Talk:Paul Jennings Hill

Point of the summary?

I don't see that it's necessary to note he was "was the first person in the United States to be executed for killing an abortion provider." The man was a murderer, and like all murderers felt justified in what he'd done. Assigning the label "first", regardless of the veracity, seems to be giving a murderer special status. 63.166.226.83 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

"part of a wave of anti-abortion violence in the United States in the 1990s" There was no "wave" of violence, there were very few incidents which were greatly blown out of proportion.

Photo is Paul Hill in prison clothes, possible conflict with NPOV. His official website features "regular" photos.

I see no problem with the term "wave", since it did definitely peak during the 1990s, and then die down...but I'd agree his primary photo probably shouldn't be him in prison garb, that picture could be moved to a thumb under a section on his trial if the article were expanded. As for the Manifesto, I believe it's publicly available on his website, so it's not really a question of "According to Time Magazine..." ;) Sherurcij 18:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the "according to Time magazine" but the photo really does need to be replaced due to conflict with NPOV.

Also, "part of a wave of anti-abortion violence in the United States in the 1990s which was disowned by mainstream anti-abortion activists" is conflict of NPOV in my opinion, it should say pro-life, just like a pro-choice article shouldn't say "anti-life" or something similar, so I went ahead and fixed it as well. This article has greatly improved since I first worked on it months ago, and I think we're at the point where we should consider expanding it, especially considering current Supreme Court nominee issues and the rising public interest in abortion issues.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.205.168 (talk • contribs) 10 September 2005

I disagree. The term, "pro-life," is POV, as it implies that those who disagree with its anti-abortion agenda are "anti-life." Many of those who label themselves "pro-life" are in favor of war and capital punishment (to say nothing of the murder of those they disagree with). "Anti-abortion" describes those who oppose abortion in a completely NPoV manner.--RattBoy 01:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to replace the current photo of Hill. Photos like this one have run in virtually all of the mainstream media articles about Hill and the shootings. I would not, however, oppose the addition of a photo of Hill in street clothing. That would perhaps provide the balance you seek. It is not as if readers of Wikipedia are potential jurors in a trial and even if they were, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. it is not the job of an encyclopedia to censor widely circulated news photos of convicted criminals in jail garb out of some belief that to do so might predispose a reader to presume him guilty. I would suggest that a good way to improve the article would be for editors to add more details of his life and views with citable sourcing. A figure such as Paul Hill should have a more exhaustive biographical entry, in my opinion.Lisapollison 17:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Armed Escort??

This article alleges that his victim, James Barret was armed. We need a cite on that or I will remove it as POV. Nothing I have read inidctaed that Barret was carrying a weapon.Lisapollison 12:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I could not find any reference to his victim, James H. Barrett eing "armed" and so will snip out that one POV word. Do not put ack in unless you can cite it. if you can, then by all means revert with an added citationLisapollison 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually found a news story that confirms the escort was unarmed if anyone cares. here's the link:

WashingtonPost article on Abortion Violence —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lisapollison (talk • contribs) 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

terrorism

wouldn't it be appropriate to label him as a terrorist? -- Cannibalicious!

• His actions fit the description of terrorism in Wikipedia's own article. I agree the article should call him a terrorist. Blue Dinosaur Jr 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Links

There are way too many external links. They should be trimmed, and perhaps some of them should be made references. See WP:EL. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to incorporate them into the prose.--SallyForth123 03:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

DRUGS?!

"A police search of Hill found a bag of marijuana on his person, and his Father turned eleven more bags of the drug over to the police."

This is a DISGUISTING distortion of the truth!! Paul Hill had nothing even close to resembling drugs on him when he convicted these murders. You are confused with his drug encounter when he was 16. But more than likely, you did not get it confused, and you intentionally distorted the truth, because you think Paul is a lunatic, and you hate his cause, so therefore you think you are justified in your misguiding those who read this. This is not your right. Stop trying to change history and make the facts correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.56.67.83 (talk) 22:43, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that misinformation before I read your comment, but please assume good faith. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Hill's religion

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/hill873.htm

A reference of Paul Hill's religion is listed on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlord2080 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Violation?

I think outright saying he murdered those two people violates the NPOV policy. He was convicted of murder. He performed homicide against those two people. There is no doubt about that. But because one of the key motivating factors behind the actions of Paul Jennings Hill was that his homicide was justified, that it was not murder, because it constituted defense of the innocent, to say that his actions are murder is to take a normative stance on what does and doesn't constitute murder. Wikipedia is only supposed to assert positive statements. It may assert positive statements about normative statements, but it may not actually take normative stances itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Galt (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It says he murdered them because: A) he was convicted of murder in a court of law and B) reliable sources say he murdered them. Wikipedia draws its information from reliable sources. If those sources reported that Paul Jennings Hill was 800 feet tall and always wore aluminum foil underwear, we would say that as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If a source reported that Hill was 800 feet tall and always wore aluminum foil underwear, we would not say that, because we would know that the source was unreliable. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC))

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Paul Jennings Hill/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== DRUGS?! == "A police search of Hill found a bag of marijuana on his person, and his Father turned eleven more bags of the drug over to the police." This is a DISGUISTING distortion of the truth!! Paul Hill had nothing even close to resembling drugs on him when he convicted these murders. You are confused with his drug encounter when he was 16. But more than likely, you did not get it confused, and you intentionally distorted the truth, because you think Paul is a lunatic, and you hate his cause, so therefore you think you are justified in your misguiding those who read this. This is not your right. Stop trying to change history and make the facts correct.

Last edited at 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Is Motive an error? Has the editor posted his judgment on Hill or what motivated Hill?

The article gives Hill's motive as "anti-abortion extremism." Is extremism a motive or a moral judgment by someone else? Is the article claiming that Hill wanted to be extreme? Should the motive be rather Belief that abortionists were murdering babies with the belief that he was morally obligated to protect the lives of babies? Or to be short, should the motive be stated as "saving the lives of babies"? The question is not the judgment of others on Hill, but what motivated him, what did he think he was doing. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC))

Inconsistency

Barrett is called "bodyguard" in John Britton and Paul Jennings Hill, but "clinic escort" in Clinic escort and in the source in Paul Jennings Hill.

The two terms describe fundamentally different concepts, so this should be fixed in all articles.

There appears to be no source for "bodyguard", so I would favor "clinic escort". ---- 91.10.39.145 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

COPIED FOR INFORMATION ONLY, PLEASE DISCUSS ONLY AT Talk:John_Britton_(doctor)#Inconsistency. ---- 91.10.39.145 (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No execution request?

Did any people or organization request a pardon for the death penalty for Paul?

88.1.34.223 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)