Talk:Mark Crutcher

message: Here are a few links on Crutcher:[[www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/654178/posts]
Does he look significant enough? "The most dangerous anti-choicer in America," he's been called. He's significant enough that the National Abortion Federation had a session in an Annual Meeting on just how to cope with the threat he posed.ChristinaDunigan 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable 

message: This article has already been deleted twice without any discussion. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know the proper means of appealing these arbitrary deletions but I will keep trying. However, due to the fact that some people keep deleting the article I can not invest the time in a thorough work-up with numerous cites. I first have to get the article to stay put!
Once we establish Crutcher as notable, then I can go about fleshing out an article. But I'd be a fool to put hours of work into something that just keeps getting deleted.ChristinaDunigan 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more attempt 

message: I removed the  tag from this article.  This refers to criteria G4, which says: (underline mine)
:Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space.  Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject.  This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply; when no criterion applies, the recreated page may not be speedied, but may be submitted to Articles for deletion or the appropriate XfD process.
This article has only been deleted under speedy, so G4 does not apply.  Since it is a biographical article, A7 is the appropriate criteria under which is should be addressed.  
However, assuming good faith on the part of the article creator, if another editor still questions notability/appropriateness of the article, I do suggest that it be taken to the standard WP:AFD process.  — ERcheck (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I was about to remove the CSD tag for the same reason. The article at least asserts notability, so take it to afd if you still want it deleted. Petros471 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of this article 

message: I fear that it will be sumarily nuked again! Why go to all the trouble of researching and providing cites and links on an article that gets flat out deleted, without any discussion, not even leaving the history for me to go back to?
How can I expand the article to where it's sufficient if it's just going to get deleted anyway?ChristinaDunigan 19:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hesitate to enlarge on this.... 

message: Look at what's permitted to stand on the article about Mark Crutcher: 
"According to the Wichita Eagle, in March, 1995 in Kansas, Crutcher gave a seminar at the national conference of the American Coalition of Life Activists, attended by many advocates. Paul DeParrie, a supporter of both LDI and the "justifiable homicide" of abortion doctors, once said approvingly of Life Dynamics: "Probably the single most consuming passion at LDI is to make it a legal hell for abortionists and abortion clinics.""
DeParrie merely attended a seminar by Crutcher, but his background and comments are considered valid for inclusion. What the National Abortion Federation's actual members actually DO is not considered valid for inclusion.
DeParrie merely (I don't recall this, but I'll assume that the person who added this had a valid source) approved of shooting abortionists, but never lifted a finger against them. But deaths caused by the actions of NAF members aren't considered valid for including. And this is a reflection on DeParrie, not on Crutcher. The mere fact that this guy attended a seminar Crutcher gave is considered valid reason to bring up shooting abortionists in an article about Crutcher.
One person's opinion of Crutcher -- Paul DeParrie's -- is considered valid for inclusion. But the clearly documented wrongdoing by NAF members, and the fact that Crutcher, Sherlock, etc. have noticed that NAF promises safety but their members have checkered pasts, that's not considered valid for inclusion in an article about NAF. I've provided abundant cites about NAF members' actual wrongdoing.
And notice that I didn't just go in and nuke this addition to the Crutcher article. I think that you get a balanced article by allowing both supporters and critics to contribute. I only wish that those who admire NAF showed similar tolerance for opposing viewpoints.ChristinaDunigan 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double standard 

message: Life Dynamics provides a picture of Crutcher for media use. I tried to add it and I don't know what is wrong. I followed the Wikipedia instructions for uploading and inserting, thus:
thumb|Mark Crutcher
I checked on the Gianna Jessen page and I seem to be doing the same thing that got the picture of Gianna to post. I don't know why it's not working with Crutcher.
I also couldn't find a category to note copyright on the file, that it's provided by the owner for media use.ChristinaDunigan 17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Dwain 22:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with picture! 

message: Suggestions for expansion / clarification points:
Biography 
:* explain what made Crutcher became a pro-life activist.
:* remove section on Life Dynamics as this should be covered in the article  on the organisation itself.
:* 1995 seminar information appears to serve little purpose to expand our knowledge of Crutcher. Consider removing, or explaining the significance of its inclusion.
-- Haruth (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mark Crutcher. 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/20060521182022/http://www.theinterim.com/2005/apr/14qanda.html to http://www.theinterim.com/2005/apr/14qanda.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified