what they call religious people when they do her actions. So, it makes sense. I agree with calling her a Terrorist, because by definition....... that is what she is. But if not, at least change it to Extremist..... geez. "Activists" protest, hand out fliers, and knock on doors. Extremists cause physical harm to people because of their EXTREME beliefs. K69 (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that "extremist" is the wrong word, since lots of people have extreme beliefs but do not commit acts of terrorism. If she were merely an extremist, that alone would not merit a wikipedia entry. The act, which was terrorism by any definition I know of, is what makes her noteworthy.Jesticator (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gunwoman, saboteur and rhetorician ????

[edit]

David in DC, I don't see any consensus on this page to replace the word "extremist" with the non-word "gunwoman". Am I missing something? Secondly, there's no mention in the article that she taught public speaking or was an orator. Lastly, the article doesn't even say that Tiller was an abortionist or owned/operated an abortion clinic or performed late-term abortions. The article reader would be left guessing why she targeted Tiller. --Kenatipo (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Extremist is POV. Activist isn't strong enough. So, over time, we've tried a lot of ways to describe her acts rather than her views. I've tried sharpshooter (because stopping a surgeon by shooting each arm is pretty sharp shooting) and gunslinger, which was rejected as being reserved for the old West. Gunwoman is clunkier than gunman, but the latter is not gender-nuetral. Sabatuer is covered in the article. Rhetoritician is because of her letters of support, her testimony, and her participation in drafting petitions. Three examples of her rhetoric are cited in my edit summary for that one. Not all rhetoriticians are formally trained and not all use very good, nor very effective, exhortation. Shannon's rhetoric is notable, if goofy.
But it's all an attempt to describe her acts rather than employ the word extremist. I'm not wedded to any of the three. (Although I think rhetoritician is clever without being POV or excessively snarky.) I am wedded to avoiding "extremist", "anti-choice", and "terrorist" here. They're "loaded" terms and arguably violate NPOV.
(B) To me the article makes clear he was an OB-GYN who provided abortion services. But if it's opaque to you, that's gotta be true of others. A better explanation of that fact in the article is a good idea.
Thank you for dealing with this the right way. Having said my piece, I'm not opposed to anyone improving on my contributions. Please revise anything I've done that needs improvement, including wholesale reversion. But please take note that consensus across the wiki argues for extreme caution with words like terrorist and extremist. My personal guideline on this is to use nouns that describe specific actions rather than general views and/or orientation. David in DC (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extremist is the term used by the Washington Post from news services (see article references). Who would argue that trying to murder someone is not extreme behavior, and that people who do it in support of a cause are called extremists?
Gunwoman isn't even a word, according to merriam-webster.com. Why are we inventing it? (Sharpshooter?!?! The articles I read said she took 4 to 6 shots at him with a .25 cal. pistol when he was going home after work, and she injured him so badly (one wound, each arm) that he didn't miss performing a single abortion scheduled the very next day !!!)
Advocate is preferable to rhetorician (please note spelling), which is far too clever as most people won't understand what you mean.
Lastly, the article doesn't explicitly say that Tiller was an abortionist or owned/operated an abortion clinic or performed late-term abortions, leaving the reader guessing why she targeted him. --Kenatipo (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to act on my edits, including wholesale reversion. I disagree with some of what you say above, but I'm not wedded to my words. You've AGFfed. I've AGFfed. Please improve the article, with my compliments. I do request that you look around the wiki for other discussions of words like the use of words like extremist and terrorist, even if they are in the sources. They're perfectly good words. But they need to be used sparingly in an encyclopedia. They draw a conclusion. If one writes about the acts of extremism or terrorism, the reader can draw that conclusion without further prompting.
Again, thanks for the civil discourse. It's rarer around here all the time. Happy editing. David in DC (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details of arrest

[edit]

I've deleted this from the article because it's so specific, but cannot be found, or at least I cannot find it, in a reliable source. Please re-add it if you can find a source:

"She was followed to her getaway car by a witness who described the license plate as having an unusual design. The Wichita Police Chief, Rick Stone, recognized the witness' description of the license plate design as that used by an Oklahoma rental car company and he had the authorities in Oklahoma immediately alerted. Shannon was arrested by waiting officers when she attempted to return the car to the rental agency."

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shelley Shannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to water down the opening sentence

[edit]

I've changed the initial sentence to say Shannon is an "anti-abortion extremist". Previously it had read "...is best known in US media reports as an anti-abortion extremist", which is needlessly watered down IMO. First of all, it's not just "in US media reports", it's been reported internationally; secondly, it's not just in the media, it's in actual legal/court documents--to say nothing of the fact that one would have to be biased to the point of perverseness not to regard this woman's actions as extremist. Far from watering the term "extremist" down with qualifiers, Shannon should in fact be called a "terrorist": that's what the judge called her, and that's clearly what she is. She has tried to terrorize, inflict harm, and assassinate people for political reasons: she's absolutely a terrorist. But if we're not going to say "terrorist" in the lede, then at least let's say "extremist" without qualifying it with modifiers like "best known in US media reports as...". Chillowack (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shelley_Shannon&oldid=1252297586"