Talk:Anti-abortion violence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Additions to "Violence against pro-life advocates"

User:74.210.25.167 added the following sentences to this article. Until they are supported by citations, here they are:

• Pro-choice supporters typically downplay the level of violence committed against pro-life supporters in order to classify such violence as being relatively rare in comparison to violence against pro-choice supporters.

• While pro-life supporters typically consider abortion itself as an act of violence,

• Pro-life organizations and events are far more frequently the victims of vandalism when compared to pro-choice supporters, and often go unreported to authorities. This is most notable on university and college campuses where pro-life advocates frequently face intimidation by both students and faculty.

• Incidents of on-campus vandalism of pro-life displays are in fact a very commonplace occurrence.

-- Joie de Vivre 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The comment about on-campus violence cannot be justified by the citations of other acts; WP:OR#SYNTHESIS. Joie de Vivre 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations have since been provided. -- HastelloyX 06:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

New additions

The recent additions are not acceptable for a number of reasons, but mainly due to notability and sourcing issues. I request that the editors pushing for inclusion refresh their memories by reading WP:RS and WP:N. College news papers and pro-life/choice advocacy sites should generally be avoided for sources. We discussed HLI's statistics above and reached the conclusion that they were not appropriate for wikipedia (read the past discussion above). We should cite notable local/national newspapers for information regarding criminal activity. If such a source didn't write an article about the incident in question, but a college news paper or a pro-life blog did, that goes to show that the incident is not notable enough for wikipedia. I urge the editor to find better, neutral, notable sources for new content. I propose that the recent changes be reverted until this is cleared up.-Andrew c 22:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go into detail why the section should be reverted.

• The first sentence does not accurately present the source. The source is about the media specifically, not the more vauge "pro-choice supporters". Furthermore, the article does not say exactly what the wording says. On top of that, the source is a conservative think tank whose stated goal is to combat the perceived liberal bias in media. Look at their wikipedia entry or their sourcewatch entry [1].
• HLI is discussed further above.
• The Eileen Orstein Janezic section is sourced and fine, although it is questionable to cite google like that. I would move to find a specific website (or more) and cite them. It's fine to cite the polemic, pro-life pages in this instance because we are stating what pro-life websites say.
• There are 3 unsourced claims that should be removed if they cannot be cited.
• The Carleton University Students’ Association is cited, but clearly is not a case of violence.
• Bullet points 1,3,4,5 all come from lifesite, which I believe fails WP:RS. Red flags jump up when considering this site against the "Non-scholarly sources" list on the RS page. There is no way to independently verify the claims of lifesite.
• While not as bad as lifesite, the school newspaper of LSU brings up notability concerns. Should we really be reporting on incidents that didn't bring any more interest outside of a college newspaper?
• The Dakota Voice is "News from a Christian Perspective", and also brings up sourcing and notability issues.

I'll repeat what I said above, this new information is problematic. I request that we revert it and let the editors work on finding more reliable, notable, mainstream sources of information.-Andrew c 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to the above argument for a reverting of the section:

• All unsourced claims have now been sourced.
• The Carleton University Students Association point was raised as an element surrounding intimidation against pro-life supporters on university campus and the effect it has on reports of damaged property. It was only cited upon request.
• Bullet points 1, 3, 4, and 5 are all in regards to dated and backed up facts. If there is some proof that these incidents have been fabricated, people are free to show that here at any time. As it is, each incident has been documented in several locations.
• The school newspaper and the Dakota Voice are both independent sources. Not every crime is printed on a nationally disrtributed newspaper or broadcast on CNN, but it doesn't make it false. As stated above, if there is proof this has been fabricated, people are free to indicate that here for the editors.

Since there has been only opinion presented against these bullet points and no evidence presented that these bullet points are falsified in any way, I request that this section is left intact. If there are concerns about the veracity of the claims, I am sure people can provide facts to support it. Personal bias against a particular source is a poor substitute for fact. -- HastelloyX 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Dakota Voice is "News from a Christian Perspective", and also brings up sourcing and notability issues": of course the pictures on that web page showing the vandalism itself slightly negates notability issues.

I'm sorry I disagree with you. Wikipedia is not about fact, truth, nor proof. Wikipedia is about: verifiability, reliability, notability, neutral point of view, and citing sources. I request that you please familiarize yourself with those 6 pages. For example, look through the reliability page. Attributability, expertise, bias, editorial oversight, declaration of sources, corroboration, recognition by other reliable sources all jump up as issues with your sources. I also ask you to review this. Your sources are dubious, and this information is contentious, unduly self-serving, and claims about third parties. On top of that, if the only place we can find information about these claims are thede dubious sources, it brings up questions of notability. In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources. In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Clearly, this content, and the dubious sources, fail notability on these grounds. Therefore, because of wikipedia policy, I strongly urge the editor to find new, reliable sources for content and that the controversial section be striken until the dispute resolved. (p.s. show me the policy that says dubious information and sources can be included until proof against it is provided)-Andrew c 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you must agree with my points as raised in the section above for inappropriate sources that references 1, 4, and 8 and any other information provided by the NAF, ProChoice.org or any other pro-choice advocacy group is inadmissible since these sources are contentious and unduly self-serving. Quite clearly, under your interpretation of Wikipedia policy, these sources fail notability and neutrality, and the reliability of content from advocacy groups with a stated mission to push a specific agenda must also be deemed inadmissible by the editorial staff. If this is the litmus test, it must be applied fairly and equally to all parties and views. HastelloyX 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to concerns over the sources in the listed incidents, all sources have been changed to independent news sources. The "Dakota Voice" citation for the incident in question at SDSU has been replaced and the "Dakota Voice" article has been used instead simply to indicate a repetition of the vandalism. HastelloyX 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues with "Pro-life condemnation of anti-abortion violence"

First of all, this section should go up under the anti-abortion violence heading, and I prefer to have it where I moved it originally, right under the support of violence subsection, so it is responding directly to that. Next, there are more sourcing issues. A google search result should not be used as a source because it is original research and not a reliable source. Also, there are a number of citations that are just glorified external links to the organization's webpage. These need to be replaced with links to the actual statements against violence. Finally, could you quote the text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says these things. Thanks.-Andrew c 16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The support of anti-abortion violence is a redundant heading. The support for such action is intrinsically linked to the fact that such actions take place. Having a separate heading makes as much a sense as having the Wikipedia page on the Bush administration having one section about the Iraq War and having a separate section about the Bush Administration's support of the Iraq War: the support is a given part of the situation. As well, pro-choice supporters have pointed out (even on the entry itself) that these groups showing support also carry out actions considered to be violence/threats. Once again, the support issue becomes irrelevant because it is intrinsically linked to the actions of said group.

Having a separate section for condemnation of anti-abortion violence simply makes sense since it falls neither under the heading of pro-choice nor anti-abortion violence, but it is still an element of the page heading of abortion related violence. It clearly belongs on this entry as an issue, but it calls for its own unique topic heading in connection to abortion rated violence since it is not an actual element of the violence itself, but rather is a direct response to this violence. HastelloyX 17:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not follow your logic. A response to anti-abortion violence is completely on topic to anti-abortion violence. If someone is reading the section on anti-abortion violence, it is only helpful for them to see the rebuttles from pro-life organizations right there under that topic. It seems out of place to just tag it onto the end. Your removal of the heading "Support of violence" was very sloppy because it now moved that section under the "incidents" heading, and obviously this section is NOT describing incidents. Perhaps a better title would be "organizational support of violence"? Thanks for the reply.-Andrew c 17:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Support of Violence" section itself contained two sentences about two supporting groups and then reverted back to discussions on acts of anti-abortion violence and intimidation. As I mentioned, it doesn't make sense to discuss support for violence amongst groups if they are responsible for the greater topic heading of anti-abortion violent actions themselves, especially if those actions are going to be discussed. It is a given that those who commit violence support violence. The only section that seems to be solely about support of violence is the last section about "the Army of God". However, since the linked "Army of God" entry in Wikipedia outlines how they are responsible for violent actions and criminal acts against abortion providers (including harboring fugitives), a separate heading becomes redundant since the group discussed is directly involved in criminal, anti-abortion violence. After that, there's nothing under "Support of Violence" that isn't just an element of the anti-abortion violence heading itself. HastelloyX 18:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are reading the same thing. There are three paragraphs. A topic paragraph that introduces 2 organizations, and then a paragraph each for the orgainizations. 3 paragraphs, all dealing with organizations. I don't see this one sentence business, so maybe we are looking at different sections? Anyway, perhaps changing the title makes the most sense. How about simply "organizations" as the title or "Organizations behind the violence" or "Organizational support of violence". -Andrew c 18:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph seems to introduce the organizations. But the second paragraph details a "hit list intended to incite violence", which seems like it would constitute as a criminal act of violence. Would you agree with that? Either way, I agree that "Organizational support of violence" would indeed be a useful title to discern this difference between individual acts and an organizational effort.HastelloyX 18:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the condemnation section having its own entry, I see it as comparable to the Wikipedia entry for World War II. There is a chronology section that details the elements of the war in each area of the world and the ending of the war in each area. But, apart from that, there is also a section about the aftermath of the war. While an argument could be made that the aftermath section should be divided amongst the chronology sections, it simply makes more sense to have a separate heading that discusses events that are resultant of the overall actions of the War. In the same way, I see the condemnation issue to be similar in that the condemnation is itself not an act of violence or some proponent of the violence, but is rather a separate act (an aftermath itself) that is an opposing result of the violence. 74.210.25.167 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia style comparison would be for the use of the word "Criticism" as a heading, which can be found in the apartheid, pacifism and anti-globalization entries for example. Each entry lists elements of the topic, and under a separate heading discusses criticism of that topic. Since the entry on abortion related violence is an incorporation of two distinct and opposing forms of a given topic, the generalized "Criticism" heading would not be useful. However the topic specific heading of "Pro-life condemnation of anti-abortion violence" does clarify this issue.74.210.25.167 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But this article is split in two. There is anti-abortion violence, and pro-abortion violence. The pro-life condemnation is of the anti-abortion violence, hence it should go under that heading. The article you mention are not split into two groups such as this one. Look at Steve Irwin there is a criticism section under the death heading. It seems like basic hierarchy to me. The condemnation is associated with anti-abortion violence, so it goes under that heading.-Andrew c 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm understanding what you're getting at. What was throwing me off was that whoever repositioned this under anti-abortion violence made it a sub-heading to the United States heading, which REALLY makes no sense. If it is a distinct category that goes beyond geographic barriers (which it is -- so far it mentions the US and Canada and could go beyond) it shouldn't be located as a sub-heading to one area of the world. I'd be totally supportive of it being repositioned under the anti-abortion violence side of the article if it was placed below the geographic locations of anti-abortion violence. HastelloyX 02:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

More Hierarchy stuff. I tried to adjust the hierarchy of the article to make what seemed to me to be the most logical arrangement. Please look at the "contents" outline of [2] and comment on whether this also makes the most sense to you as well, or why it does not. My changes were reverted. To me, the article discusses two topics. Violence associated with pro-life motives, and violence associated with pro-choice motives. I believe that all the info (rebuttles, organizations, incidents) should go under one heading. -Andrew c 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your changes were reverted by Joie De Vivre. See the new discussion heading of "Re-ordering" at the bottom of this page and comment on whether we should revert to the previous decision made in this section. HastelloyX 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Violence... just hit me

I just realized that the title of this article is violence. How are vandalism and theft violence? There is a quote on wikipedia vandalism article that calls vandalism a 'nonviolent "quality of life" crime'. This article is very strange (or has become). We have a list of individuals who were killed or injured by anti-abortion activists. Then we have a list of pro-life displays being stolen or vandalized. (Sourcing issues pointed out above aside) do these belong in the same article, if the topic is violence? Should we start listing all the abortion clinics that have been vandalized or lit on fire? Things could get out of hand. This article currently isn't about abortioon-related crime, but violence, and I feel that this article should discuss bodily violence (as it did a few days ago). But maybe we should consider changing the article title and scope, and expanding it to include non-violent crimes as well. What do others think?-Andrew c 21:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, there are two sentences dealing with Canadian Universities banning pro-life activism. How is that violence? Vandalism is a little bit of a gray area, but this clearly isn't violence.-Andrew c 23:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What about a section heading "Non-violent criminal activity" at the bottom with a brief mention of the theft and vandalism etc. I don't think it's notable enough for an article on its own, and a vandalised billboard shouldn't be lumped in with bombings and killings. If it's arson and someone's killed, then that's still kind of violent. --Tirana 02:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd have to ask the people who lumped vandalism and clinic protests as violent activities into this article in the first place. As it is, most pro-choice groups consider vandlism to be a form of violence, including Feminist.org who said in 1996 (and again in 1997) that vandalism "remained the most highly reported type of anti-abortion violence." [3] In fact, all of the links to information about anti-abortion violence in this page categorizes vandalism as being an element of violence. If you use articles that state this as being the case, it opens the door to the same argument on the other side. HastelloyX 02:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point! However, we don't list the incidents of anti-abortion vandalism (yet). We mention it once in association with Eric Rudolph, and once in a list of NAF compiled statistics. I would be glad to remove those two references to anti-abortion vandalism, if we can agree to removing the pro-abortion vandalism as well. If not, the next thing we know is we will have set a precedent to start listing all the acts of clinic vandalism, anti-abortion vandalism, etc. Any comment on removing the information about Canadian universities which has nothing to do with vandalism or violence, or moving the condemnation section up under the appropriate heading. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree on the vandalism thing. I reckon it deserves a mention but the scale of it on both sides is a bit much to catalogue every instance. --Tirana 03:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of the multiple listings of vandalism on college property, this list was created in response to a request for confirmation on high incidents of vandalism to pro-life events/displays. Initially, a link was made to a pro-life website that confirmed this. There was a questioining of the validity of that site because of concerns over bias. Now a listing has been created to outline this and it is being considered as too much. I guess you have to make your choice: allow pro-life websites as legitimate sources to outline the severity of actions taken against pro-life individuals/organizations, or allow multiple pieces of evidence to demonstrate the questioned point raised. One or the other... just make up your mind and stick with it. If you think it is getting cluttered, there aren't many choices open. HastelloyX 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My issue with the vandalism examples is not that they're badly sourced (great if there's a variety of reliable sources), but that it's disproportionate to the anti-abortion vandalism stuff, in which only the deaths get mentioned in bullets, and the vandalism gets a mention with overall numbers. The overall numbers claimed by Human Life International aren't supported by any verifiable data, and should go.

I have trouble parsing the sentence you've begun "Violence against pro-life advocates" with, and I still don't think it's supported by the cite, which only compares anti-abortion violence with how violent abortions are. --Tirana 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article Eco-terrorism includes "sabotage, vandalism, [and] property damage" in its definition of environmentalism-related violence. I see no issue with including similar crimes in this article, so long as it doesn't become doesn't a laundry list of minor incidents, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -Severa (!!!) 12:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've taken out a lot of the new material in the violence against pro-life section, because it's not sufficiently supported by reliable sources. The article used to support the claim that violence against pro-life advocates is underreported in fact makes the point that compared with the millions of abortions, pro-life violence is minor. Different thing entirely. As for the 854 homicides since 1965, the page that is sourced from is seriously biased (abortionists posing as doctors?), doesn't provide its own verifiable sources, and uses weird logic like double-counting homicides where more than one person is charged. An activist web page isn't good enough on its own, even with the "such and such claims" around it. --Tirana 03:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources had been corrected before you deleted them. Maybe if you actually checked it out you would have realized that. As such, I have reposted the material so you can see your error. HastelloyX 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the text and checked the sources immediately before I deleted the questionable material. Perhaps you would care to address the arguments about how reliable they were before you revert my edits? --Tirana 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The site that claims 854 homicides has been properly identified in the manor that Andrew described as being "part of qualifying and substantiation in the NPOV policy". In fact, the wording in the violence against pro-life supporters section was copied directly from the violence against pro-choice supporters section to ensure fairness in representation and avoid claims such as those you are making. And as I have said, in regards to questionable sources that hadn't been identified as possibly being biased, they were corrected as is stated in the section above on questionable sources. Which of course raises the question about why you felt the need to create a second section in regards to sourcing. HastelloyX 03:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the previous section was already huge and difficult to follow. My reading of it was that Andrew and Severa thought the Human Life International figures didn't meet the standard, and that you argued that perhaps others also failed that test. I haven't looked through the old edits to see what it used to look like, but as of now, the Human Life figures look dodgy, so I don't know or care much what's been "corrected" previously - I'd like to see the article using good information now. --Tirana 03:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The National Abortion Foundation numbers look really dodgy to me. I haven't tried to remove that link or the information provided since it was identified in such a manner as to be "part of qualifying and substantiation in the NPOV policy". And now I have responded to Andrew and Severa indicating that the Human Life International figure has also being identified properly. Both pieces of information (NAF and HLI) come from equally biased sources with their own agendas, but both have been properly labeled as such. And while we may have funny feelings about the numbers, since both sites have been identified as biased sources and links to the information is provided, there is more than enough available to let users draw their own conclusions. HastelloyX 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Looking really dodgy" is a good sniff test for further investigation, but it's not the final story, and it's not enough that you disagree with the politics of the organisation providing the statistics. Good data should be independent of its source. It seems to me that how each source cites its own sources is the important distinction here. HLI doesn't provide any references, says itself that it double-counts homicides, and apparently also includes homicides of pregnant women as being pro-abortion. NAF at least describes how its statistics are sourced - reported to them and defined by local law enforcement etc. That's an interjection of objectivity there that gives it more credibility. Not complete, of course - I'd still like more detail of their data selection, but we can be somewhat confident that they're not including things like getting hit by a car on the way to the clinic. --Tirana 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On further reading, I take that back. HLI document their statistics extremely thoroughly. That being said, my brief sampling of them included three cases of pregnant women being murdered by the father and one of a death threat to a pro-life organisation. Murder of pregnant women is a serious issue, but it beggars belief to include that as a major proportion of pro-abortion violence. You might as well include all murders as being anti-pro-life if you're going to be that broad. --Tirana 04:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Further arguments regarding this topic have been made under the discussion heading of "Recent Changes" in regards to the NAF as a source failing under 4 points regardin it being a reliable source. HastelloyX 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I ask everyone (including myself) review the WP:3rr policy. Generally speaking, if you add something to an article and one editor removes it, you should take that section to talk and discuss it with other editors and get consensus to add it. If you add something and one editor removes it, then you add it again, and a completely different editor removes it, and then you add it AGAIN and a third editor removes it, maybe you should stop adding it, and wait for discussion to go through. Wikipedia does not work by forcing content into articles. It works by consensus, and if there are 3 editors wanting to remove, and one editor wanting to keep, who do you think is going to win if it goes to a revert war? You will use up your 3 reverts before us and be banned. However, I for one do not want to get to that point, and I simply ask that HastelloyX consider self moving the section here to the talk page and letting discussion go through. We need to decide if college news papers are reliable, verifiable, notable sources (I think we all agree that lifesite fails). We need to decide how to present information regarding vandalism, and whether there is any reliable comparison between pro- and anti- factions. We need to discuss HLI vs. NAF (again, although I agree with Severa above that HLI should not be cited, and that NAF should be cited with reservation). All that said, I believe we can work this through, but we should not be eager to edit the article before we have discussed matters (and I know I have not had restraint at times). So I propose that we restore an earlier, longstanding version of this article, and discuss these matters here and make concrete proposals to change the article that everyone can agree to.-Andrew c 03:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you guys have been busy over the past couple of days. [This edit] strikes me as a sensible place to go back to - I strongly believe we should keep the new title. Fair enough to fix my clumsy attempt at using google to cite - I thought it was the best way to demonstrate the range of websites that mention Eileen Orstein Janezic rather than pick just one. --Tirana 03:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've examined some of the changes over the past few days and I find them problematic for some of the reasons that have already been noted. I think a lot of these changes have broken up the logical flow of the article, so, I'm going to be reverting to the previous structure and trying to incorporate relevant information into the long-standing framework.

"Organizational violence" is a counterintuitive title. It gives the impression that the section discusses violence conducted inside of an organization and not approval of anti-abortion violence. Plus, it's inaccurate, as the section could also potentially cover support from individuals not affiliated with a group.

Having "Pro-life condemnation of anti-abortion violence" as a separate section, not a sub-section of "Anti-abortion violence," is illogical. I also feel that, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, it is imporant for condemnation of violent incidents from pro-lifers to be discussed in the section's lead. The vast majority of opposition to abortion is non-violent and WP:NPOV#Undue weight states that it is important to "present competing views in proportion to their representation."

The same definition of "violence" should be applied to both the "Pro-abortion" and "Anti-abortion" sections in order to maintain balance and accuracy. We should model this article after Eco-terrorism by limiting this definition of "Abortion-related violence" to politically-motivated incidents:

• Violence committed against a person, because of their involvement in providing abortion or the pro-life movement, and with the intent of intimidating or discouraging others from continuing the same activity in the future.
• Vandalism, arson, or destruction of property, including attacks on abortion clinics or crisis pregnancy centers, because it is used for purposes with which the vandal does not agree.

Politically motivated violence simply redirects to Terrorism, and although I, personally, would stop short of describing acts like graffitiing an abortion clinic or knocking over a pro-life display as "terrorism," the definition provided in that article is still useful:

"Terrorism [politically motivated violence] is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political, religious (religious terrorism) or other ideological goals."

The HLI source is not a reliable source for reasons noted in the thread "Inappropriate sources." It was not deemed inadmissable because of "bias" -- that is only a secondary consideration -- but rather because the data is seriously flawed. HLI uses a catch-all definition of "pro-abortion violence," lumping in the murders of pregnant women, medical malpractice, and crimes committed by doctors. This does not conform to the definition of "politically-motivated violence" set in the articles Terrorism or Eco-terrorism. If a pro-life organization only tallied politically-motivated incidents in a reliable, scientific manner, then, yes, it would be admissable (with in-article attribution, as in, "According to the National Right to Life..."). However, HLI does not do this, so its figures are not helpful to us.

Including information about pro-life advocates being barred from protesting on an Ottawa college campus in this article stretches the title "Violence against pro-life advocates" to its breaking point. How does barring a person from protesting constitute physical assault or property damage? It doesn't — it's called censorship. Perhaps this information would be more relevant at Pro-life activism or Free speech. -Severa (!!!) 08:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I just realised I spent ten minutes replacing my old google ref with one representative source, and tidying up the ref to World magazine so that even though the original article isn't online, at least there's an url - can we keep those in a revert? It drives me nuts when content is reverted for good reasons but the fiddly references get nailed at the same time. --Tirana 09:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I converted all references to APA citation style and also cited all the authors of the college news items. -Severa (!!!) 12:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If the HLI source is deemed inadmissible because of a claim that the data itself being flawed, I must take an equal standing claim that the data as presented by the NAF should be removed for serious flaws in the numbers and methodology of tabulation. The most obvious example of how the data is flawed is in reference number 4 (Incidence of Violence & Disruption Against Abortion Providers in the U.S. & Canada). The data set provided claims there were several hundred "Anthrax Attacks" against abortion providers under the heading of "Violence". There have been in fact zero anthrax attacks against abortion providers and only hoax letters sent, which would fall under the separate category on the same data set for "Hoax Device/Susp. Package" under the heading "Disruption". This is a clear case of number fixing/misrepresentation on the part of the NAF to raise the level of incidents of actual violence. As well, the data set footnote reads "All numbers represent incidents reported to or obtained by NAF." This is a self-admission by the NAF that they produce their own numbers. Thus, their numbers and tabulation methodology have not and cannot be independently verified (in science this would be referred to as "peer review") as there is no complete list of actual incidents and no description on how they collect their incident reports. This would fail the test of corroboration as a reliable source. By not describing their method of report collection, there is no way to examine flaws in methodology or misrepresentation of data sets, the main argument against the HLI who at least sited every incident they report. This fails the test of replicability and declaration of sources as a reliable source. Combined with the NAF's clear pro-choice affiliation being a clear case of bias, thus failing the test of political bias, their data set should be disqualified from use. HastelloyX 19:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The NAF source actually collects data on "Anthrax Threats." In Definition of terrorism, it states, "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur...has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.'" I don't think that, given this definition, whether a bioterror threat was considered an incident of "disruption" would hinge on whether the anthrax was real. See Clayton Waagner for more information on abortion-related anthrax hoaxes. It's not as those these incidents are in dispute.

The NAF source is just a summary. Here are the lists of Arsons and Bombings and Butryic Acid Attacks. The Feminist Majority Foundation, another advocacy group, also publishes annual reports on clinic incidents. NBC has a website which documents incidents up to 1997 or 1998. -Severa (!!!) 03:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The annual reports by the Feminist Majority Foundation's on clinic incidents discusses rate increases/decreases and does not provide incident numbers, and thus does not support the NAF data set. The NBC site lists many incidents but, once again, does not provide numbers that support the NAF data set. All in all, this does not change the basic problem that the NAF's numbers cannot be corroborated, and with no methodology listed its data cannot be replicated and its sources have not been revealed. Added to its inherent bias, it fails on four individual concerns (corroboration, replication, revealed sources and bias) in regards to it being a reliable source and thus contains enough doubt as to its reliability that it should not be included. HastelloyX 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the listings of Arsons and Bombings: while that listing is more in-depth than the NAF report, one cannot help but notice that the majority of the investigations into the cases listed have not concluded that the attacks were performed by anti-abortion activities; they are listed as still open or closed due to statute of limitations. In fact, that very source discusses the case of Alan Weiselberg who was the prime suspect in the arson of his own abortion clinic (insurance fraud). Because of these combined issues, the site doesn't corroborate the NAF data set, and thus it doesn't corroborate the Wikipedia Abortion Related Violence's page that attributes all of the incidents from the NAF data set to anti-abortion activities. HastelloyX 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is not violence. Removed sections:

• In 2000, the web site for the Students for Choice, a pro-choice student organization at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, British Columbia, called for the use of vandalism against pro-life displays. Members of Students for Choice had been responsible for the November 1999 destruction of a display by Lifeline — a pro-life student organization.
• In January 2005, 3000 out of 4000 crosses set up as part of a temporary pro-life display at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana were either destroyed or stolen.
• In March 2006, a pro-life flag display at Baylor University in Waco, Texas was stolen and replaced with a pro-choice message.
• In April 2006, Sally Jacobsen, a professor at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, Kentucky, and six of her students were charged with misdemeanor crimes after they uprooted 400 crosses in a pro-life display. A similar incident occured a week later at Princeton University.
• In August 2006 a pro-life display at the Pius XII Newman Center at South Dakota State University in Brookings, South Dakota was vandalized and both a church and the grounds on the property were spray painted with black paint. The Dakota Voice, a Christian newspaper from South Dakota, reported that the same site was vandalized again in October 2006. -- Joie de Vivre 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the "Violence... just hit me" section Joie de Vivre. This has already been covered. I request that these changes be reverted to the last edit. HastelloyX 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not want this information in the article, because if it is in, I would feel compelled to make a similar laundry list of anti-abortion vandalism in order to weigh things out more equally. And I feel that adding individual incident after incident can get out of hand, and I still find some of the sources used questionable. However, other editors (including myself, reluctantly) have been working together on this section, so I do not believe there is consensus to remove it. Maybe we should have a vote, or at least go on record of what we think so we know whether we have support for removing it (or including it).-Andrew c 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as we have uniformity in the article, I'm fine either way. It might simply be easier to rename the entire article to something that revolves around crime and violence in the abortion debate (I'm not suggesting that as the actual wording). Either way, even though it seemed like this issue was settled, perhaps a vote on the vandalism issue is in order. HastelloyX 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Property damage is included in the definition of Eco-terrorism. This article is also related to politically-motivated violence, so, I believe we should follow the standard set by Eco-terrorism. That said, I agree with Joie de Vivre that referring to actions like graffitiing a sign or knocking down a display as "violence" is a stretch, and perhaps even a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, because it presents petty vandalism as being on level with severe property damage like a bombing or an arson. I think the severity of an incident of property damage needs to be judged by from the actual, or intended, level of destruction, and arson and bombings are a lot more destructive than low-level vandalism — especially since they can be fatal. Ripped-up crosses can be replaced a lot easier than all the equipment in a bombed-out clinic. I don't mean to suggest that vandalism isn't serious, or that it is unimportant, only that it would be better covered in an article like Pro-life activism. If we're going to reintroduce the "Vandalism" section to "Pro-abortion violence," then, I think we should also having a corresponding section covering bombings and arsons under "Anti-abortion violence." A section like this is currently absent from the article and I would suggest that we add one. -Severa (!!!) 08:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

This article uses the political terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." I'd like to see them replaced with the NPOV terms "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights." Comments? Matchups 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are three terminology pairings available that are commonly used: "pro-life"/"pro-choice", "anti-abortion"/"pro-abortion" and "fetal rights"/"abortion rights" (ignoring the ridiculous sound-bytes like "anti-life"/"anti-choice"). It is difficult to assign a singular terminology for any one group, especially when you have groups throwing around loaded terminology. Barring loaded terminology, probably the only solution would be to adopt references of "those who support abortion" and "those who oppose abortion" or "abortion-proponents" and "abortion-opponents", since that is really what this is all about anyhow.

I especially think that the proponents/opponents label is the easiest one to adopt since they are the only terminologies that do not imply things that might not be true. For example, most people who consider themselves "pro-life" support abortion to save a mother, and thus the label "anti-abortion" is unsuitable. In the same context, people who consider themselves "pro-choice" do not automatically push for abortion, thus the label "pro-abortion" is unsuitable. HastelloyX 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Abortion proponents" is no different to "pro-abortion" - it doesn't represent the position of people who think that abortion should be available, but who may not necessarily seek that service themselves or want it widely taken up, which is the essence of the pro-choice position. "Abortion rights" is an ok term to describe that, but it's less well-known than "pro-choice". I've always thought "pro-life" is iffy (death penalty, anyone?) and "anti-abortion" sums the position up a little better, but as HastelloyX says, the latter doesn't reflect the range of exceptions some pro-lifers make, whether it's to save the life or protect the health of the mother, or in cases of abuse (which to me sounds like a focus on women's culpability rather than fetal rights). I reckon stick with the self-applied political terms pro-this and that - they're more commonly understood and less likely to get relitigated in future edits. --Tirana 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The covention throughout abortion-related articles is to use the self-identifying terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice," per WP:MoS#Identity, but to use the terms "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion" when referring to those who use violence, in order to distinguish them from the non-violent mainstream. -Severa (!!!) 00:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes and references

I found some of the footnotes came directly after the last character, like this,¹ and sometimes after a space, like this. ¹ I felt they should all be the same, so I fixed them. I removed the spaces, as that seemed more normal. I hope nobody objects.

I found that in the "Murder" section, one of the footnotes mentioned:

"Pro-Life Leader, Pastor Murdered." (September 18, 1993) World Magazine. Retrieved December 3, 2006

"Retrieved December 3" suggests to me that it's online, but there was no URL. If we're talking about a paper copy of a magazine, we should probably give the page number; if we're talking about an online magazine, I think we should give the URL. ElinorD 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Because a previous version of the article had almost verbatim text from a website (which happens to list the World Magazine as a source), I feel it is safe to say that we should follow Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it. I have changed the reference to reflect the actual source of this information.-Andrew c 00:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

World Magazine has an online archive that doesn't go back as far as 1993 - unless anyone contributing to this page actually has a hard copy, I doubt we'll get a page number - every google search I've done on the subject only brings up second-hand references to the article, and every single mention of the case is on pro-life sites, with variations on the theme of where Jerry Simon was shot, how long Janezic held off police for, what her mental state was and whether Satan was directly involved. No mainstream media reported on it, that I can find - searching the Huntsville Times archives has a couple of mentions of Jerry Simon but nothing about his murder or Janezic. The Christianity Today article I found is the only one that seems to have first-hand details, like interviews with Simon's family. According to that article, the murderer's name is Janeciz, unlike the spelling of all the others. Perhaps someone could find the actual case notes from Madison County, Alabama, where the trial was apparently held? I don't know enough about searching court records to be able to get there. It would be nice to get to the verifiable core under all the dramatic retellings. --Tirana 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A search of The Birmingham News, "Alabama's largest newspaper," was more successful. A keyword search for "Eileen Janezic" returned 25 articles. Unfortunately, the site requires a $2.95 USD fee for access to each article, but the snippets provided seem to corroborate the meat of the story, including the Satanism part. I couldn't find confirmation that Simon's pro-life views were what motivated Janezic, but, there was one return for an article about the case for the keyword search "Jerry Simon anti-abortion" (none for "Jerry Simon pro-life"). We should cite these articles, as they are more reliable than the current ones. -Severa (!!!) 09:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-ordering

As of now, it lists all the acts of violence, then those that support violence, then those that oppose it. Doesn't this make more sense? I don't think organizing it according to some loosely-defined camps makes sense, especially when some offenders consider themselves "pro-life" and others in that movement consider them to be violating principles. I think the current ordering is much less POV. Joie de Vivre 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of this has been covered under the discussion heading "Issues with "Pro-life condemnation of anti-abortion violence". I happen to agree with you on this, but most people here do not. This might also need to be reverted to the last edit. HastelloyX 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the ordering in your first sentence makes sense, or that the ordering is wrong? I agree with that ordering. List the incidents, list organization support of those actions, then discuss the vast condemnation of those actions. But because all three topics are discussing and relevant to the greater idea of anti-abortion violence, I feel they need to be under the same header, thus the hierarchical changes I made and then was reverted (discussed further up this page). What doesn't make sense to me is to have a response and support of anti-abortion violence outside of the general topic of anti-abortion violence. It's like saying "We have this topic of anti-abortion violence, then we have this other topic of pro-abortion related violence, then we have this other completely different topic of organization support of anti-abortion violence, and finally another topic of pro-life condemnation of anti-abortion violence." To me, 3 of those topics are covered under one simple heading, right? What am I missing.-Andrew c 00:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The current ordering is illogical. Basically, the article should be logically divided into two halves, "Anti-abortion violence" and "Pro-abortion violence" ("Anti-abortion" coming first is the result of alphabetization). It doesn't make sense in terms of thematic flow to have the "Condemnation" and "Support" sections coming after "Pro-abortion violence." -Severa (!!!) 13:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and I think you're right. Most of the content is related to the anti-abortion violence. I have re-ordered it once again, with a top-level header related to anti-abortion violence, the acts themselves, and people's reactions. The other sort of violence is under that, as the phenomenon is rare enough that there isn't much talk of it. Good thinking. Joie de Vivre 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

The site linked in the intro fails in the areas of corroboration, replicability and declaration of source material from which it's conclusions are drawn, and thus is not a reliable source. Introduction line changed until reliable, comparitive numbers for both anti-abortion violence and violence against those who oppose abortion can be provided to support any claim that there is a greater incidence of violence by anti-abortion activists. The section as it originally appeared:

Abortion-related violence is most frequently committed by anti-abortion activists in the United States. Acts of violence have also been documented in Australia and in Canada. The violence may be associated with the controversial nature of abortion.

The NAF site has failed to be proven as a reliable source. They collect their own numbers and do not feature any descriptive listing of incidents, thus their numbers and tabulation methodology have not and cannot be independently verified. This fails the requirement of corroboration as a reliable source. By not describing their method of report collection, there is no way to examine flaws in methodology or misrepresentation (either willful or accidental) of data, thus failing the requirement of replicability and declaration of sources as a reliable source. The NAF's clear pro-choice affiliation is a clear case of bias, thus failing the test of political bias. Until their tabulation procedure and the actual numbers that were displayed have been independently verified, the numbers as presented in the NAF's data set should be disqualified from use. Removed section:

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation, an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 3 kidnappings, 375 death threats, 655 anthrax threats, 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 89 attempted bombings or arsons, 1347 incidences of trespassing, 1213 incidences of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid, in addition to other disruptive and violent occurrences. HastelloyX 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Severa, could you explain yourself in reverting the intro using a source that is unsuitable according to Wikipedia's policy on what constitutes a reliable source? You say it is fact, but all facts at some point have been proven by empirical means, and this should be easy to substantiate as to the Undue weight. If it cannot be substantiated as a proven fact, then it should be reframed as an opinion per the Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. HastelloyX 11:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't like the NAF figures - they're no longer there. There's still 7 documented, sourced murders committed by people who said they did it to stop abortion and a guy convicted of anthrax hoaxing clinics, vs one mentally ill "Satanist" who has made no verifiable statements on abortion one way or the other, and someone who ran over someone's foot at a protest. 7:1 is empirically more frequent - give it a rest. --Tirana 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to get emotional; let's stay analytical. Your 7:1 is based on documented sources on this page. This page does not constitute a scientifically sound survey of the actual number of incidents on either side. Are we supposed to consider user entered data as being scientifically sound? Might as well throw the NLI numbers back up if that's all it takes. The articles on Undue weight indicate quite clearly that if something is so obvious, showing it to be true should be fairly easy. A comparitive study of anti-abortion violence to violence against abortion opponents simply hasn't been documented on this page. And since people on both side of any debate always attribute negative qualities on the other, having any author simply say it is so without demonstrating how that conclusion was reached isn't proof enough. Besides, the 7:1 ratio is based on a singular criminal activity on this page, but this page is about the overall incidents of violent activities. Any statement as to the overall picture must reflect the overall content, not one focal point. Otherwise the statement should reflect homicides, not violent activity. HastelloyX 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm reinstating the NAF figures because complaints from one user do not constitute a valid reason for removing them. We've already established precisely why the HLI figures are seriously flawed:

• HLI counts non-politically motivated crimes (the murder of a pregnant woman or a crime committed by a person involved in providing abortion for reasons completely unrelated to their field of work) and medical malpractice as "pro-abortion violence."
• HLI double-counts a single murder if there was more than one person involved. This isn't exactly the sort of thing which reputable statisticians do.

Frankly, the complaint that the NAF figures are unreliable because they are based on a system of self-reporting is grasping at straws. As Andrew c said, NAF is, for all intents and purposes, a trade organization, and so of course incidents would be self-reported. That's what trade organizations do. You might as well remove the statistics from Back injury because the American Bureau of Labor Statistics is based on a system of self-reporting and doesn't provide extensive documentation so that we can individually and independently verify each of the 1 million+ cases of back injury a year in the U.S.. That would be a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, and, I imagine protecting victim privacy/safety is the main reason why things like death threats don't go into detail. -Severa (!!!) 05:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparing back injury statistics for the Bureau of Labor to reports of violence against abortion clinics by the NAF has no basis in logic. There is no controversy over back injuries. There are no lobby organizations in support and against back injury legislation. There have been no attempts to legislate laws that would restrict or outlaw back injuries. As such, the Bureau of Labor has no motivating factor in how it reports back injuries since nobody cares one way or the other the results of a naturally occuring condition. The NAF's very existance is threatened by those who oppose abortion, thus it has an inherent need to defend itself against its opponents. And since it is using numbers based on violence, which we have seen in this discussion page before can have misrepresentation (i.e. the case listed in the Feminist.org site I pointed out of the abortion provider who burned his own clinic down) it is necessary to ensure the numbers provided have not included incidents that do not constitute anti-abortion violence. As it is, if simply being a trade organization is enough to make a group free from the microscope of criticism or scrutiny, then somebody better go delete the criticism section of the World_Trade_Organization article. HastelloyX 16:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll simplify my position so you'll see what I am talking about. The NLI's numbers were deemed inadmissible because editors felt the NLI was lumping together incidents of violence that they felt did not constitute violence against pro-lifers. In the same sense, we can see that if you examine the numbers presented by the National Abortion Federation [4] and focus in on the numbers for arson, then compare them to an actual breakdown of the arson numbers [5], you can see that the NAF makes no differentiation between arson cases that are committed by anti-abortion activists, cases that have not been linked to anti-abortion activists, and cases that were deemed as having an entirely different motive.

If you look at the numbers for 1991[6], you will see that there were 8 incidents of arson. The breakdown[7] confirms the number of arsons as being 8, but clearly outlines that of those 8, 5 remain unsolved (i.e. have not been identified as the action of anti-abortion activists), and 1 in fact (the case of Alan Weiselberg) was a clear case of insurance fraud. However, the NAF data set[8] adds them all together regardless of motive or whether the case was even solved.

If the Abortion-related violence article and the section in question was about disruption to services at abortion clinics, then those numbers would be admissible. However, the NAF numbers are being used to discuss anti-abortion violence. Clearly, since the NAF numbers as presented in the Abortion-related violence article include unsolved cases and at least one case of insurance fraud, their numbers do not represent the section they are being included in. And since the NAF data set includes these other aspects in the arson listing, it naturally goes in hand the their numbers are about disruption and not anti-abortion violence, extending to other cases such as assault, vandalism, trespassing, etc. And if the NAF numbers are about disruption of services and not about anti-abortion violence, the data set is not applicable to the section it is being used in. HastelloyX 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed comments from "pro-life reactions" section

I'm not saying that these comments aren't true, they might well be, but they're just not sourced. Good sources would probably be statements issued by various pro-life groups, condemning anti-abortion violence. I don't have much info on this. In the meantime...

It is highly uncommon for those who oppose abortion to resort to violence. The vast majority of pro-life advocates, as well all mainstream pro-life organizations, reject homicide as a form of opposition to abortion, which they perceive as homicide itself. They rely upon non-violent forms of activism like picketing, vigils, and "sidewalk counseling" of people entering abortion clinics.

Joie de Vivre 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also:

Other pro-life groups to take a stand against violence include Human Life International -- Joie de Vivre 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want me to create a laundry list of advocacy groups that reject violence? I thought this was discouraged under WP:NPOV#Undue weight. HastelloyX 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed for being misfiled under the wrong heading of "pro-life reaction to anti-abortion violence" (the statement does not address that section)...

"Human Life International's pro-abortion murder figures include pregnant women murdered for reasons not directly related to the availability of abortion."

HastelloyX 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these are the sort of statements that require a source, Joie de Vivre. From the article pro-life activism, for instance, I think it's obvious that most forms of opposition to abortion are non-violent. I also think it's important for us to frame this section within this context, to avoid being "misleading as to the shape of the dispute," per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Shifting the focus way from pro-life condemnations to pro-life reactions seriously alters the tone of the section. I also think that the large HLI quote is out-of-place and that the placement is vaguely editorialistic. I'll probably be reverting to an earlier version after NUMB3RS is over. I'll also try to find some sources to meet Joie de Vivre's concerns. This article has ping-ponged between versions over the last few days and it would be really nice to see some stability for a while. -Severa (!!!) 05:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the HLI website's position on the subject (doesn't support, but doesn't think it's a big deal compared with etc) is a really interesting facet of the issue. There are, apparently, a bunch of people who think that "pro-abortion" violence is more of a big deal than anti-abortion violence. Perhaps there are more neutral ways of putting that while still demonstrating the relative scale of things than I've been able to. --Tirana 07:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved the quote to a new section, "Pro-life perspectives of pro-abortion violence," in order to restore the thematic consistency of the former "Condemnation..." section. I went ahead and quoted the HLI statistics, but noted the issues, so that we can focus on something other than source criticism. Sourced the statements regarding the majority of pro-life organizations opposing violence. -Severa (!!!) 10:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Slight change to two headers, move of one paragraph

Please hear me out on this. Here are the older version and the newer version, for comparison. Changes:

I have renamed "Pro-life condemnation of violence" to "Pro-life reactions to anti-abortion violence". I know there was some concern that this was POV, but I don't agree, because this way, we have matching sections for "Pro-life..." and "Pro-choice reactions to anti-abortion violence". I think this is more neutral than using the word "condemnation" in the section name. If we refer only to "condemnation", we must exclude the more neutral responses from pro-life groups in regards to such violence.

Relatedly, I moved the HLI reaction to the newly-renamed "pro-life reactions" section for comparison to the reactions of other pro-life groups. I stated that HLI is a Catholic group, and placed with the other reactions by Catholic groups. The remaining HLI content, namely, the statistics remains as a subheader of Violence against those who oppose abortion, titled simply "Statistics from Human Life International".

Please consider the logic first, rather than just reverting. I've put thought into this. -- Joie de Vivre 19:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reconsidering the appropriateness of including a link which lists HLI's statistics separately from an explanation of how they were compiled, I have moved the HLI quote back to its original location (under a renamed header), and included an inline link from "Pro-life reactions..." to the HLI section. Click on it, and it jumps to the HLI section. Joie de Vivre 19:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Another arson

Here is some 'breaking news': [9] I think we should probably wait to see if more comes from the investigation and see if other news sources pick up the story, but giving everyone who's watching this page a heads up.-Andrew c 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Another article:[10]-Andrew c 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I tried updating the sentence in the introduction, but then realised it's not certain that this incident was an arson yet, so I agree we should await further developments before changing the most recent event listed in the intro. -Severa (!!!) 15:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The authorities know it was a set fire, as the Virginian Pilot article states. Not sure, legally speaking, if that means it was an "arson". I believe it does, but I'm not a legal expert. This article calls it arson. -Andrew c 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Arson, "Arson is the crime of setting a fire for an unlawful or improper purpose," so, this definition is broad enough to include any deliberately-started fire. Thanks for keeping us posted with these news stories -Severa (!!!) 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

John Salvi and Human Life International claim

Does anyone have a source for the claim that John Salvi was seen distributing HLI pamplets? I've found sources that he possessed such pamphlets [11], but not that he distributed them. Silverfish 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Church Passage

It's great to see two editors committed to the improvement of an article! However, in an effort to forestall a possible edit war, I have reverted the article back to Andrew c's edit. I think that this passgae is more neutral, less inflammatory, and has greater accuracy and nuance. I did remove the word "clearly" for neutral tone and flow. If this passage is still disputed, it would be useful if both editors would post reasons for their proposed edits. This would be greatly appreciated, as it allows for greater transparency and participation in the communal editing process, thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-abortion terminology

Shouldn't the POV term "pro-life" be replaced with the neutral term "anti-abortion?" Also, the section is confusing, because the two terms are synonymous, but the section title makes it sound like they are different groups. In general, we should be consistent and use one term, and preferably the NPOV one. Ma^t_chups 11:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-abortion is clearly just as much POV as pro-life. If we are going to use your logic then I get to change ever "pro-choice" to "pro innocent baby murder", because technically that is what's happening so that would be just as valid as you calling pro-lifers "anti abortion". ...or at least all "pro-choice" people then become 'anti-life'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.157.5 (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) That is not an equivalent, and I can tell that your personal beliefs are getting in the way here. I'd suggest that pro/anti-abortion are two relatively good terms to demonstrate beliefs without POV. 99.244.210.98 (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)S

While I partially agree to both concepts, it seems to me there is a name for both sides that accurately reflects what they stand for. "Pro-Choice," for example, is clearly a term used to appeal to the emotions, suggesting that abortion is inherently a "choice." And likewise, "pro-life" is a very inaccurate term, because it suggests that anti-abortion protestors support all forms of life and all its facets; for example, the term would indicate that being anti-abortion can not coincide with also being pro-capital-punishment. "Pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" should be the correct terms, applied to a neutral discussion. The terms do not mislead from or hide either corresponding belief -- one who is "pro-abortion" clearly supports abortion, whereas the one who is "anti-abortion" clearly opposes it.216.185.250.92 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Abortion doctor"?

In the article Joe Scarborough, someone is referred to as an "abortion doctor". Is this the best term to use? If not, are there any alternatives? GeneralBelly (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As a pro-lifer, I most definitely refuse to use a title of honor and respect like "doctor" for someone who kills unborn children for a living, as a true doctor works to help people get well and healthy when they are sick and hurt. I would suggest as a more neutral term "abortion provider" and "abortion facility".75.81.204.244 (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

While I think "abortion provider" is a better term to use, it is not for the reasons you provided. "Doctor" is not "a title of honor and respect"; it is a title of education. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This article begins "Abortion-related violence, or anti-abortion violence" this is absurd. Anti-abortion violence is a SUBSET of abortion-related violence. There have been many accounts of pro-choice people attacking pro-life demonstrators. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the point I was going to make. Why is there no article on the numerous attacks on pro-life activists by pro-abortion activists? BenW (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because the attacks against right-to-lifers have all been low-level and trivial? When anti-right-to-lifist violence begins in earnest, when right-to-lifers begin suffering terror like the terror they inflict on others, THEN wiki can write about it.

How about the fact that violence against pro-lifers is seldom if ever mentioned in the mainstream media and of course the pro-abortion groups simply pretend it doesn't exist. How are we supposed to know if violence against pro-lifers is "low-level" and "trivial" if there's no article where we can see the incidents for ourselves? Then we can make a truly fair assessment. 75.81.204.244 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic of this article is violent acts committed by anti-abortion people, against abortion providers. No other type of violence is mentioned in this article. Also, "anti-abortion violence" gets >8500 ghits, while "abortion-related violence" gets only 3100 ghits (despite the fact that there are likely WP mirrors with the latter title inflating the latter results). Whatever404 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support the contents of the article match the proposed title. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Current title is far broader than the current topic, and it's a good topic; Broadening the topic is fraught with problems. Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disputed NAF Statistics

Here are the passages I believe should be modified/removed from this page. (I am new to this, so let me know where I’ve gone wrong!)

1. “According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[7]” (NAF)
2. “According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[7]” (NAF)
3. In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least 7 people, including 3 doctors, 2 clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[4] (NARAL)
4. The attempted murders were:[8][9][4] (NARAL)
5. More recent incidents have included:[4] (NARAL)

The National Abortion Federation is a biased organization, and their information seems to violate the RS: self published sources rule. Re #1 and #2: If I can’t use “original research” to prove my points (our office’s tally of violent incidents against pro-lifers), I don’t see why the NAF should be held to a different standard. Those events that were not newsworthy should be removed. Those events (murder, attempted murder, etc) that have outside sources should be changed to reflect that, rather than relying on the NAF.

Since NAF and NARAL record “incidents” in a tallied spreadsheet and there’s no record available to us showing what these incidents were, you cannot prove that all of these incidents were committed by pro-lifers; unsolved cases cannot be considered acts of anti-abortion violence. This was argued in an archived discussion and I think it’s accurate.

Number 2 includes “trespassing” and “vandalism” in their count—an archived discussion suggested not counting such things since they’re not violent (and the title of the article is about violence); moreover, there’s still the reliable source/original research problem.

Similarly, Numbers 3, 4, and 5 could easily be supported with outside articles, NARAL should not be used. (I’ll start looking for other sources to substitute). Cngcng (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Corrina

The National Abortion Federation is not a biased organization (well, if you can claim the contrary without backing it up, so can I, right? :P), and their information doesn't relate to the RS: self published sources rule because in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. NAF is a trade organization for abortion practitioners. Their statistics have been cited by the AP, MSNBC, Reuters, not to mention a number of peer reviewed journals [12] (one minute on google led me to this). Forbidding us to cite NAF in relation to self reporting statistics of their membership is like forbidding us to cite an AMA statistic on the number of malpractice cases. Do you have something specific you think is inaccurate about NAF's numbers? Do you have a conflicting source? Or is your opposition to citing NAF reactionary in nature? That said, if you want to replace the NARAL citation, go ahead. They extensively cite their sources, so it shouldn't be that hard to find the information in their paper, look to see who they cited, dig up the actual citation to confirm, then simply cite the source here that NARAL was citing in their paper. It doesn't seem like we need to change any actual content in the article though, correct? -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to ask this would have been: Most of these cases remain open--there's no proof that this a pro-lifer/anti-abortionist committed these acts. It could have been a random whack-job. Is there a way to note this? To me that would seem to make this article more neutral...

Also, can we distinguish between "this guy set fire to a clinic to keep his girlfriend from having an abortion" and "this person generally opposed abortion, so he set fire to the clinic." To me these seem to be distinctly different types of violence. The latter is a reflection of the pro-life movement as a whole, while the former is a distraught man who wasn't smart enough to think of a non-violent solution to his problem.

As for the NARAL stuff, no, we don't need to change article content, I'd just like to make the sources more neutral. Cngcng (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Corrina

Yeah, NAF is not biased. They are like the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society.

George Tiller Death

It might be a good idea to Semi-protect this and a few other abortion pages within the Abortion Debate series until it passes out of the media cycle. I removed vandalism concerning his entry to this page by 69.8.8.146. 99.240.36.63 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Recreation of Pro-abortion violence article

I have recreated the Pro-abortion violence article in order to achieve NPOV parity and split the relevant discussions to Talk:Pro-abortion violence. If we apply the criteria for inclusion on this article, "violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion", then it's trivially true that "violence committed against individuals and organizations that oppose abortion" also exists. On the upside, this talk page just got a whole lot shorter and the pro-abortion violence people can go an take their fight about what to include there, leaving the anti-abortion editors free to edit this article in peace. (At least I can dream that this will end peacefully.) Michael Belisle (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I see this has conventionally been converted into a redirect to anti-abortion movement, which has no mention of the violence faced by pro-life activists. BenW (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Trivially" is the correct word. When anti-right-to-lifist violence becomes non-trivial (AMEN!) THEN wiki can write about it. SingingZombie (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We need to reinstate this article. They have been examples of pro-abortion political violence and, for the sake of parity, they need to be mentioned. 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)217.42.116.63 (talk)

Sure, but all it should say is, occasionally right-to-lifers get assaulted while protesting at abortion clinics, and a very small number have sustained serious injury. It should NOT mention Pouillon, because as far as we know he was killed for showing a gory sign to high-school kids, not for his right-to-lifism; it should NOT link to the clown-site "abortionviolence.com" nor to any site which lists crimes committed by abortion workers but which are unrelated to the abortion issue, nor to any site which lists ordinary surgical errors as if they were "abortion violence". SingingZombie (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording of "Pro-life reactions to anti-abortion violence"

One line in particular states, "Pro-life activism generally consists of activism such as picketing, vigils, and "sidewalk counseling" outside abortion clinics."[13] This, in the context of the rest of the paragraph, seems bias since it makes the pro-life protesters seem like peaceful people 100% of the time, whereas those who commit violent acts against abortion providers are "fringe advocates" as the article states. While this may be true on the whole, the passage is a) not cited, and b) has no mention of why buffer zones were created in the first place, such as the sentence in that same paragraph, "Some governments have responded to such activities with laws that protect access to abortion, particularly the creation of buffer zones where protesters are not permitted to approach those entering or exiting facilities providing abortion." It makes it seem as though the protesters are being stripped of their right to assemble for no reason.

I propose that instead of "pro-life activism generally," we say "often." Also, to add a sentence explaining why buffer zones were created: because pro-life protesters aren't always peaceful and non-violent, but are often very hostile, harassing, and intimidating towards those who seek abortions. Some have even physically barred women from entering the buildings. From a Boston Globe article when MA created a 35-foot buffer zone, [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.244.74 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Its soft on them, right now. Should be less hedgy and more direct, and not be quite so nice. Maybe this most recent murder will bring out some new articles to cite about pro-lifers and support of terrorism/violence against abortion providers. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So far everything I've seen from the pro-life people has been completely negative about the murder of Dr. Tiller and dozens of others... Rapier1 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life terrorism

I think there should be a redirect from "Pro-life terrorism" to this article. I've seen this movement called by that oxymoron much more times than the politically correct and unspicy "anti-abortion violence". Albmont (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Direct action

I find it rather unusual that the definitions of direct action are decidedly left-wing. Clearly, using the criteria listed for what qualifies as direct action, abortion protesting would also be considered direct action. So much NPV, once again showing the left-wing bias of Wiki and further diminishing its value as an intellectual reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.229.155 (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, picketing is NOT direct action (although picketing might be used in conjunction with direct action). Direct action is OUTSIDE of normal social and political channels and behaviors. Picketing by itself is fairly mundane and normal form of political speech. Let's use an example: Animal rights activists picket a lot, but that of itself is not direct action. When, while picketing, they block a fur coat store's entrance so the store can't do business, THAT is direct action. 76.27.193.128 (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Still, one could argue some of the more radical manifestations of the anti-abortion movement are akin to methods employed by direct action activists. For instance, anti-abortion violence usually involves more than picketing and actually implies a kind of terrorist insurgency against abortion providers and pro-choice leaders. ADM (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

This page contains errors such as factual errors as well as continuity errors. (There are multiple opposing statements within the document) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.74.93 (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Whatever404 (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A single "opinion-quote" link to terrorism looks like white-washing

It is obvious that Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism, and there are many reliable sources which say so, e.g. [15] Why then is there only a single mention of the word "terrorism" in the body of the article, and even this is presented as an opinion from a single commentator? There are plenty of references which make this connection, but the word hardly exists in the body. To me this looks a little whitewashed. The aim of such violence is also conspicuously absent from the introduction. Should it not say something like "Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism targeted at doctors who provide abortions with the aim of discouraging doctors from providing abortion services?" (although not with this wording, obviously) cojoco (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of antisemitism

The anti-Defamation League has asserted that certain strands of the pro-life movement harbour anti-semitic views, presumably because of support for abortion among large sections of the American Jewish community. This should maybe be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia's entries about the abortion debate, along with appropriate sources of course. [16] ADM (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? Certain strands of all crazies harbour anti-all sorts of views. I'm sure they're anti-immigration, racist, sexist and hate Muslims, too. Why is anti-Semitism special? cojoco (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

People who shouldn't be cited

I deleted a reference to the Georgia professor because he's obviously biased and his conclusion emanates from his political preferences rather than any kind of logic or evidence. If we are too include him then we must also quote me saying "Abortion is baby murder, plain and simple." because, in regards to evidence and/or a logically constructed argument, I am as much of an expert as him on abortion and that statement is on the exact same level of factual and/or logical support.

• Is he biased just because he is from Georgia? That's a terrible thing to say. Either way, he's published this stuff in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and surely that's one step up from your no doubt objective opinion. Get over it: some people who disagree with you may do so because they have good reasons to do so.

  I have restored the content, which was perfectly in agreement with Wikipedia guidelines and have suggested Conservapedia to this editor on their talkpage. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Registry proposal in article

I just took out a Huffington post reposting of an essay proposal written by Jacob M. Appel to register anti-abortion activists known for violence. I don't see this proposal getting picked up on a regional or national scale, so it is not notable.

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/the-case-for-an-anti-abor_b_222559.html

If this makes it into law somewhere it will have earned its notability. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Attempted Murders" Improperly Categorized or Sourced

I've removed three of the seventeen alleged "attempted murders." For one the only source is World Net Daily, which has repeatedly be rejected as a reliable source by Wikipedia editors. Nor does Choice! magazine, a publication of advocacy group Planned Parenthood, meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. If it does, then I'll be loading this article with countless statistics on pro-choice violence and anti-abortion violence from anti-abortion groups such as Human Life International.

The inclusion of Kurt Cobain as the victim of an "attempted murder" is improper and not remotely supported by the introductory text to the list. All the entry says about him is that he received death threats, not that anyone made an actual attempt to murder him. There is an enormous legal difference between the two crimes. TruthfulPerson (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The WorldNetDaily link is written by Jack Cashill, a noted political observer. [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27494 Cashill's observations] can't be dismissed out of hand. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Cashill: I agree, but Wikipedia appears to have an official policy against citing WND or Cashill in any matter relating to President Obama, regardless of the factual content of the article. Cherry-picking acceptable articles when they support one's pro-choice views shouldn't be permitted as an exception to this policy.166.137.135.20 (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe Wikipedia has any such policy (show me the policy page), and if it did, this article is not about Obama. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues

If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Abortion violence

An article about the other side of the stoty (pro-abortion violence) should be created to balance this.--Knight1993 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur, but abortionists run Wikipedia.75.39.123.253 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tried that already, even citing sources, but Wikipedia deleted my work, they could not give me a real reason. BenW (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

NAF

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is the self-described "professional association of abortion providers in North America." It has no qualifications or expertise in criminal matters. Its so-called Violence and Disruption Statistics report is not a reliable source for criminal statistics. There is no indication how NAF came to compile these supposed stats and from what sources. It acknowledges in a footnote that only the stats for murder, bombing and arson are "classified as such by the appropriate law enforcement agency." It absurdly includes Constitutionally-protected activities, such as "picketing" and "hate mail" (whatever that is), alongside apparent criminal conduct ("bomb threats"), all of which it classifies as "disruption." It is plainly self-serving and is not a reliable source. Cloonmore (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there some way that we could keep the source but make it clear to the reader where the NAF is coming from and what the mean by "criminal conduct"? - Schrandit (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

motives

As the whole point of this article is apparently to describe a form of terrorism, the motivation of the perps, i.e., that it involve opposition to legalized abortion, must be a determinative factor as to whether a crime shoud be included. Thus, the Christmas Day 1984 Pensacola bombings are clearly pertinent. OTOH, for example, the Concord, NH fire in May 2000, which was not even definitively classified as arson, much less proven to be the work of a person or group with an animosity toward legal abortion, should not be included. Cloonmore (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, the link you provided says that it was probably arson. Other sources substantiate that it was probably the work of anti-abortionists, so I'm adding it back. Roscelese (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, the point is that "probably arson" or even "actually arson" isn't a sufficient basis to include the incident here unless there's reliable proof that the crime was politically or ideologically motivated by anti-abortion views (as opposed to a disgruntled ex-employee, pyromaniac, malicious landlord, etc.) Cloonmore (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where I said "Other sources substantiate that it was probably the work of anti-abortionists"? Police assume that it was terrorism. If you're arguing that we need a conviction in order to say so, a lot of Wikipedia articles are going to need to be overhauled. Roscelese (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Name

The term "anti-abortion" is generally avoided on Wikipedia. How would folks feel about a move to "Violence against abortion providers"? - Haymaker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this works. The term "anti-abortion" is avoided only in some situations. This does not have to be one. The term is avoided because people who work against abortion, people who are honestly anti-abortion, wish to be associated with a positive indication: "pro-life". As if people who believe in reasonable access to abortion are anti-life... :(

In other words, don't go there. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised, Haymaker, to hear you even implicitly suggesting the title "Pro-life violence." After all, the term that "anti-abortion" is generally avoided in favor of is "pro-life." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The current title is broad enough to include violence against people who promote legal access to abortion, people who do not provide them. The proposed title is not this broad. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, from the first sentence of the lead; "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." and again from the Definition and characteristics page; "Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism specifically visited upon people who or places which provide abortion.". I can't find any person or organization here who is not involved in providing abortions. I think the proposed title is broad enough to cover all the persons and organizations listed. - Haymaker (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That definition could easily be expanded to include, say, the recent shooting of pro-choice Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford in Arizona if there were more comments like this in reliable sources. There are not, though, so your point stands, for now. I'll return to my response above in which I say the term "anti-abortion" is avoided in other situations, not this one. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible in the future that the article could be expanded beyond those criteria but it has operated inside them for several years and our sources seem to as well.

I haven't really looked into it but I think the acceptance of said term in this article is more by accident than design. I don't know that though, has there been any discussion on using that term here but not elsewhere?

Per your first point, there are a fair number of incidents here that may not principally be motivated by pro-life/anti-abortion sentiment. I'm mostly looking at Mr. Rudolph who targeted a vast number of locations of various affiliations and throughout the south, some seeming distantly connected, some more so, many mostly symbolic. Some of these acts of violence seem to be motivated by personal reasons, like Mr.s Altman and Baca's arson of an abortion clinic where Mr. Baca thought his then girlfriend was going to have an abortion that he did not want her to have. What binds this list together is not the motivation of the perpetrators, but the occupation of the victims. - Haymaker (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Up the talk page a little bit you can see the result of a move proposal, moving the article name from "abortion-related violence" to "anti-abortion violence". I consider your proposal more along the lines of "abortion related", which is not the point of the article. The point is the anti-abortion stance (or an interpretation of such a stance) of the ones doing the violence. The focus is on the perpetrators. Your article name would focus on the victims; a very poor choice. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Anti-abortion violence → Violence against abortion providers — The title of this article is misleading. It implies all the actions listed were motivated by opposition to abortion, which is not supported by the references. We should move it to "Violence against abortion providers", which does not make assumptions about the motives. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Your proposal would focus the article on the victims, not on the perpetrators—a very poor choice. The references are various, and they generally indicate that anti-abortion motives were at root. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Binksternet. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I feel it's accurate as it is. Deb (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I could deal with the title if we get rid of the ones where the motive is unclear. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wording of "Pro-life violence"

I have removed all improperly sourced religious articles because they were not sourced. Blogs and personal websites are not considered news agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Abortionist vs. abortion provider

I tend to think of "abortion provider" as a clinic or organization, i.e. Planned Parenthood or Tiller's clinic, and "abortionist" as the person who actually performs the abortions, i.e. George Tiller. And it seems Tiller was both an abortionist and and abortion provider. Could someone explain how abortionist is a POV term? I used the therapist example to show that it's not necessarily POV. "Abortionist" is most commonly used for Kermit Gosnell by mainstream sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Abortion provider" is most commonly used for Dr. Tiller by mainstream sources, so all other factors totally aside, the figure's based on Tiller, let's use the terminology used most commonly for Tiller. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)