Talk:David Gunn (doctor)

Abortion provider

The article seemed to skirt the fact that Gunn was an abortion provider. It seems obvious to me that it should be included, as it was the reason Griffin targeted him. It's not as if his death was a random act of violence simply targeted at any representative of the medical profession. It happened because he was an abortion provider. It seems disingenuous to leave this out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.104.176 (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Somebody needs to clean this article up! Designer1993 (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That third sentence seems to make it pretty clear. The one that starts, "Gunn was the first of several abortion providers...". - SummerPhD (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

An act of "Christian terrorism"?

The fellow was Christian but does that make this an act of "Christian terrorism"? - Schrandit (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Groupthink (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we know this? The fellow was also white. Was this an act of white supremacy? - Schrandit (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that and the fact that his actions were in furtherance of a radical non-mainstream fundamentalist religious agenda with the intention of intimidating medical service providers and patients. Groupthink (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we know this? Was the act focused on the victem without thought of other abortionists. (as an aside, a majority of Americans call themselves pro-life) - Schrandit (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's covered by the sources cited, and once the discussion period on my proposed move is over, I'll be happy to expand the article to cover Griffin's John Burt/Rescue America connection. With regard to your aside, let me clarify: By "agenda" I meant the wholesale murder of physicians and other medical service providers, and I highly doubt a majority of Americans would support that. Groupthink (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend this guy and it is possible that this act was aimed at intimidating abortionists and that it was motivated by theology but until you have the refs to show it, it cannot be stated as fact. - Schrandit (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood: The refs DO show it. Groupthink (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, which of the refs show that the perp was attempting to intimidate abortionists and that he was motivated by theology? - Schrandit (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

NYT. Groupthink (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I read that article for a third time and I couldn't find anything in there that say either that the motivation for the crime was theological, or that its intent was to terrorize. If you can't find a ref that backs up that category then it has to go. - Schrandit (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I can't help but conclude based on your talk page that you're being disingenuous. I'm going to bed, but I'll be sure to put in tons of supporting material tomorrow. I won't have to hunt very hard for it -- a simple Google search should suffice. Groupthink (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, until you do... - Schrandit (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset)Much, much more to come...Groupthink (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend closely examining any sources Groupthink uses to support his addition. His sourcing on Spanish inquisition and St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was found to be spurious [1] [2]. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my sourcing of said articles and intend to revisit them at a later date. Editors expressing an opinion on my sourcing does not constitute "being found spurious." I suggest that you stick to the issues at hand and avoid ad hominem attacks. Groupthink (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Revisit away, until then... - Schrandit (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an issue at hand. Three other editors felt your references for the St Bartholomew's Day massacre were completely spurious to the point of being laughable ([[3]]). It's important that other editors know to check your additions for accuracy. If your response is to feel that you are still absolutely right in the face of multiple knowledgeable editors and modern scholarship, then you have crossed far into tendentiousness, and I highly recommend you take a break and rethink contributing to these kinds of subjects. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Spurious to the point of being laughable" is your phrase, not theirs. You are engaging in personal attacks, acting in bad faith, making non-neutral edits, being patronizing, gaming the system, and flat-out lying about what references do and do not show. Not only are you being the one tendentious here, but you are doing so in a very biased fashion. I am not making edits based on a "feeling of being absolutely right", I'm making edits based on what reliable sources clearly illustrate. Your disingenuousness is staggering, and I in turn recommend that you take a break from sabotaging this article and rethink engaging in such adolescent behavior. Groupthink (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You've got two editors telling you that the references do not show it. Bring a quote or go home. - Schrandit (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I provided several in the references. Now go away or I will taunt you a second time. Groupthink (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Honkey please, your quotes show that the perp was a fundie and that one of his friends thought that he thought that he did it for God. That is laughably insufficient to brand the man a "Christian terrorist". - Schrandit (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Christian terrorist

http://www.progressive.org/karlin1094.html

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslims_must_condemn_religious_extremists1/0017733

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/recent-cases-of-abortionr_n_209528.html 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clipomatic (talk • contribs)

Of those articles, only the first one, [4], specifically calls Griffin a terrorist, but it's an opinion article from someone with a stake, not an expert. The second, [5], refers to both extremists and terrorism, not specifying which the author considers Griffin, and the third, [6], does not use the word "terror" at all (though it shows up in comments). Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Fortunately, the article doesn't cite any of these links, nor should it. However, the sources it does cite makes it clear that Gunn's murder was motivated by fundamentalist dogma and was intended to intimidate and scare health care providers. Groupthink (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading it for a fourth time it really really really doesn't. If anything, it offers the suggestion that the trigger to move to violence was seeing two aborted children buried. Furthermore, it makes no indication that the criminal act was part of a larger plan to insipre fear in abortionists, their staff or their supporters. - Schrandit (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We have an entire article on the difficulty of defining "terrorism", but you, Groupthink, have decided you can make that decision as to what is and is not a terrorist act? Sorry, but no. Using an emotionally-charged word without a good source using that exact word is not NPOV. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately some people believe the solution to "calling the enemy a terrorist" is to label both sides "terrorists"; but in my opinion - and that of WP:TERRORIST - that sidesteps the issue. The word is an emotional label without a real definition...as many have pointed out, wasn't the bombing of Dresden meant to inspire terror? The London blitz? So while it may be as "correct" to call Griffin a "terrorist" as it is to label someone else...they are both equally "incorrect". Use of the term "militant" almost always replaces "terrorist", for example - and in cases where it doesn't, one can easily reference that he "intended to intimidate..." without using the dreaded T-word. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are cases where the "terrorism" label can be used; specifically when reliable sources can be found that particular organizations and/or notable individuals have labeled the person as such. In those cases, the article should typically state specifically who has claimed the act was such. Groupthink has been unable to do so. I plan on filing an RfC shortly to see what others say if Groupthink is still so convinced of the correctness of their behavior.

I also believe Groupthink has abused POV templates, since they have not given any article content reasons why there are POV issues. Those templates are not for slapping on an article whenever a person does not get their own way. They are for when a person believes there are specific inaccuracies with article content that are currently being hashed out on the talk page. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Christian Terrorism category

One editor claims that sources support categorizing the murder of David Gunn (doctor) as an act of Christian terrorism. Two editors strongly disagree. The adding editor claims that the sources support that the act "was motivated by fundamentalist dogma and was intended to intimidate and scare health care providers," and is therefore Christian terrorism. The two opposing editors state that the sources do not say that, and that no source has been given that uses the word "terrorism." —Sxeptomaniac (via posting script) 16:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm from RFC...I've read the three articles linked above, and only the first link called the killer a terrorist- but then again, the author of that editorial wasn't exactly an expert on who are and who are not terrorists. Plus, Wikipedia: Terrorist mentions that words like terrorist, extremist, freedom-fighter, etc. should not be used because they are non-neutral. We could, however, quote a reliable source that says "According to so-and-so, 'he is a terrorist'"-but so far, no expert on the subject calls him such. Therefore, unless more concrete sources show up, I think the killer of the subject shouldn't be referred to as "terrorist". Omirocksthisworld(☺) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)