Talk:Paul Jennings Hill

"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 (UTC)

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!

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)