Talk:Operation Rescue (Kansas)

Removal of {{NPOV}} tags

I have removed the {{NPOV}} tags from the article for several reasons. First, as the tag refers to, there should be a discussion on the talk page about why the tags were added. If there's a feeling that the page is biased, an explanation of those views should be added on this page. Second, it is not necessary to use multiple {{NPOV}} tags on a page, one will suffice. If anyone feels they should be re-added, do so only after offering an rationale for why on this talk page. Thanks. --MZMcBride 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Youth Ministries (dba Operation Rescue West) has had its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status revoked by the IRS as of September, 2006. See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/a2006_69.pdf for more information.

lack of creditable references

For what it is worth I surfed into this Wikapedia "Operation Rescue" article while researching another matter and supplied a reference as an edit to the loss of tax exempt status. That is an article in the New York Times which makes no references to money laundering. A thorough Google search reveals that all references to money laundering at least from the internet are credited to this Wikapedia article or a document called "The Newman Report" available from maggotpunks.com for $10.00. The Maggotpunks are hardly an unbiased source. An excerpt from thier mission statement on thier homepage proclaims that they are athiests pro choice and are actively fighting the groups bombing clinics and killing doctors:

"The purpose of the Maggot Punks is to preserve reproductive freedoms, maintain the absolute separation of state and church, oppose the proliferation of creationism, put religious terrorists in prison, catalogue the crimes and actions of fundy fanatics, work with other progressive organizations to increase their effectiveness in promote positive social change."

While this being the only source casts doubt, it does not disprove that money laundering took place. I am not recomending deletion or anything. Just asking, "Where is the reliable research?"

D.S. Khalsa Pocatello Idaho Dec 25,2006

If you have the article, I suggest that you put in information from that article and delete what you can't find evidence for there. WP:BB; statements that can't be verified are un-Wikipedian. See WP:V. --Alvestrand 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Dr. Tiller was cleared of any charges of medical neglect in the death of Christin Gilbert."

This sentence is incomplete. If you are going to mention the charges, at least give a synopsis of why the charges were brought up. Otherwise, I think it should be deleted. Jbliz 12/28/06

For what it is worth, the organisation Operation Rescue started in Great Britain, many years ago and still operates today. It has nothing to do with the American Operation Rescue, but is a British organisation out to save souls from hell! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheysmith (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

further response

obviously well sourced information doesn't work, i was posting further terrorist incidents to this page that were backed by well over ten sources in the MSM. Please see my user comments on the user page for further info, i was only now directed to this page.

All POV references of "Pro-Life" are going. there is no negotiation on this. "Pro-Life" is quite clearly a propaganda term from people who don't give a damn about the living. Anti-Choice is a proper description of their stated beliefs, and actions. Anti-Choice is also neutral in that it doesn't attribute anything to the group other than what it openly and publically states itself. "Pro-Life" is inappropriate usage, and pure POV, these people are not pro-life in any form or fashion, other than their own.

I'm a bit peeved about posting well-sourced information repeatedly, and watching some Jihadist (if the sh*t fits, wear it) delete it repeatedly.

People wanna play the POV game, well, I contest the use of "Pro-Life" as being pure POV and only used as a term for political and religious propaganda purposes, because it bears no semblance to their actual beliefs when it comes to the living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.69.113 (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. "Anti-Choice" is also not a descriptive term. I have substituted "anti-abortion" for "pro-life" as that properly describes their form of advocacy. Your wordy pontificating and name-calling here is not appreciated and is not helpful. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that you are writing inherently POV text, and you are not providing any links to sources to back up anything you say. I could see a section in this article about terroristic activities of Operation Rescue, but you just write things like "(SF Examiner)" which tells us nothing. "Anti-choice" is a POV term. Like it or not, the word wars on this issue ended long ago and "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" won the day. Like it or not. Wikipedia is not the place to re-fight this war, although you are welcome to expand the terminology section on the political framing article, although it is already covered on the pro-choice and pro-life articles. --David Shankbone 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

needs rewrite

This article is confused and should be rewritten.

The first sentence ought to clearly introduce the topic. Instead, it reads:

Operation Rescue (formerly Operation Rescue West) is a pro-life group and offshoot of Operation Rescue, a group now known as Operation Rescue/Operation Save America

Say, what? That's completely inscrutable. Core of this sentence is, Operation Rescue... is an offshoot of Operation Rescue... which makes no sense and the rest of it doesn't help either.

The first section is labeled Operation Rescue West, so one might think it would start with a description or definition of Operation Rescue West. No such luck. It starts thus:

Operation Rescue was founded by Randall Terry in the late 1980s.

Wait a minute, isn't that the other organization? What are we talking about, here?

There's a second section labeled *Operation Rescue* which duplicates some of the first section. Sentence from section 1 Operation Rescue West:

In 2002, Newman moved the headquarters to Wichita, Kansas, to focus its efforts on George Tiller and in 2002 dropped the “West” from its moniker.

Sentence from section 2 Operation Rescue:

In 2002, Newman moved his Operation Rescue West headquarters to Wichita, Kansas, to focus its efforts on abortion provider George Tiller, and dropped the "West" from its moniker.

Once again, the section header and group names don't match. And what are we doing with a section called Operation Rescue anyway in an article with the same name? The whole article is about it, we don't need a section named that, too.

Maybe the two sections should be renamed with their from-to dates or something, or maybe "the California group" and "the Wichita group" or whatever makes it clear to the reader.

Given the multiple organizations with confusingly similar names, some attention to a brief timeline history or box carefully delineating name changes or splitting off of groups would be helpful to put the rest of the article in context.

These comments refer to version 192138731 of 17 Feb 2008. Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

none of the "reliable sources" taken from the operation rescue page are working links. it seems like a bad idea to take unsubstantiated claims which come from clearly NPOV sources at face value. why would you use something as loaded as "#

1. ^ Notorious Child Killers George Tiller & LeRoy Carhart Team Up to Celebrate 29 Years of Killing God's Children in Wichita - Three Press Releases" a source?

Further, the only external link, ostensibly to the Operation Rescue site, links to nothing. Interestingly, the NYT article of 5/31/9 offers a link to Operation Rescue, but that link also doesn't work. So now the question is, does this group even exist? (BTW, who contributed the comment directly above mine, beginning with "none of the..."? Before my own, the last signed comment is by Mathglot. My comment begins with "Further...")Wlegro (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten the article. I moved much of the information duplicated at Operation Rescue (Kansas) and Operation Save America and painstakingly interleaved the material into one coherent whole, found at History of Operation Rescue. I also attempted to sift through the remaining material and place it at one of the three appropriate places. Comments are welcome. Whatever404 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement, for the most part. However, I think the article becomes a little unbalanced with that much negative information (in proportion with the positive). That could, however, be combated with some more neutral information on the subject. Note that I had no prior knowledge of this incident, so take my words with a grain of salt. hmwithτ 21:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I mainly rearranged existing material. If the existing material was POV; I understand, but please don't make this out to be a situation where I skewed the article. What sort of additions do you feel it needs? Whatever404 (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It looked like there was just a lot of negative information in the article, but, upon further examination, I realized that it was okay. I think your changes were definitely positive. Apologies, hmwithτ 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Rescue website unreachable

Operation Rescue's URL as listed is unreachable 403 error.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda language

The term "pro-life" is propaganda. Who is "anti-life," besides pro-global-nuclear-war-ists? Even the homicidal and suicidal are not necessarily "anti-life," they simply want to end one or more individual lives. This debate is over "abortion," not "life." There are pro- and anti-abortion activists, but I can't even think of any genuine "anti-life" activists. Even those who advocate the eradication of Homo sapiens generally do so for what they perceive to be the betterment of other species. Again, "pro-life" is pure propaganda and has no place in an encyclopedia except to reference its usage. When referencing the debates between those who call themselves "pro-life" and their opponents, an encyclopedia ought to avoid propaganda terms and use properly descriptive ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained to you on your talk page, and on mine, the term "pro-life" is appropriate based on Wikipedia's policy on self-identifying terms: "Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a particular person, group or nation has the right to use a particular name, particularly the name it uses for itself (a self-identifying name)". There is a longstanding consensus on Wikipedia to use "pro-life" and "pro-choice" to describe organizations that use one of those terms to identify themselves. This is not the appropriate venue to discuss the validity of the term "pro-life". Dawn Bard (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, you obviously don't know what "consensus" means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of articles that explain "consensus" quite well. I like this one: What is consensus? ("Consensus is not the same as unanimity...") Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

So what does consensus mean, then? Agreeing with you? Consider taking a look at the policy link I provided above. Also, it is considered good etiquette to sign your comments on talk pages - just type four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I can't believe a comrade has joined the fray against me. Now I've seen everything. WP truly is an all-powerful cult that comes before all other alliances in the minds of those it infects.

Secondly, consensus, simply put, is when opposing views are considered and every effort is made to fold them into any decisions that are made. You [Dawn Bard] clearly don't understand this. You clearly equate consensus with democracy.

Thirdly, I purposely choose not to sign my comments. If you want to ask why, do it on my talk. —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

Broadly, I leave my personal point of view at the door, and do my best to abide by policy.

I am, however, happy to support the label "pro-life" because the inevitable consequence of using the term "anti-abortion" is that "pro-choice" becomes relabelled "pro-abortion", which is inaccurate and offensive (I'm pro-choice; that doesn't mean I want to encourage abortions - merely that I support the right to choose to have an abortion when circumstances merit it). More importantly, however, we have a duty to use terms readers will recognise - and in this instance that's the labels the two sides of the debate use, i.e. "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

Consensus in this sense means that the matter has been previously discussed at the appropriate venue, and a consensus emerged. If you feel consensus has shifted you're welcome to reopen the matter at WT:Naming conflict. I happen to think the status quo is largely for the best: using terms that the parties themselves use is preferable to having someone outside decide how to describe something I'm involved with. I'm a syndicalist by self-definition, not a "post-left industrial relations activist" ;-)

I have no opinion on whether or not you sign your comments. A script, SineBot, follows you around and signs your comments for you. It's a little distracting - the pages you comment on pop up twice on my watchlist instead of once - but you do at least post your comments in one go, presumably using "preview, instead of saving the comment, proof-reading it, re-saving it, etc, which is a pet annoyance of mine.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, "pro-choice" doesn't inevitably get renamed "pro-abortion" (despite my sloppy use of it, above) because that's not an accurate descriptor, for the very reasons you gave ("pro-choice" advocates do not advocate random, willy-nilly abortions).

Incorrect. That is precisely the pro-choice position - no restrictions. Although there may be a philosophical difference, in practice, there is no discrenable difference between the actions of those who hold pro-choice and pro-abortion positions. Although I'm sure many want to believe there is for their own emotional well-being, there is no practical difference. Michael 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the best solution would be to call the two sides "pro-abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion-rights," since rights are ultimately what we're talking about. Your worry actually serves as an argument for those even more exact terms.

Incorrect. Your terms beg the question. You assume that abortion is a "right" when that, in part, is what the dispute is about. "Pro-life" is an accurate term. They do not fight abortion 'rights' per se, they fight to preserve the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution. "Anti-abortion" is misleading and somewhat inaccurate. The best the opposition can honestly claim is "pro abortion choice" "Pro-choice" is imprecise in that it is too general. Their position, in practice, is not for all choices or even information about all choices to be available, but to ensure, specifically, that the choice for abortion is available. Michael 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus in this sense...." If "consensus" is used on WP in some special, unique sense, then there ought to be a different word for it. "Consensus" is not defined anywhere else as "Whatever things look like when the dust settles and the less obsessed participants have given up trying to be heard." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

68.103.121.70's recent edit re: Alison White

The recent edit [1] by 68.103.121.70 (talk · contribs) has me a little confused. The edit says "according to documents at the Sedgwick County Register of Deeds office, Alison White, purchased the building formerly housing Central Women's Services, an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas. White donated the former clinic to her father's anti-abortion organization, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust.", but the cited documents appear to be from Cuyahoga County, Ohio and Orange County, California and list Cradles of Love as the receiver of the property. The documents, however, seem to be legitimate. Although the Flickr source is certainly not reliable here.—C45207 | Talk 05:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The documents are authentic and from the Sedgwick County Register of Deeds office. You are referencing the notary public stamp (one which is from Ohio and one from California). Kansas does maintain a listing of properties registered in the state of Kansas. If further verification is needed a web search from the county website is possible at http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/deeds/. 68.103.121.70 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I failed to include that Survivors is registered with the IRS as Cradles of Love (EIN 33-0627102) just as Operation Rescue was registered with the IRS as Youth Ministries. The 2007 990 filing of Cradles lists Jeff White as an officer of the organization and the property in question as part of its assets, the address contact information for both titled organizations is the same as well as the names of the leaders. They do have a Facebook app (http://apps.facebook.com/causes/3544?m=de0957a2) listing the names of both organizations together. 68.103.121.70 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

so

In 2009 why did this organization make a self-confessed woman hater their person of the year? What next, celebrations for rapists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.194.31 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Operation Rescue (Kansas). 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/20081127021753/http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/face_act.html to http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/face_act.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708124709/http://www.cbs42.com/content/localnews/story/Planned-Parenthood-Caught-Breaking-the-Law/C41MzG-1vU-u0KRpHkAl3A.cspx to http://www.cbs42.com/content/localnews/story/Planned-Parenthood-Caught-Breaking-the-Law/C41MzG-1vU-u0KRpHkAl3A.cspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215145024/http://www.operationrescue.org:80/three-statements-concerning-randall-terrys-unbiblical-lawsuit-against-troy-newman/ to http://www.operationrescue.org/three-statements-concerning-randall-terrys-unbiblical-lawsuit-against-troy-newman/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070519024628/http://www.irs.gov:80/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=141466,00.html to http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=141466,00.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 11:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Rescue (Kansas). 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/20090213052333/http://www.operationrescue.org:80/background-history-of-the-notorious-clinic-medica-para-la-mujer-de-hoy-abortion-chain/ to http://www.operationrescue.org/background-history-of-the-notorious-clinic-medica-para-la-mujer-de-hoy-abortion-chain/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 11:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Rescue (Kansas). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608010802/http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0249.htm to http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0249.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223225034/http://www.courttv.com/trials/kopp/index.html to http://www.courttv.com/trials/kopp/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

The original edits and contributions to this article were entirely accurate and historically relevant. I have recently noticed that all of this material was removed and in all likelihood merged into daughter articles. This makes it seem, according to this current version, that the group had no major history prior to the 2000s. This is entirely irresponsible from an editorial POV and is yet another example of whitewashing. This group made a name for itself in the 1980s due to their extremist and horrendous violent acts. I will be restoring this material and fixing the timeline. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)