Talk:Assassination of George Tiller/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit conflict

Because of two close, intermingling edit conflicts, I may of accidently set the page back, undoing a lot of content from Cgingold. >_< I'm incredibly sorry for this. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, crisis resolved. Still, edit conflicts suck. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I had to revert back to before your edits, which messed things up in too complex a way to deal with otherwise. Please be more careful. Hunter Kahn may need to redo some of his/her edits. Cgingold (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mug shot

The mug shot released of a previous conviction does not match what is on the wiki. Link to previous mugshot: http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=10452151 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.216.14 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, if the various news people who chose the 1998 mugshot had access to both, they probably did so because of Roeder's Jeremiaic glint. However, even if it is an excellent shot for that purpose, Wikipedia's ideals per WP:BLP are different than that so I've exchanged the 1998 mugshot on the file page to the alternative the IP has pointed to. Until WP completes the upload, a distorted view of the old image will remain, with its length/width stretched/shrunk to the dimensions of the new one, but this glich is temporary. ↜Just M E here , now 15:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

New page

As per a consensus on both talk pages, I created this page from elements of George Tiller and Scott Roeder, the latter of which now redirects here, as per WP:ONEEVENT. I think this is a much better way to approach this issue, but of course any feedback is welcome. And naturally this page itself still needs work, both in content and grammatically... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Roeder is not going to remain a "low-profile" individual as specified in WP:ONEEVENT, particularly as he comes to trial. See also Shelley Shannon and James Charles Kopp for prior Wikipedia practice re high-profile anti-abortion assassins or would-be assassins. Also, if you have a moment, please take a look at my reasoning re non-intuitive titles in page name section below. — LisaSmall ^T/C 23:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with your reasoning, Lisasmall, wouldn't the factor of the-rubric-"Assassanation of George Tiller's"-being-less-intuitive-than-the-one-of-"Scott Roeder" be overcome by the factor of Roeder's remaining unconvicted of the crime? ↜Just M E here , now 23:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What I mean to say is, while skads of commentary about how horrible a crime is, &c, &c, might at some future time belong under the name of its accused perpetrator, I think it would be wisest for us, as a general principle, to name an article about a crime itself and come to attach the convicted perpetrator's name at its top only at the time of conviction (supposing at that time there would still be insufficient material for a pair of articles, one about the crime and one about the purpetrator).

I'm an internationally famous, African diamond merchant; I'm killed by a former Peace Corps volunteer who may have wanted diamond merchants out of Africa. There's skads of commentary about this crime, mostly of outrage but with some expressing sympathy for its likely motive if not for its allegedly attempted means.

Does all this belong in my biography? Not really: my biography is about my life, not about a crime committed by somebody else that was merely the means of my death. Does all of it belong in the biography of my assassin? Perhaps. But not before he would be convicted! ↜Just M E here , now 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (Continued...) I, the diamond merchant, had been killed in church. Several witnesses eventually turn up who'd driven by a nearby grassy knoll at the time of my murder who say they'd seen a man lying there with a rifle and scope pointed toward the church. At the accused's trial, yet other witnesses come to the stand and establish that for any number of weeks prior my murder, the accused had been passing through the lobby to menacingly stare at me before attending church services at my church. The accused comes to the stand. After he'd entered the lobby, says he, he'd glared at me, who at that very moment had been felled by an assassin's bullet fired from an unknown location. Others rushed toward us and the accused had pulled out his illegal handgun and pointed it at them in self-defense. The jury assembles. Every member votes for acquital except one, who'd prejudged the case, thanks to Wikipedia. ↜Just M E here , now 14:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a better solution than having an article on Roeder, who doesn't really strike me as notable enough for an article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Roeder's religion/lack thereof

The Kansas City Star indicated that the individual likely to be charged with killing Tiller had history of mental illness. While many left wing bloggers and websites have attempted to link Roeder to normative Christian groups, there is no substantive evidence that Roeder subscribed to any particular religion nor was he known to be a member of any church, synagogue or mosque at the time of his arrest.

I've moved the above from the "Linsey Roeder statements" section of the article to here. The first sentence is covered in its own section and the second sentence, if true, is not accompanied by any references. I suppose the lack of sourcing for something, if this be the case, could conceivably be noted upon by Wikipedia without our verging into WP:SYNTH but I still think it would be better to reference sources that make the same observation(?) ↜Just M E here , now 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember the Kansas City Star reporting that he had fervent Old Testament beliefs, and would not even attend his son's soccer games on the Sabbath. CopaceticThought (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

See: http://www.kansas.com/946/story/835758.html CopaceticThought (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, unless we quote Lindsey Roeder without offering further analysis, we should wait for further mentions of his faith in subsequent news pieces. (In the American heartland it's assumed someone is Christian, so this context of his ex-wife's statement wrt Roeder's faith implies his practice of a form of Christian Sabbatarianism; however, for WP to assert this would be WP:SYNTH -- let alone speculation whether he has been affiliated with the Christian Identity movement (per this blog) -- since it is conceivable his sabbath observance is due adherence to some uniquely non-Christian Abrahamic faith eg analogous to Hebrew Israelitism.) ↜Just M E here , now 23:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I knew a schizophrenic once who thought she was Jesus at times. Didn't make it true. --CatholicW (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Still alleged

I recently reverted an edit in which "allegedly" was removed based on the fact that Scott Roeder has admitted to the crime. Even if this is true, I would think we still should use the phrase "allegedly" until he is convicted, or pleads guilty. Just because Roeder said it doesn't mean he might not plead guilty later. People often admit to their crimes during an investigation or interview, then later say the admission was coerced or forced or simply untrue (perhaps because they were trying to take the heat off someone else). I know a newspaper would still use "allegedly" or "accused of" even if a suspect admitted to it, and I would think Wikipedia would want to follow that same rule of thumb, especially considering the possible WP:BLP violations... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Categorization: Christian terrorism?

There is dispute as to whether this article should be categorized under Category:Christian terrorism. Roeder identified as Christian, strongly, in fact, and engaged in domestic terrorism: he enforced his political position on abortion by committing murder. See Christian terrorism. This seems straightforward to me. Whatever404 (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Roeder is a schizophrenic. --CatholicW (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you source that statement? If it is true, why is that relevant? Are you saying that Christian terrorism can only be committed by people who have no history of mental illness? Whatever404 (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's in the article. --CatholicW (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that Christian terrorism can only be committed by people with no history of mental illness? What source are you using to back your assertion that this article should not be included in Category:Christian terrorism? Whatever404 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Roeder claims to be a Christian and murdered Tiller in the name of (his interpretation of) Christianity. Whether he belongs to a mainstream church or a fringe group, whether he is mentally ill or not, he is still a Christian terrorist. Crime researcher (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the categorization of "Christian terrorism" makes an inherent judgment about whether Roeder was right in what he did or not - it merely denotes the kind of tactic he used. As such, I think that given that the category exists, this belongs in that category. --Nerd42 (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Un-assasination

I wrote in the move note (some of which was cut off) that "The term "assassination" is generally reserved for notable people of political influence - their murder is thus motivated largely by a misguided desire to make large sweeping changes of an immediate nature, not motivated by a misguided desire to make small ones of an eventual nature."

Ostensibly, the union of local potato farmers would call the murder of Bunky, a local potato farmer, an "assassination." They can do so all they want to on potato farmer blogs and wikis across the internet, and these will no doubt boost the Google-ranked predominance (read "popularity") of the term. That still does not mean anything to us here in an ostensibly objective context. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 07:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to change it back (at least not right away) until we get some feedback, but I'm pretty sure the title "Assassination of George Tiller" was decided upon by a consensus. And even if it wasn't, you really shouldn't have moved it without at least broaching the subject here, if for no other reason than courtesy... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 14:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Hunter wrote: "I'm not going to change it back (at least not right away) until we get some feedback..." - Feedback from whom? From partisans, or from editors? -SV
2. Hunter wrote: "...but I'm pretty sure the title "Assassination of George Tiller" was decided upon by a consensus." - Doesn't matter. Consensus to say something that isn't true is generally derided as "wikiality." Hence we discuss not just what "Google says," but what the facts are. -SV
3. Hunter wrote: "And even if it wasn't..." - Well was it or wasn't it? It would help if you focus your arguments, so that I can respond to the arguments themselves - not to a generalized argument with unnecessary caveats. -SV
4. Hunter wrote: "...you really shouldn't have moved it without at least broaching the subject here, if for no other reason than courtesy." - Read wiki - the concept being "quick" and "easy," not "courtesy." (The Hawaiian words for "courtesy" appears to be a choice of "ʻoluʻolu," "ʻolu," "waipahē," and "waipehē," by the way). And read WP:BOLD - one of our oldest policies. This was a no-brainer - the usage of "assassination" in this context was obviously based in both a misunderstanding of the meaning of "assassination," and a POV preference to canonize persons murdered for certain ostensibly political reasons. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• While I see you put a lot of thought into your four-point response here, I'm simply saying that I think Wikipedia is at its best when consensus-building is utilized, or at least attempted. Also, the simple fact is the definition of assassination is the killing of a person for political reasons, usually a prominent person. The murder of George Tiller fits that definition to the letter. Also, statements Roeder has made about Tiller (the comparison to Josef Mengele, for example, and the need for Tiller to be immediately stopped) fits your own definition of a murder "motivated largely by a misguided desire to make large sweeping changes of an immediate nature". — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Hunter: "I'm simply saying that I think Wikipedia is at its best when consensus-building is utilized, or at least attempted." It didn't seem as if this same process was applied (above) when the issue was first raised. All I saw were pro-abortionists expressing their canonizations and referencing Google. What consensus? -SV
2. Hunter: "Also, the simple fact is the definition of assassination is the killing of a person for political reasons, usually a prominent person. The murder of George Tiller fits that definition to the letter." - Your definition is not accurate. Please substantiate, and we can discuss. For example murdering a right-wing talk show host might certainly be called "political," but not an "assassination" (though all other right wing pundits may differ). Even if George was the head of the abortionists union (Local 242), his murder is still not an "assassination." It is my sense that only people with actual political office (JFK) or else equivalent political influence (MLK) can be "assassinated," and I challenge you to find a case that contradicts this view.
3. Hunter wrote: "Also, statements Roeder has made about Tiller (the comparison to Josef Mengele, for example, and the need for Tiller to be immediately stopped) fits your own definition of a murder "motivated largely by a misguided desire to make large sweeping changes of an immediate nature"." - Actually it doesn't. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• 1) See the heading "Assassination?" above on this very page? There was a discussion about this topic. Granted, it wasn't as large a discussion as it could have been, but at least there was some discussion, which is more than can be said for your changes. 2) Well, our own Wikipedia entry for assassination says "the targeted killing of a public figure" which "may be prompted by ideological, political, or military reasons. Additionally, assassins may be motivated by financial gain, revenge, personal public recognition, or mental illness." That fits with my definition, as well as the Tiller murder. The Merriam-Webster dictionary entry also fits with my definition and, as pointed out above, AP style says the word assassination is appropriate "if it involves the murder of a politically important or prominent individual by surprise attack". As far as your challenge, I didn't have to look very far. Wikipedia has a number of articles about journalists who have been assassinated (see here and here), as well as assassinated religious leaders, assassinated diplomats, assassinated dissidents and assassinated activists. Alan Berg was an assassinated radio host. Carlo Tresca was an anarchist organizer. Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya is another good recent, widely known example. Let me know if you need more. 3) I think it does, and you didn't present an argument as to why it doesn't. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, using a Wikipedia article as a reference is always a good idea - either its well-written and authoritative, or its not and its reference serves as a reminder to us to fix it. I will have to fix the lede in that article from its simplistic definition to a more clear one. However look at the assassination#Use_in_history section and take a look at all the names. Aside from Ghandi, I see only heads of state listed as having been assassinated or else attempted as such.

So, while even you or I do agree that Tiller's killing was a murder, and even though we might agree that his murder can be called an "assassination," its not quite clear or NPOV enough to designate his murder as such here (where NPOV is king) - particularly so for an article title. So, a search here for "assassination of" shows us a number of heads of state - the Jesse James link is to a proper title for the recent film. Which reminds of me of something pertinent from Chris Rock:

“ I'm watching the news … Tupac Shakur was assassinated, Biggie Smalls assassinated, struck down by assassin's bullets … no, they wasn't. Martin Luther King was assassinated, Malcolm X was assassinated, John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Them two niggas got shot! Shit, I love Tupac, I love Biggie, but school will be open on their birthday. ”

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• lol, While I appreciate the levity you've added to the conversation with the Chris Rock quote, I continue to stand behind "Assassination of George Tiller" as the appropriate title for this entry. However, it appears you and I are probably at a standstill in this argument, so I'm going to seek further comments by posting links to this talk page at other Wikiproject talk pages for further input. I have restored, however, a sentence that was removed from the lead claiming that some have labeled this murder an assassination. This was removed when the page was moved from "Murder" to "Assassination" because it was no longer needed, so now I've added it back. It's sourced and the prose makes clear that this is believed by some people, not all the people, so it addresses WP:NPOV issues... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually feel that "murder" fits better in this case. Most assassinations are for political reasons and this one is clearly for religious reasons which could also an assassination but I'm looking at Wikipedia's definition an assassination is the targeted killing of a public figure or a killing or murder for political reasons based on Wiktionary. I don't feel Tiller is a public figure (maybe closer to a limited purpose public figure) but even then I don't feel that he has "thrust himself to the forefront" but was forced into becoming a public figure. While I think assassination would work, I feel murder is more appropriate. Bhall87 (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Scott Roeder is being charged with murder under Kansas law. While there could be a case made for Assassination, I feel that the term Murder is more appropriate since that is what Roeder is being charged with. Assassination assumes too much and doesn't have a NPOV as required by WP guidelines. Perhaps after the trial has concluded, this could be revisited. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sufficiently annoyed by Stevertigo's obnoxious manner and disregard for consensus, discussion, etc. (especially in WP:Abortion, a zone of the encylopedia where he should be well aware that every edit demands discussion) that I am inclined to agree with Hunter simply on principle. However, that aside, I really do think that "assassination" is the appropriate word. IMHO, the key distinction between "murder" (a general term) and "assassination" (a specific term) is that the motive is ideological. If Rush Limbaugh shot Bill Clinton, that would be an assassination, because it would (no doubt) be because Limbaugh hates what Clinton believes and represents. If Hillary, by contrast, shot Bill, that would be simply murder, because she'd be killing him (presumably) over his manifold personal marital flaws. For this reason, I consider the execution of Socrates by the Greek State to have been an assassination.

There seems to be enough conflict among prominent dictionaries on this point that we could go either way, but I would be inclined toward "assassination". Add to that the fact that there was a previous (albeit weak) consensus establishing that point, and additionally the simple fact that Steverigo changed it without asking anybody, and I think we should definitely return to the orginally agreed-upon wording. If a stronger consensus for "murder" develops, however, I won't contest it, since we really could go either way here.

However, while I, being a fairly enthusiastic activist, did know who Tiller was before he was killed, but I would agree that he was, at most, a limited-purpose public figure for our purposes here. If his degree of public notability turns out to be the deciding factor (rather than the motive for his murder), I side with the murderers over the assassins. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I just read BCSWowbagger's comment. For the record, I did not "disregard[] consensus, discussion, etc.," I simply upheld NPOV and employed WP:BOLD to do it. Note that, in addition to Bhall and Cuprum, Hunter appears now to agree that the term "assassination" is not necessary for the article title, and that "murder" satisfies NPOV.

Rather than making blockable personal attacks like "obnoxious," or sharing with us any apparently activist point of view labels such as "limited purpose public figure," BCSWow could instead make emself useful and add to the article a summary of facts about Tiller himself. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I made my way here via a note left on the WP:CRIME talk page requesting outside input. While Tiller was well known in the U.S. due to the controversy surrounding his profession, he doesn't seem to fit the definition of a public figure or celebrity based on the WP definition of assassination as posted above by Bhall87. Out of curiousity, I took a look at John Lennon, whose death fits the definition of an assassination. The section about his death is entitled "Murder" and the main article is Death of John Lennon. I didn't look at the talk pages for either article, but presume the usage of "murder" and "death" are results of discussions regarding neutrality.

Something to take note of is the usage of the term "assassination" by news media, which often use terms incorrectly and, as a result, spread misinformation. For example, Patrick Tracy Burris was, and continues to be, called a serial killer by some media (and the Barney Fife sheriff in the case), while his crimes more closely fit those of a spree killer. Media often use "assassination" in reference to high-profile murders; however, that doesn't necessarily mean the usage is accurate or neutral. I hope my comments help in some way. momoricks 02:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I just wanted to respond to Stevertigo's most recent post, that he feels I now appear to agree the term is "assassination" is not necessary for the title. I just wanted to make sure my own position was clear: I still feel it is appropriate to define George Tiller's murder as an assassination, and I feel that the title of the article should be "Assassination of George Tiller" was it was before. However, what I really wanted was a discussion that would establish some manner of consensus. Based on the discussion above, I don't think we have a consensus for the "Assassination of George Tiller" title, so I'm fine with it staying as it is for now. However, I think the inclusion of the (cited and sourced) sentence that at least some people consider the murder an assassination is a necessary element of this article. As long as that's included, I'm good with the "Murder" title for now, although I'd suggest it be revisited in the future as the Scott Roeder charges move ahead. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, Momoricks, I'm curious: where is this rationale you are citing that Lennon's death fits the definition of an assassination? The idea that Lennon was assassinated, but Tiller was only murdered, strikes me as bizarre to say the least... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn, I apologize for being unclear. Assassination is the targeted killing of a public figure, described in the main article as a politician, celebrity or business figure. John Lennon is a celebrity, which makes his murder an assassination. I don't consider Tiller to be any of those; I'm an avid news reader and had never heard of him before his death. For the record, Death of George Tiller appears to be the most neutral page name at this time because Roeder has not been convicted of killing Tiller. Best, momoricks 22:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I disagree very much with that logic; I think an assassination would be for ideological, political, or military reasons, which Tiller fits and Lennon doesn't. As Stevertigo points out above with the Tupac quote, I don't think the murder of every celebrity is an assassination. By that logic, Anna Politkovskaya was not assassinated, but Phil Hartman was, which I obviously don't think is accurate. But that being said, I've already yielded for the moment to the "Murder of George Tiller" title, so it's sort of a moot point... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be several reliable sources in the article referring to the event as an assassination. Several definitions for the word "assassination" that have been advanced based on reliable sources that fit this usage as they refer to a politically or ideologically motivated surprise killing. Based upon reliable sources, George Tiller was a prominent public figure who was killed in a surprise attack for political or ideological reasons. The statement of an above editor that they had not heard of George Tiller prior to the shooting is irrelevant. Reliable sources are relevant; personal opinions or experience or not. Based upon the reliable sources for the killing and the definition of the word assassination, "assassination" appears to be the appropriate description to use in the title. Locke9k (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, as I mentioned before, there are a number of references in the article to mainstream media sources referring to this event as an assassination. There do not appear to be any references to mainstream sources arguing that it was not an assassination. Furthermore, after several weeks no one has responded to my last point, and much of the argument against titling the article "Assassination of George Tiller" has centered on personal opinions and original research. Thus, On the basis of reliable sources, I will restore the title of this article to "Assassination of George Tiller" shortly. I'll give a few days for further response first. Please limit responses to discussion of reliable sources, as our own opinions on what it should be called are irrelevant. Locke9k (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the neutrality of the term "murder"

As I post this, I note Mormoricks comment as well-made. I acknowledge Hunter's comment as well.

(Having thought about it a little). I do note though that there are some merits to using "assassination." For one, pro-choice people here may like the idea of canonizing Tiller as an important figure and a martyr. Pro-life people may like the idea of not calling Roeder a "murderer." There are serious concepts in historical law that deal with the ideas of justifiable homicide and execution, and how the termination of life functions in certain heinous and destructive people may be highly desirable, if not an outright necessity.

So given our vast capacities for understanding concepts of any moral complexity, we can here consider to some degree the pro-life contention that destroying a fetus is "murder," and that therefore destroying a human being who performs abortions may not be "murder" at all, but rather a justified homicide (ostensibly one celebrated by the angels with choirsong, frankincense, and transcendental confetti). We can also consider a common pro-choice point of view, that a fetus is not a human being until it has a human mind — such that not until a certain point are its thought processes sufficiently active such as to be considered sentient (and here, ostensibly crossing the line a little bit would still just be an "oops," and not really anything to be too morally concerned about).

A look at the extremes and how they would deal with the issue always helps: Some pro-choice people conceivably might like a title like "Martyrdom of George Tiller." And maybe some pro-life people would really love using a title such as "Annihilation of George Tiller." A move to Homicide of George Tiller may be both more accurate and neutral enough for both sides. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• The neutrality of the word murder has already been discussed. I don't think it in any way violates WP:NPOV or WP:NEUTRAL. As this very Wikipedia entry illustrates, almost everybody (even from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum) has condemned this as a murder. Only the most extreme ideological groups extremists is disputing that Tiller was murdered, and to give them too much credence violates Wikipedia policy. Plus there's always WP:COMMON: the shooting of a man in the head at point blank range is a murder. I'm willing to accept moving this from "Assassination" to "Murder" for now due to the lack of a consensus and the fact that it may be revisited as the Scott Roeder charges and trial move forward (WP:CCC), but I don't think there's any need to debate the use of the word murder... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a need to debate the use of the word "murder" as I am debating it with myself at present. I can't make up my mind whether it was a murder or not, honestly. It is probably true that a fairly large majority of people agree that Tiller was murdered, as I'm sure all Pro-Choicers believe he was and a fair percentage of Pro-Lifers think he was as well. (Not sure whether it's a majority opinion within the Pro-Life community or not) But we have no accurate data, and there are folks not normally considered extreme who have never condoned violence before and who usually condemn anti-abortion violence who have been .... very silent about this particular case despite it's prominence. And I think it's pretty clear that the reason they've been so silent is that they don't want to antagonize people they respect who think Roeder's actions were morally justifiable. --Nerd42 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How about just "Geroge Tiller"?

How about just George Tiller? Ostensibly, notability is not too much of an issue (since people say he was "assassinated"). And ultimately our articles are not so much about how a person died but rather how a person lived - the necessity to distinguish certain articles in accord with the events associated with them is an exceptional case and not the norm. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve, are you suggesting a merge with George Tiller? Sorry; I just don't quite understand your suggestion. If that is what you're suggesting, I see significant merit in the idea and would support it. We might also consider a page called Scott Roeder (currently redirects to this article) to absorb whatever excess and worthy material wouldn't fit well into the Tiller article. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm getting the impression that Stevertigo's most recent suggestion is a joke, but just in case it's not...the information on the murder was originally part of the George Tiller site, but was pulled out here when it started to overwhelm the article. Such moves are within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Also, originally, content from this article was in a separate Scott Roeder article, but it was combined here because he had not been sentenced or convicted yet, plus a lot of the information was (and is) about content related to Tiller but not to Roeder, like reactions and fallout and whatnot. To merge this all back to George Tiller would just create all those problems again and be contrary to previously established consensus. (A Scott Roeder separate article might be appropriate eventually, but I'd suggest not now.) Until now, nobody has questioned whether this has been a murder, or whether it's notable enough for its own separate article. The article and title are fine as they are now. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of non-notable claim in section "Reactions to Tiller's killing" - December 2010

I removed a misleading paragraph about "prompted calls for an anti-abortion violence registry" that was sourced to a single non-notable blog post. The removed information needs to be sourced to an independent news story, not an opinion column. Flowanda | Talk 10:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• I actually think an opinion column can be a perfectly fine source for information like this. Even if the call for such a registry originated in an opinion column, citing that source demonstrates that those calls exist. But I agree that more than one source is necessary for such a statement so I'm not restoring the info just now. — Hunter Kahn 14:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not terrorism

stop reverting the edits. 63.215.29.202 (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, can you deny that part of this was to intimidate other Abortion Doctors to keep them from performing Late Term Abortions? To terrorize them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.40.122 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Anti-abortion violence is explicitly defined by national security services as single-issue terrorism. I think we can call it that and be factual. Monado (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reactions section: usage of [sic] in quotations that refer to "Mr. Tiller."

Operation Rescue's comment twice refers to Dr. Tiller as "Mr.". Denying Dr. Tiller his medical title is an obvious, deliberate, childish act of disrespect against the victim of a terrorist murder. Should be indicated with "[sic]". Otherwise, wikipedia would be PARTICIPATING IN, and SUPPORTING, the disrespect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.243.185 (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: someone removed the "[sic]"s. So I put them back. I will keep putting them back as long as any moron keeps removing them. If this be edit-warring, so be it; it's justified in this case. Otherwise, wiki would be complicit in supporting a TERRORIST MURDER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.243.185 (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

FURTHER UPDATE: if the "[sic]" is removed even ONE more time, I will delete Operation Rescue's response altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.243.185 (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

EVEN FURTHER UPDATE: I have deleted Operation Rescue's response altogether. Operation Rescue is a terrorist organization, and should not be quoted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.243.185 (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted it again. Hey I can keep this up 'til judgement day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.243.185 (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Any male in the United States may use the title socially, even if he holds a professional, political, or other title, such as "Dr." which some also use in social circumstances. [sic] in this case rather than providing helpful information to the reader serves as nothing more than a distraction.Zebulin (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors continue to place [sic] in the quotations. This is grossly inappropriate and does a the reader a disservice. In fact it's inclusion is equivalent to vandalism as it misinforms the reader that the quotation contains an acknowledged error where no error can be found in the quote. Using "Mr." as the title for a doctor in the US is entirely acceptable. In fact Mr. can be used for *any* adult male in the US socially.Zebulin (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. It is extremely likely that the group quoted used "Mr." instead of "Dr." deliberately and negatively, but there's not much to be done about it. The quote will have to speak for itself. ClovisPt (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• A medical doctor is worthy of the title "Dr." until they are struck off by their medical association. I would avoid "Mr." unless quoting someone who used that term. "[sic]" is a way of saying, "Their mistake, not ours," but it's not really needed here. The disrespect is obvious enough. Monado (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Page name

Assassination?

I'd like to propose that this page be moved back to "Murder of George Tiller". It can be debated about whether "assassination" is an appropriate word to use, but I think that at least 95% of Americans would agree that gunning somebody down at church is a "murder". "Killing" is inappropriate IMHO, because then the argument is being made that it's _not_ murder.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I suspect we would be hard-pressed to find someone who agreed that Tiller was murdered but not assassinated. So I am not sure the distance from "murder" to "assassination" is far enough to worry about.

Until a murder conviction has been secured, I would personally be most comfortable with using the word "killing" here -- I don't think it implies that Tiller's death was not a murder (in the way that "manslaughter" would). However, a very quick Google search turns up 2.2 million news articles using the term "assassination" in connection with Tiller's death (from mainstream sources ranging from the Washington Monthly to the L.A. Times), and 2.5 million using the word "murder". So I think the use of the word here is at least supported by reliable sources. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sarek! I am in the assassination camp. "Murder" is inappropriately vague, "killing" even more so. Further, I admit I'm not keen on the current article title at all. I think this should have been set up as an article on Scott Philip Roeder under his own name, as we have articles on Shelley Shannon and James Charles Kopp. The chronology of the event itself will recede and be subsumed by info about Roeder when this gets to trial. Also, it's counter-intuitive for Wiki users to seek info on either Dr. Tiller or Roeder by typing in "Assassination of...." -- LisaSmall ^T/C 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the sources say Tiller's killing was an assassination (or a "killing of a public figure, in the hopes of acheiving certain political ends") -- which isn't to say that they don't say it was a murder, as well (or, a purposeful killing of someone without there being extraordinary emergency situation that would sanction the act as being a reasonable act of defense"). ↜Just M E here , now 06:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the Associated Press's style guideline wrt assassination is "Use the term only if it involves the murder of a politically important or prominent individual by surprise attack."

Yet wrt the legal term murdered, the AP's style guide says, "Unless authorities say premeditation was obvious, do not say that a victim was murdered. Instead, say that a victim was killed or slain."[1]

I believe in this situation it would be encyclopedic to say that Tiller, a politically prominent person, was indeed killed in a surprise attack -- thus was assassinated -- however, since the authorities have yet to say that the killing was obviously premeditated, WP ironically should hold off on terming it a murder. ↜Just M E here , now 20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 95% of Americans are even aware of the issue. But this was certainly a political assassination. On that point, I'm sure we can all agree. Roeder was certainly engaging in a political act whether it was also religious or not. It's nonsensical to argue that Roeder wanted his actions to have no political effect or to minimize their political nature.

"Killing" does not imply a non-murder, because all murders are killings. But not all killings are murders. I think "Killing" would definitely be a more neutral term than "murder." If we don't like, "assasination" then how about we use whatever term Wikipedia uses for the killing that is abortion? (That would be ironic) If it's neutral enough there, it ought to be neutral enough here.

There are people I know who probably think the actions of the man who killed George Tiller were morally justifiable and that this was not a "murder." And there are people I know who are still glad George Tiller is dead but do believe he was murdered. I can respect both views and can't make up my own mind between them. What divides the Pro-Life community is not the use of violence against abortion providers in general - there is an almost universal condemnation of that - but whether it was justifiable in this one case, given the unusual circumstances.

Ordinarily, I and most Pro-Lifers come out strongly against the use of violence to support the cause. I believe that, in general, the idea of using violence to support the Pro-Life cause would be a clear self-contradiction, and if peaceful civil disobedience was enough to put an end to the evil of racial prejudice, it should be enough to put an end to the evil of abortion. But in the one extreme case of George Tiller, I am conflicted about whether this killing/assassination constituted a murder (in the moral, not the legal sense) or not. It is an issue I am turning around in my head right now and can't seem to reach a definite conclusion on. I see a strong comparison between the justifiability of assassinating Tiller with assassinating Hitler or Saddam Hussein. An argument from utilitarianism could be made that though they are not present at the time, the lives of multiple other people are going to be lost if this one life is not taken, therefore it is justifiable to take this one life to save others. George Tiller was one of a very small group of abortion providers who publicly perform the very late term abortions that no one can look at without knowing they're wrong. I think most Pro-Lifers are certainly glad that George Tiller is no longer alive, whether they agree with how it took place or not. But was the end of preventing this really worth the means? The people supposedly being saved here are very much in the abstract and might not even end up being saved after all if someone else takes over George Tiller's job.

We certainly can't have people just randomly shooting alleged abortion providers. The bane of the Pro-Life position has always been judicial activism, so any consistent Pro-Life person placed in the position of the judge in this case could not be consistent in letting the guy (the guy who killed George Tiller) off. One thing I'm sure of - this guy has to pay the piper and needs to go to jail for a very long time. Whether he's a murderer or someone who has merely broken the laws of the United States is a question for further thought. --Nerd42 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "Assassination" in the Article title is completely inappropriate. George Tiller was hardly a public figure and the use of the qualifier "assassination" is not neutral and inappropriate for an Encyclopedia; as it is debatable whether or not his murder qualifies as an Assassination. However, it definitely should be said in the first or second paragraph that "Multiple action groups and media figures have labeled Tiller's killing an act of domestic terrorism, and an assassination." Although I personally believe that it was definitely an assassination (because of my personal political beliefs), my opinion on the matter is not neutral. A doctor with an unusual specialty is not an public figure and Doctor Tiller probably should not even have his own article but for his brutal murder. Being a punching bag for anti-abortion activists does not qualify as a public figure. My point: The term "assassination" is not a fact but a conclusion that one may draw from the facts and therefore should not be the title of the Article. 97.77.96.242 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

George tiller was not a political or religious or social movement leader. He did not have followers and did not lead marches, protests, r run for office. Conflating his murder with an "assassination" is pure political gamesmanship by left wing abortion activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.75.177 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Separate Roeder bio?

Wrt the idea of a separate bio for Roeder's: IMO this decision is not an either-or, we can have both -- or, I suppose I should say, all three. "George Tiller" was getting to be mostly about Tiller's assassination, so this article was brought out. At the point of time in the not too distant future when this article gets to be too much about Scott Roeder, then an article specific to him can be brought out. ↜Just M E here , now 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we've got enough for an article about Roeder right now IMO. (Allegedly) assassinating Tiller is the thing he's most notable for, but his involvement in the Montana Freemen and the Sovereign Citizen Movement, and his anti-abortion/Army of God activities prior to the Tiller assassination, show that he has more than just single-event notability. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Assassination title again?

So, now that the trial is finished, and Roeder has specifically admitted the killing was based on his ideological convictions regarding abortion, and that his killing of Tiller was "an attempt to save unborn children", and that assassination can be defined as the targeted killing of a public figure for achieving ideological ends, can we now restore the title back to Assassination of George Tiller, rather than murder? I have always believed it was a more appropriate title, but there was a lack of consensus, especially since the trial was still ongoing. But, consensus can change, and now that the trial is over and any doubt has been erased, I think the assassination title should be considered again. — Hunter Kahn 17:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's a definitional matter at this point. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "Assassination" in the Article title is completely inappropriate. George Tiller was hardly a public figure and the use of the qualifier "assassination" is not neutral and inappropriate for an Encyclopedia; as it is debatable whether or not his murder qualifies as an Assassination. However, it definitely should be said in the first or second paragraph that "Multiple action groups and media figures have labeled Tiller's killing an act of domestic terrorism, and an assassination." Although I personally believe that it was definitely an assassination (because of my personal political beliefs), my opinion on the matter is not neutral. A doctor with an unusual specialty is not an public figure and Doctor Tiller probably should not even have his own article but for his brutal murder. Being a punching bag for anti-abortion activists does not qualify as a public figure. My point: The term "assassination" is not a fact but a conclusion that one may draw from the facts and therefore should not be the title of the Article. 97.77.96.242 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It definitely is an assassination. Tiller was a prominent person (he was publicly known as one of the few doctors who performed late term abortions and his clinic was targeted by anti-abortion groups in the media and in court for many years) and murdered abruptly for political and ideological reasons. That is by definition what an assassination is, and the word itself is neutral. --Iamozy (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Trial section update

I have updated the "Trial" section with a sentence pointing out that Roeder has appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury should have been given the option of convicting him on the lesser charge of "voluntary manslaughter". The Kansas Supreme Court heard arguments about this on Jan. 29, 2014, but has not yet ruled on it. Goblinshark17 (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have also added a sentence pointing out that since Roeder was sentenced, the US Supreme Court has altered the rules regarding when the "Hard 50" may be imposed, and that this may cause Roeder's sentence to be overturned, necessitating re-sentencing. I have provided a reference for this. Goblinshark17 (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

FURTHER UPDATE: I have also added a sentence reporting (with a reference) that Roeder spent 45 days in solitary confinement for making further threats of violence during a telephone interview with anti-abortion activist Dave Leach. I have placed this sentence in a new section entitled "Further threats from prison". Goblinshark17 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Reactions" section update

I have expanded the "Reactions" section to include O'Reilly's own comments made after the murder, in which he blames "pro-abortion zealots" for criticizing him and claims that "hating Fox News" is "the real agenda here". Goblinshark17 (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091111105205/http://abcnews.go.com:80/US/wireStory?id=9036328 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9036328

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Roeder resentencing

The Kansas Supreme court held that Roeder must be resentenced by a jury. The process has started. Someone needs to write up. http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article70287142.html Burressd (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)