Talk:George Tiller/Archive 1

Images

There were a dozen or so images taken from dr-tiller.com and uploaded to wikipedia. It was claimed that the rights were released, but a) I do not see how that is possible for images that they do not own the rights to (professional headshot, newspaper clipping) and b) I could not find that claim anywhere on the website. If the copyright information can be made clear, through the normal channels WP:BRP, then the images are fine. Otherwise, these images are inappropriate for wikipedia. --Andrew c 20:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I just uploaded a image of George and I can verify that it was indeed self-created. Nonameplayer (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

moved some text which was mistakenly added here into its own section -- The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Do a Google search before presenting a proposal for deletion. --Elliskev 00:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I do not understand your objection (please assume good faith). Why don't you do a google search for Shawn M. Keller? Over 4 times as many "hits", and he has a practice named after himself as well. So why isn't there a Shawn M. Keller article? There is more to WP:N than google hits. We cannot be a primary source. There needs to be verifiable sources (besides unsourced partisan websites) that mention the individual. --Andrew c 00:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: AGF, please... I haven't said anything that could be construed as an assumption of bad faith. It's more an accusation of lack of research. What's with the accusations of AGF and CIV lately. It's as if I was Ann Coulter or something...

The proposal references the non-notability of this person. This person is notable, and a simple Google search shows that, beyond advertisements, this person is notable. --Elliskev 01:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Are you kidding me?"

So having a clinic and having a few pro-life websites profiling you is enough to make you notable? From the WP:N: "Many editors also believe that it is fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." Are you saying "yes" to that question? and are you saying the current version of this article passes this criteria as well? I think we are using different definitions of "notability". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'll repeat myself, there is more to WP:N than google hits. Please, if you want to spend time 'arguing' this out, try to direct that energy into finding decent sourced information about Dr. Tiller to show that he is, in fact notable.--Andrew c 02:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Current version notwithstanding, POV possibility notwithstanding, Dr. Tiller is notable. Just as notable as any other contemporary in the news as a result of being affiliated with a controversial subject. --Elliskev 02:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this article was created two days ago, by an editor who seemed to, by the language used and the sources given, have an agenda, perhaps in itself makes it a good candidate for deletion.

Although I agree that this doctor is known and notable within certain circles, I agree with Andrew that this does not mean that he is notable in the Wikipedia sense. Either this article should be deleted, or some good evidence (not just the opinions of other editors) needs to be brought forward as to why Dr. Tiller is notable enough. In the case that the article stays, it needs a serious overhaul, and some unbiased sources. romarin[talk to her ] 14:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

George Tiller could be notable for the same reason as Barnett Slepian and David Gunn. He was the subject of anti-abortion violence in 1993, a fact I am surprised I forgot, given that I was the one to overhaul that article.

I also overhauled the article and found, what I hope, are neutral sources. I know NARAL and Planned Parenthood aren't neutral, but, the information is a composite gathered from many sources, and confirmed by an article in the Washington Post. It isn't always possible to gather complete, thorough information from a single neutral source. In which case, I look for a neutral source to corroborate the more detailed information offered by the POV source. I'll leave it to Andrew C. and the others to determine whether the AfD tag should be removed. -Severa (!!!) 01:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the author who completely changed this article because I "Had an agenda" also professes himself to be a "clinic escort" at a womens clinic. It is true that I am strongly pro-life, but User:Andrew C clearly has one as well. The article has gone from a long, detailed, and accurate article, to what is more-or-less a stub. I do admit to citing sources porrly, however it was wonderfull to have some information on things like Tiller's clinic, his early life, and so on considering it is an article titled George Tiller. User:Staggering234

Please no personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with the content I or anyone else edited on this page, please focus on that. If you have a problem with the content on my user page, please take that to my talk page (while keeping in mind WP:NPA). Seriously, if my editing behavior has been POV pushing, I'd like to know. Secondly, please keep in mind what wikipedia is not. We are not a "indiscriminate collection of information". We are an encyclopedia, not a biography. It was questioned whether there was enough information on Tiller to be notable (thus the initial prod tag), and the fact that he was shot and the fact that he had a patient die and was investigated for it made him notable because it is reported in a number of reliable sources. Trivial bits of information that were poorly sourced were removed (shall I note by other editors besides myself). So instead of this article being a paraphrase of an 'abortionist' profile on a pro-life website, it now resembles a concise encyclopedic article. It isn't perfect, but the beauty of wikipedia is that you or anyone else can come along and make it even better. If you have any specific content concerns, feel free to bring those up here.--Andrew c 17:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't attakcing you, I was pointing out that your comment about me "claerly having an agenda" was pretty petty cfonsidering your strongly left beleifs. Second, information on things like the crematorrium I talked about was extremely relevant because it is one of the main focal points of controversy. And if you are wondering about the reliability of information, it is clearly documented in photographs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Staggering234 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 24 June 2006.

Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~). Also, I do not know what you are quoting, but I cannot find any comment by me speculating on your agenda. I'd appreciate it if you would stop assuming things about my "strongly left beleifs". Thank you. --Andrew c 17:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of all the things being said, it was not a good idea to delete the majority of the article. I highly doubt that you think the site I was citing was lying about Mr. Tiller's familly loss, as well as many other things that aren't even close to controversial. This article has gone from a long and informative article to a fairly useless article with very little important information. Joey 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Tiller's high profile makes him notable enough. He's a controversy magnet. ChristinaDunigan 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

Before you slam me, yes I did use a pro-life website as the source for the information on Gilbert's autopsy. However the page I linked to is literally a photo-album of the autopsy report.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Staggering234 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 June 2006.

Clinic page

Obivously the controversy over George Tiller seems to focus around seperating him from his clinic. Would anyone object to a seperate article about the clinic itself? Staggering234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staggering234 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 June 2006

It may be difficult to separate Tiller from his clinic. Not that I'd object, but it seems redundant. Every news story and lawsuit I've seen involving the clinic centered on Tiller himself. Even in the light of recent allegations that it was LeRoy Carhart, not George Tiller, who performed the fatal abortion on Christin Gilbert, Tiller remains the lightening rod of the case. ChristinaDunigan 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I suggested this was that certain users objected to some of the more controversial content appearing on this page. If there were a page then information about the crematorium, familly photos, and so onm could be veiwed.

Joey 19:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Subject of activism

I don't have a suggestion for improvement, but this sentence in the LEDE: "The Women's Health Care Services clinic and its presiding doctor are the subject of activism by members of the pro-life movement" sounds really awkward. In particular, the phrase "subject of activism" strikes me as bad. It's obvious what the sentence is trying to say, it just sounds weird. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)