Talk:Anti-abortion violence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sourcing or deleting specific incidents

My deletion and sourcing edits stemmed from discussion here: Talk:Pro-life_movement#.22Occasionally.22. I'd be glad to discuss it further. In summary, we have to consider the weight of specific instances. If something received no coverage outside of local newspapers and can otherwise be considered "isolated instances" that don't clearly relate to the topic in question (and thus lack secondary source analysis and commentary), then it doesn't belong here. Feel free to delete more which doesn't meet our guidelines, or add sources for ones using questionable sourcing. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but we need to make it clear through some kind of note that the list in the article is not comprehensive. (Its length might lead readers to think so, which is why I think a note is needed.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. At least for the Arson, Bombing... section, we mention the number of attacks since 1977, and we clearly don't go on to list the thousands and thousands of reported incidents. We also say "Incidents have included" so that makes it clear to me it isn't all inclusive, but I wouldn't oppose a rephrasing to something like "Incidents which made national or international headlines have included:", though I think that wording is worse. Something along those lines. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal

The US info is large enough for its own article and it is a notable topic. Splitting it out has been tried in the past but it was reverted. It goes without saying that a summary should be left behind. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be unnecessary and probably create the impression that anti-abortion violence is less prominent in the US or more prominent in other countries than in fact it is. If the vast majority of the incidents are in the US, then it's appropriate for the main article to be largely about incidents in the US. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop lying please

Are you crazy? --> "Anti-abortion violence is most frequently committed in the United States" Stop lying please! It's ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.14.144.152 (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia is garbage. They lost their credibility a long time ago. 69.162.253.105 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

all violence should be condemned, so acknowledge existence of violence against peaceful pro-life people

It's fine for this article to concentrate on violence from anti-abortion people, and it's even correct to call the perpetrators that, as they are definitely not pro-life. For fairness, though, I do think it would be helpful to at least mention that there have been many attacks on peaceful pro-life people, as well. I don't have time to research this properly, so I will not be creating an entry for that aspect of the violence in the abortion wars, but here is a link to the most recent attacks, which will probably be conveniently treated as non-news by the biased major media outlets. http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9571020086.html Elaine in the middle (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Elaine in the middle

The attacks on pro-life demonstrators are of vastly less importance than the attacks on pro-choice people and property. What we are doing here in this article is presenting the correct balance, that is, the great preponderance of violence by pro-life people. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV does not entail giving equal weight, but rather due weight. We are not bound to pretend, in the interest of neutrality, that there is a problem with pro-choice violence and/or that anti-abortion violence is minor. (Also, that is so far from a reliable source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Expect Binksternet & Roscelese to sit on every abortion related article reverting anything that would portray the pro-choice movement in a negative light. If you want to post information on the recent rise of attacks on pro-life activists you'll need iron clad sources, and a lot of time on your hands. And as you may guess by iron clad I don’t mean pro-life sites. Now as you note commenting on pro-life activists being attacked isn’t a popular subject, like say a celebrity DUI, and many of them are limited to local newspapers, and television stations. Collect all of them. If a prominent pro-life activist gets attacked and has his hip shattered it might not make CNN, but it probably will make 10-20 local to regional newspapers. If you want to cover it on Wikipedia you need every source you can get on every attack you can find because without the subject getting more unbiased, or at the very least balanced attention these two will be counting down the clock on their daily revert to take it down. This isn’t meant as discouragement towards just the Wikipedia status quo. PeRshGo (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem swipes are not going to help the argument. Do you seriously think violence against anti-abortion protesters is more than a tiny fraction of violence against abortion clinics and medical personnel? Gee whiz, the latter is the specific focus of a federal law—Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act—while the former has not been deemed serious enough to merit a new law. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a swipe. I'm just explaining what you do in order to present the lay of the land. And I'll note that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act also covers places of worship in order to protect the pro-life protesters as well. PeRshGo (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this wording for your "lay of the land"? Wikipedia seeks to balance articles in favor of rational, mainstream thought, so Roscelese and Binksternet are representing Wikipedia's fundamental position. Everyone else who is not part of the mainstream will see their favorite "facts" given the proper balance relative to real world positions. In this case, virtually no coverage will be given for violence against anti-abortion protesters, because the real world balance is so far skewed in the direction of violence against abortion providers. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You are more than entitled to present how you would like your actions to be interpreted. PeRshGo (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The FACE Act was written because of anti-abortion protester violence. Its clause about places of worship is not the reason it was enacted. The whole law was written from a neutral standpoint but it would not be law if it weren't for the violence of anti-abortion protesters. Another law, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, was enacted because of anti-abortion protester violence; it, too, was written neutrally and so it protects people of all beliefs. The point is that these laws came about because of widespread anti-abortion violence. Such violence is several orders of magnitude more significant than that by abortion providers or by pro-choice proponents. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"The attacks on pro-life demonstrators are of vastly less importance than the attacks on pro-choice people and property." Not sure how this passes as a valid argument. 69.162.253.105 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Killing a person for the purpose of saving another person is hypocritically stupid and evil, pretty much the same as 'I aborted my child to protect it'.

However, this page lists a total of 17 deaths in the U.S and Canada. 17. I mean that sucks, but that's a pretty pitiful number to vilify pro-life or Christianity. (Just like atheists say Hitler and Stalin being atheist or anti-Christian is individual, not causal.) It's even more ludicrous in light of the fact that abortioners in the U.S alone are responsible for at least 50 million deaths since 1973. That's over 10 times the population of my country, dude. And it doesn't surprise me that it's affected people so badly some of them have tipped over to unforgiveable violence. Pro-life are trying to prevent an atrocity, pro-choice is trying to justify its own, and being the ones with the babies and the legalised choice, all they have to do is sit on their hands. Proportions of this type of violence would be naturally weighted towards the anti-abortioners, all things being equal; not that I know the numbers. I bet nobody would have been horrified during WW2 if anyone had killed 17 nazis, and the nazis didn't kill even half as many people. And they were at war. (Granted they had less time to do it.) It's fine not to mention all that in the article, since it's subjective sociology, but this doesn't mean you ignore factual data that there have been violent pro-choicers as well. If not here, then somewhere.

@ binksternet and roscelese: What bizarre comments. Are you trying to say that violence against pro-lifers is okay, and only violence against pro-abortioners is bad?

The reason that I agree to include at least a note on violence against pro-choice, is that there doesn't even seem to be a page for it on wiki. Reporting a factual statistic relevant to the subject is nowhere near some sort of 'unbalanced' addition. Unbalanced would be: 'Anti-abortioners killed 17 people. Pro-Choicers are murderous bastards.' Here's a couple of sites that just came up googled. Yes, it's pro-life (and who else would you expect to post it?), and I have no idea of the accuracy, but it's just an example. http://www.hli.org/index.php/abortion/230?task=view http://tree-in-the-sea.blogspot.co.nz/2008/05/pro-abortion-violence.html

If you go to all the effort of making this page, you can certainly dedicate a sentence or two for the other. That being said, anti-abortion violence should not be tolerated.

(Just realised that's 'attempted murders' but whatev. Still bad.)

SuperMudz (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, it's all very well to have strong personal feelings about the subject, but WP requires documentation of the subject in reliable sources. You're not even bothering to try, so don't expect anyone to water down an extensively sourced phenomenon for you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the lack of encyclopedic information on violence against anti-abortion activists is why mainstream bias is so skewed in favor of violence against pro-choice activists. If you cut out of every encyclopedia in the world every entry about elephants, do elephants cease to exist from the minds of people who don't go to zoos and don't live in the places elephants inhabit? If someone wanted to go to Wikipedia to learn about elephants, and every search for elephants on Wikipedia resulted in "this page doesn't exist," he's not going to be doing very much learning about elephants from Wikipedia. I'm guessing that you won't think that the index of acts of pro-choice violence and other crimes maintained at the aptly named prochoiceviolence.com is acceptable.108.250.159.119 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Propositions of a controversial nature stated as undisputed fact should be qualified

It is obvious that the Abortion and violence related to it is the subject of significant controversy. That much is indisputable. Therefore it should be the aim that edits to Wikipedia pages such as this should aim to be as neutral as possible in order to credibly inform the reader. Statements purporting to be facts should be demonstrable as such. Simple references to academic papers purporting to define as 'terrorism' activities such as violence in the context of anti-Abortion protests, while obviously undesirable and to be condemned, fall under the category of 'controversial opinions' rather than incontrovertible facts. References in this context to violence being 'terrorism' therefore should be carefully qualified given that the argument over Abortion is reflected in a wider society that is deeply divided on many grounds on the subject. Wikipedia pages should not attempt to take a position on one side or the other of the argument but simply reflect pure facts and the language used to make statements in disputed areas such as this should be carefully chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajw1971 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of things are controversial; the fact of something's being controversial doesn't suspend WP rules about reflecting reliable sources when they use the word terrorism, or it's almost tautological that nothing would ever be described as terrorism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My point is that stating anti-abortion violence IS 'terrorism' as a plain fact is simply not accurate - either linguistically or logically - since it is not and, while there continues to be controversy over the subject, will not be universally accepted as such. Therefore it behoves anyone who is interested in maintaining Wikipedia as an accurate and unbiased source of information on the subject to accept that the qualification (which you have deleted twice) that anti-abortion violence is described by many academics (as is clearly referenced at item number 6 on the page) is the accurate description of the subject. It takes nothing away from the subject matter but it allows for the reader to decide for themselves whether it is or isn't 'terrorism'. Although I happen to agree that it IS a form of 'terrorism', my personal opinion is neither here nor there: rather that accuracy and lack of bias is more important in order to promote and continue trust in Wikipedia. The entry should be edited (in what is, after all, a very minor way) along the lines of "Anti-abortion violence is described by academics as a form of terrorism..." - it is not Wikipedia doing the describing, it is the academics who are referenced, therefore this should be made clear and by doing so, bias on the page itself is removed. Ajw1971 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your argument fails to carry its point. You say that anti-abortion violence is not terrorism because "it is not". Sorry, but Wikipedia uses reliable sources to describe topics, not circular arguments. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly I didn't express myself very well in my last reply - my argument is not circular if you read the whole sentence. I am stating that while controversy remains on the subject, reducing the appearance of bias for articles such as this one is important. Simply saying that 'anti-abortion violence is described by academics as terrorism' is a simple and incontrovertible truth and is directly supportable by the very fact that said academics are referenced directly in the links at the bottom of the article. Saying that "anti-abortion violence is terrorism" is to state a direct fact without an absolute proof. It is a case of accurate semantics. Surely accuracy is what is asked for on Wikipedia? Ajw1971 (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Academics define the topic. If academics say that anti-abortion violence is terrorism then it is. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't only academics who define anti-abortion violence as terrorism, and it isn't really an opinion (unless you can show how anti-abortion violence is not "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims," to use one of the simplest dictionary definitions). Mitigating the definition by adding the presumption that only academics define it this way would be increasing bias in the article, not eliminating it. Kate (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So you therefore agree that there is no harm in explicitly saying that academics have proposed that anti-abortion violence is terrorism then, when to say so is clearly truthful and backed up by evidence? As an aside, I would take issue with your suggestion that because an academic writes something it is therefore fact, because, since this is not a scientific proposition but instead tends towards philosophical points of view which cannot be measured in an empirical sense, simply having an academic writing a paper on the subject is not enough to settle the argument - it is simply a contribution TO the argument: for example plenty of academics write plenty of material on religious propositions - or the rebuttal thereof - but it's incontrovertible that religious propositions are not settled subjects in the same manner that, say, the theory of angular momentum is, which can be measured! In any case, a primary aim of a wikipedia article on any subject, and in particular one that is already recognised to be controversial, is to avoid bias or opinion - indeed the official instructions are clear in that regard. The very minor edit I am proposing is explicitly designed to avoid the impression of a subjective opinion being presented as an objective fact while not removing or detracting from in any way the information being presented in the article. It therefore complies precisely with the guidelines presented to editors of Wikipedia articles. Ajw1971 (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see what your suggestion is, except to say which academics pin the label "terrorism" on anti-abortion violence. I would not agree to this because there is no conflicting alternative—there is no scholarly debate whether people who do violence to abortion clinics and clinicians are in fact trying to terrorize their targets. In other words, yes, I agree there is no harm in telling the reader the apparently hard-to-swallow fact that violence in this case is terrorism. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A look over at Eco-terrorism might serve as a good example of how the similar issue has been handled well. PeRshGo (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In the sense that if everyone accepted the basic fact of its being terrorism, we wouldn't have to waste time and article space debating over that? Indeed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In every sense. Read the article. It's very well balanced. PeRshGo (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Gideon's Torch

I have added Chuck Colson's 1995 novel Gideon's Torch to the "Literature" section of the "Anti-abortion violence in popular culture" section of the article. Goblinshark17 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Women's Health Clinic vs Abortion Clinic

This discussion is about a change to the hyperlink in this sentence 'Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism specifically visited upon people who or places which provide abortion. Incidents include vandalism, arson, and bombings of abortion clinics, such as those committed by Eric Rudolph, and murders or attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, as committed by James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill, Scott Roeder, Michael F. Griffin, and Peter James Knight."

I think that the hyperlink to the WP page "abortion clinic" should read "women's clinic" as in women's clinic because that is the correct name. Women go to a health clinic, some offer abortions. They don't call themselves abortion clinics. You can't find a listing for Ye Ole Abortion Clinic or South Main Abortion Clinic in a directory. But you will find them named South Main Women's Clinic. My edit was reverted by StAnselm with this comment "This is the common, neutral name - changing the piping like that looks POVish." I contend that this is wrong, they are called women's clinics and that by not changing it it looks POVish.

Note: my change added the (that offer abortions) to clarify the edit I made. I add that health clinic (that offer abortions) is also a change I would support. I respectively welcome other comments on this change.Sgerbic (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you think that women's clinics that don't offer abortion are frequently targeted with anti-abortion vandalism, arson, or bombing? No, it's just the ones that offer abortions. I don't see a need for any change to the wording. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really see the point of the change; surely a clinic that offers abortions is commonly called an abortion clinic, even if it offers other services as well. If there's documentation on non-abortion clinics being attacked (because people believe birth control is just like abortion, because they were mistaken about the clinic not performing abortions, or something) that might justify a change, but I'd want enough sources first. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment We have no article "women's clinic." Some health centres that don't offer abortions are targeted by vandals and attempted arsonists - from the article

January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the individuals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating an anti-abortion reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this.

References

I'd recommend avoiding WP:EGG piping. Mentioning that some clinics have been targeted that do not provide abortion services is only appropriate for the lead if it can be said in few words. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nickinajarian1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism

The article is called "anti-abortion violence" for a reason. Most sources that were provided didn't call it "terrorism". The first source I saw actually only contained a reference to a "Catholic priest declaring abortion to be terrorism". That is in itself a fringe claim. To say that "most academics" consider it as terrorism is not backed up by most academics; just because some Canadian official said so doesn't make it true; neither is citing one study from 1988. For it to be considered terrorism it has to be declared by the US Department of State or the Canadian Government in this case; neither have done so. Remember that terrorism is a common vague accusation. --92slim (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't just remove a whole heap of reliable sources like that. The sources you removed explicitly referred to the subject as terrorism (and not just by quoting random people who thought it was; you're missing the authors referring to the subject as terrorism in the Religion and Terrorism citation) and - obviously - amount to far more than one study. I'm concerned that you don't know very much about the subject (internal affairs like domestic terrorism are not the State Department's purview) and are just trying to see what sticks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: "internal affairs like domestic terrorism are not the State Department's purview" That's irrelevant. I'm afraid you can't back the article with official state documents, only with fringe mentions of obscure scholars, and many sources included don't even do so, contrary to your claims. Cite a single state or nationwide US document that declares and effectively connects anti-abortion violence with terrorism (any kind of terrorism). Abortion is completely unrelated to terrorism, as there is no such thing as "anti-abortion terrorism". If I am missing something big here (I doubt that), then the title of the article should be changed accordingly to Anti-Abortion Terrorism; I don't think this is the case. --92slim (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

US Justice Department good enough for you? [1] (There are also FBI year-by-year sources available.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Good enough for me. My bad. --92slim (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words

Wikipedia requires strict factual citations for all contentious material, particularly when involving living persons. While this article is not strictly a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it still uses in many places inappropriately vague language that cast aspersions on the motives of millions of living activists.

At a minimum, the section called "definitions and characteristics" should include citable statistics regarding its relative frequency. The sentence: "Some[who?] of those opposed to abortion have sometimes[when?] resorted to very public demonstrations of violence in an effort to achieve their objective of curbing abortions..." unfairly suggests that the "some" is a significant percentage of the anti-abortion advocates. This statement must accurate and factually identify the agents; it is meaningless without identify exactly "who" is resorting to violence. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The [Who?] and [When?] tags seem entirely unnecessary to me. Both those questions are answered in the surrounding paragraphs. In the sentence immediately preceding "Some", six examples are provided. These are the antecedents to the "Some", and answers the question of [Who?]. Also, the next section specifically covers both the [Who?] and [When?] questions, in an incident by incident breakdown by country. So the [Who?] and [When?] tags only make sense if you read that single sentence and nothing else, as the answer to those questions is abundantly provided. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

inappropriately vague language that cast aspersions on the motives of millions of living activists - see WP:BLPGROUP. If it's a large group of people, WP:BLP is pretty weak justification (otherwise any statement about "people" would be subject). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Zfish118 was originally reverted by Roscelese, then posted these talk page messages and immediately restored the edits. As he/she made a number of significant changes I've restored the old version until a discussion takes place (WP:BRD). But here are the tags Zfish118 added for discussion purposes: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• (in the lead) - "Anti-abortion violence is considered to be a form of terrorism by the US Department of Justice and is most frequently[quantify] committed in the United States,[citation needed] though it has also occurred in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. G. Davidson Smith of Canadian Security Intelligence Service defined anti-abortion violence as "single issue terrorism"."
• (under Definition and characteristics) - added weasel words section tag; "Some[who?] of those opposed to abortion have sometimes[when?] resorted to very public demonstrations of violence in an effort to achieve their objective of curbing abortions. Those who engage in or support such actions[quantify] defend the use of force—as justifiable homicide or defense of others—in the interest of protecting the life of the fetus."; "Anti-abortion violence is recognized as a form of Christian terrorism. Some[who?] supporters of such violence embrace this designation."
• Might as well note that in the same edits, Zfish118 also removed an existing tag in the Army of God section: "The Army of God, an underground terrorist organization active in the United States, has been responsible for a substantial amount of anti-abortion violence. In addition to numerous property crimes, the group has committed acts of kidnapping, attempted murder, and murder.[quantify]"

Yes, I'm not sure what the problem is since most of these tags asked questions that were already answered in the article. Zfish118, can you suggest, on the talk page, ways to reword parts you deem unsatisfactory? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

There are numerous issues with the "characteristics" section, which, being an introductory section, should be of the highest quality. I will outline specific issues below:

Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism specifically visited upon people who or places which provide abortion.{usually with the intent of disrupting abortion service, or intimidating other providers into shutting down, with an objective of curbing abortion} Incidents include vandalism, arson, and bombings of abortion clinics, such as those committed by Eric Rudolph {what did he do and when}, and murders or attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, as committed by James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill, Scott Roeder, Michael F. Griffin, and Peter James Knight {what did they do and when}. {Need discussion of scope, such as number of incidents (number of murders/arson/vandalism over what time periods in what geographic area), number of clinics nationwide/worldwide, number of protests, number of groups/individuals who commit violence relative to number of anti-abortion organizations/activists that do not. Such information is vitally important to understanding the issue, and is not documented anywhere in the article. If the data does not exist, a source describing why would be important to include.} Some of those opposed to abortion have sometimes resorted to very public demonstrations of violence in an effort to achieve their objective of curbing abortions.'{Redundant/vague; merge with first sentence} Those who engage in or support such actions {use as defense}defend the {claims that} use of force{wikilinked article not relevant}—as justifiable homicide or defense of others—in the interest of protecting the life of the fetus. David C. Nice, of the University of Georgia, describes support for anti-abortion violence as a political weapon against women's rights, one that is associated with tolerance for violence toward women.{No issue, perhaps summarize Nice's research areas} Anti-abortion violence is recognized as a form of Christian terrorism.{Explicitly name who, or at least some, that identify such violence as terrorism} Some supporters of such violence embrace this designation.{Explicitly name the group, Armed for Life, as embracing this. Weasely to say "some" when exactly one group is cited.}

--Zfish118 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Some of these are fine, others are not. For instance, your request that we name the parties identifying these acts as Christian terrorism is rather silly when you consider just how many reliable scholarly sources do so. Other parts of your proposed wording are incoherent or introduce redundancy - for instance, I don't see what's unclear about what these guys did when we write "murders or attempted murders of clinic staff by Kopp, Hill, et al" or "bombings of clinics by Rudolph." I do agree that some of the other verbiage is redundant and that identifying Army of God and their supporters isn't a bad idea if we can't source other groups embracing the designation of terrorist. David C. Nice appears to be a professor of political science. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Fictional depictions

The subject of this article is controversial enough without attempting to include a list of every depiction in "popular" media. These depictions are not necessarily factual, and do not necessarily contribute to the core topic of the article, actual violence committed by a small number of radical anti-abortion activists. Hence, I split the list of "Depictions in popular media" into a separate standalone list/article. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm torn on this. It does seem like we should either prune the list a bit here or develop it and spin it off. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe splitting the list out is uncontroversial, and could be done immediately while consensus on other issues is being developed. The article is focusing on neutral, factual accounts of violence against abortion providers and supporters. The media included in the list reflects whatever views the producers intend. These accounts do not necessarily portray the reactions of third parties accurately, and take liberties even when inspired by true events. Splitting the list is the simplest way to handle these issues. This create a neutral list/article of fictional works, and a more neutral article discussing actual violence incidents, characteristics, and responses. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: As the other person who reverted this, what are your thoughts about spinning this part off? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think a spinoff would be a bad idea. If you think about it, is "the fictional depiction of anti-abortion violence" really a notable phenomenon per se? (Or maybe I'm making assumptions. Is it?) The better course of action would be to check out the list in this article and trim trivia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not quite "fictional depictions" on its own, but it is certainly part of the more notable "Abortion related media". --Zfish118 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue still exists. The article is trying to be two things: a list of actual violence, and a list of fictional violence. Whether titled "Anti-abortion violence in popular culture" or "Media depictions", the media section will be slightly confusing, as to whether it is discussing the media coverage of the events depicted earlier in the article or dramatizations. I still think the clearest, simplest manner to resolving this conflict is to split into another article/standalone list. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Abortion Violence

This section does not present any actual incidents of Pro-Abortion violence, and the sources provided are hardly reliable, NPOV sources. As it stands, it only presents the vague beliefs of an anti-abortion group, with sourcing to explicitly biased sources. As it currently stands, I don't think the section merits inclusion, and it would need less biased more reliable sources along with actual incidents. Prochoiceviolence.com and "The Anti-Choice Project" are NOT reliable sources for the serious claims being made. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree. This came up at Talk:Abortion debate not too long ago. If it doesn't merit inclusion there, it seems pretty unlikely it would here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources are ludicrous and it's clear that this is not a real thing. Users should never make up fictional accounts for "balance" - neutrality requires that we reflect reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This material is clearly warranted in the "Response section". I do not understand how the response by an organization does not count as a reliable source to that organization's response! --Zfish118 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Abortion_debate#Pro-abortion_violence_section is illuminating; however, many of the issue it raises are applicable to this article in its current state. The vast majority of citations in this article refer to specific incidents, and a great deal of the commentary is cited to abortion advocacy groups. These advocacy groups are at least as biased in reporting incidents of violence against abortion providers and customers, as anti-abortion advocates are in reporting violence committed by abortionists. The only difference is perhaps the ideological motivation for violence against clinics; most violence committed by abortionist that is documented is committed for personal gain, rather than ideological opposition to the target. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed wording

I propose the following wording, to be added to the response section:

At least one organization, Human Life International, collects statistics on alleged violence committed by abortion providers or supporters. The Pro-Choice Action Network has described such statistics and similar claims as misleading or exaggerated.

--Zfish118 (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. You don't have a proper source for this and it does not rise anywhere near the level where inclusion would be WP:DUE. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The section discusses responses to anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates. This is a response by an anti-abortion advocate. The claims are notable enough that Pro-Choice organizations felt the need to respond. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not how notability works. You need coverage in reliable sources comparable to the coverage of anti-abortion violence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn: I will not pursue this content. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced commentary

This sentence was not directly attributable to any source in the "anti-abortion reactions" section: "While still rejecting anti-abortion violence, a few anti-abortion leaders have tempered their condemnation of anti-abortion violence by suggesting that the harm created by crimes against property is small in comparison to the harm of abortion." --Zfish118 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Nor was the intensifier "violent" in the source for the statement here:"[Benham] defended his organization's use of inflammatory, violent rhetoric, saying:" --Zfish118 (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the first one is just a summary of the content of the paragraph, viz. Scheidler's and Benham's comments about how abortion is worse than anything they're doing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that is what the sentence was trying to do; it however strayed into interpreting. These being WP:Living persons, all such commentary must be directly attributable to outside sources. I improved the explicit attributions in several similar passages discussing possible conflicts between a subject's words and beliefs, but found no support from the underlying sources here for these pieces of commentary, especially tempering of condemnations of violence. --Zfish118 (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A big issue in this article is inconsistent use of the word "violence". It it used to refer to explicit illegal acts of terrorism, as well as lawful but "inflammatory" speech. For instance, the first few paragraphs of this article, until recently, called ALL anti-abortion violence a form of terrorism, which is simply untrue on many levels. When violence is defined in the article as terrorism, unsourced intensifiers describing actions as mere speech, however hateful, as "violent" becomes very problematic. --Zfish118 (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the idea that speech constitutes violence was an issue in this article. Are you referring to something other than describing rhetoric as violent? I don't have an issue with the removal, but you must admit that rhetoric and language are frequently described as violent in plenty of contexts, even though we understand that speech does not constitute violence. Putting that aside, you seem to be arguing "not all violence is terrorism, only violent violence is terrorism", which is puzzling. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This article has numerous severe issues with regard to proper attribution, especially with regards to the views of persons, especially against living persons. Whether sloppy editing, or intentionally biased editing, numerous inappropriate editorial statements have been made against several individuals that were not supported by the underlying source. These edits sloppily address "violence" while very poorly addressing what level of violence is being spoken of. Frankly, the entire response section could be deleted as a violation of the WP:BLP policy, but I have held off. Addressing every instance with a detailed discussion is unwarranted and tedious. Due to the scope, the problem might best be addressed by a request for comments by a larger pool of editors. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments; Biography

This article, in particular the "Reactions/Anti-abortion reactions", has many issues regarding the attribution of views to persons, most of whom are still living (wp:blp). Many primary sources written by the individuals are used, and critical commentary had been added to the article without attribution to an outside source. I have removed some of the more egregious examples, but I would still appreciate additional comments on problematic content. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The biased tone isn't appropriate for an RFC, but I'm also not sure exactly what you're requesting comment on that you don't feel has achieved a satisfactory resolution through non-RFC discussion. RFC is not the first step. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the RFC as you're not requesting comments as such - This doesn't need an RFC - It just needs a normal discussion if that makes sense. –Davey2010^Talk 01:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. I was mistaken as to which tool to use. The Biographies of Living Person's noticeboard Wikipedia:Third opinion might have been what I was looking for. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Reversion

This has got to stop; whole sale reversions are not helpful. This article has several serious issues regarding accurately reflecting what sources say, without innuendo. The last reversion, removed several well sourced statements that reflected the underlying source. In particular, the US Justice Department said:

Current domestic terrorism threats include animal rights extremists, eco-terrorists, anarchists, antigovernment extremists such as “sovereign citizens” and unauthorized militias, Black separatists, White supremacists, anti-abortion extremists, and other unaffiliated disaffected Americans, including “lone wolfs.” Domestic terrorism cases often involve firearms, arson or explosive offenses, crimes relating to fraud, and threats and hoaxes.

This source cannot be used to says that the Justice Department considers all anti-abortion violence "a form of terrorism". It says something very specific, and really, only addresses anti-abortion violence in passing. Several other edits discussed in detail above were included. Please address specific issues individually.--Zfish118 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You might want to check out how the phrase "anti-abortion extremist" is used in the literature. You'll find that it includes all the violent anti-abortion acts. For instance, Patricia Baird-Windle and Eleanor J. Bader write in the Palgrave Macmillan book Targets of Hatred: Anti-Abortion Terrorism that anti-abortion extremists are those who commit illegal acts in their fight against abortion.[2] Similarly, Ronald M. Glassman, William H. Swatos and Barbara J. Denison equate anti-abortion extremism with anti-abortion violence in their scholarly textbook Social Problems in Global Perspective.[3]

Your mistake was in trying to separate "extremists" from those who commit violence against abortion providers. This attitude discolored your changes in multiple sections, which is why I reverted all of your work. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue is poorly sourced commentary. One sentence you restored, for instance, "Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism specifically visited upon people who or places which provide abortion.", does not differentiate between grades of violence. Not every form counts as "terrorism"; to say otherwise in Wikipedia's editorial voice is unacceptable. Such a comment must be directly attributed to a reliable source (which itself must evaluated as to where its opinion falls among the consensus of sources).

Many sources, including some cited in this article, classify various forms of lawful anti-abortion behavior as violent. Lawful behavior, however hateful, cannot be terrorism. If this article is about only the extreme forms of violence that qualifies as terrorism, it should plainly say so. Sources would then be need to checked to verify that the events discussed in the article were classified as terrorism. The vast majority of entries in the list of incidents would qualify as domestic terrorism in my humble opinion, but my opinion is not published in a reliable source.

I cannot access Baird-Windle, but Glassman does not offer a definition. His use, however, would suggest that extremists are those who commit murder or other serious crimes. This would seem to be consistent with what the DOJ source said, that "anti-abortion extremists" are a terrorist threat. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service also defines anti-abortion violence as "single-issue terrorism", when it involves "extremist militancy". I am simply using the language that the sources are using. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC) --Zfish118 (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

References

You appear to believe that some forms of anti-abortion violence are legal. What are those forms? Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that "anti-abortion violence" is legal. Some sources cited in this article classify lawful behavior qualifies as violent. This is significant when unattributed statements suggest person supports "violence"; the "definitions" section of this very article previously defined anti-abortion violence as terrorism. This creates an innuendo that he supports terrorism, when he might only engage in shouting at people along a street. Vocabulary needs to be clearly defined. If that person supports terrorism, a source must clearly state so. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Scheidler summary

@Zfish118: I understand that you're motivated by the desire to give a favorable portrayal to a living person, but that's not an excuse for giving an inaccurate representation of someone's writings. It is simply not the case that Scheidler's document focuses on violence being bad or contrary to "pro-life". It focuses, rather, on how 1) it's not an effective strategy, because it makes "pro-lifers" look hypocritical without resulting in long-term change, 2) it's not as significant as reliable sources claim, because people are just lighting abortion clinics on fire accidentally or attacking clinics for totally non-political reasons, but 3) anti-abortion violence isn't really that bad. You're cherrypicking the sole cover-his-butt sentence in the entire thing, and it's just not accurate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

My motivation is an accurate article, supported directly from reliable sources, without innuendo. I have no other motivation. The article is in such serious disarray that I have not necessarily approached things methodically. It is just that every time I open a the sources for a new section, I see information that is often very different than what is in the article. Scheidler may very well be a scumbag. I don't care. Wikipedia policy dictates that any negative criticism be directly attributed to an outside source. Based on your feedback, I attempted to select a quote from "Closed" that reflected your points 1-3. The quote said nearly exactly what you are saying, that that violence would hurt the reputation of the pro-life movement, and is hypocritical. It also covered the fact that Scheidler believed violence towards the unborn was worse than, as you say, anything they were doing. Since we cannot agree on an appropriate summary quote from Closed, it would perhaps be best to remove it entirely, unless a source describing what you say can be found. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If I had any sort of "agenda", it might reflect "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views", that portraying a controversial and repugnant groups such as the extremists here with as high quality an article as possible might help open their minds to changing. Regardless, my goal is a high quality article that accurately portrays the current state of affairs, whatever they may be. This requires using high quality sources, and emulating closely their usage of vocabulary. There are hundreds of academic papers on this subject, yet most of the content here is loose interpretation of newspapers and lists of terrorists groups. I am very pressed for time, and have only about an hour a day I can devote to Wikipedia, so not everything I add is great, but I am trying to remove most poorly sourced content first, and filling in content using what existing sources when possible. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policy dictates that any negative criticism be directly attributed to an outside source." - No criticism of Scheidler was being included, this is a moot point. I do not agree with your contention that your summary accurately reflects the source. We could, however, draw on scholarly secondary sources which note Scheidler's support of violence, sometimes including quotations from his book. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not oppose the inclusion of any material that accurately reflects the content of a reliable source. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the quote from Scheidler's "Closed", pending an outside source can be obtained to interpret it. Per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I do not believe the source can be presented without a questionable interpretation regarding Schneider's views. Even if it accurately reflected his views at the time it was written, it has been out of print for many years, and may not cover relevant information. If a scholarly source finds it relevant and offers commentary, it can be added to support the commentary from the source. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, would you consider salvaging the material by adding some of the scholarly sources that talk about Scheidler's support of violence? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not object. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC Media Depictions: Keep in article, or split.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article contain a list of media depictions on anti-abortion violence, or should this list be spun off into a second article? --Zfish118 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Split I am concerned about undue weight being given to primarily fictional depictions in the media, when the majority of the article already contains another lengthy list of actual incidents of violence. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I concede "fictional depiction of anti-abortion violence" is too narrow a topic. I would propose a more broad stand alone list/article representing [Category:Abortion in Media].--Zfish118 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn: Due to the non-urgency of the issue, and lack of consensus to change, I withdraw the RFC. I will implement WP:EMBEDDED list formatting in lieu of splitting into a standalone article. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Don't split. I'm doubtful that fictional depiction of anti-abortion violence is in itself an article-worthy topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead of this article is now transcluded to Planned Parenthood article

The lead of this article is now transcluded to the Planned Parenthood article.

Are these references all incorporated in to this article?

References

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Title vs. Content

Why is the politically charged title "Anti-abortion violence" necessary? The definition provided ("violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion") does not even suggest an ideological motive, and does not seem to adhere to naming conventions about violence committed against other groups:

• Violence against LGBT people
• Violence against women
• Violence against men
• Violence against prostitutes

A title like "Violence against abortion providers" would seem far more consistent with the page definition. In addition, there's numerous examples of violence in this article where motive is not clear from the source provided. Changing the article title to something more ambiguous (without motive defined) would better justify including examples like these:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/30/us/national-news-briefs-fire-at-abortion-clinic-is-investigated-as-arson.html
• http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CXDGT51BR.htm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/831489.stm
• http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/sep/04/police-investigation-suspicious-fire-planned-paren/

The pattern in these in that the assailant was not identified and / or did not indicate motive.

TL;DR: Please change the title, or remove the examples in this article where an anti-abortion motive is not clear.

2601:84:C701:6F35:E18A:168A:6F65:ECF5 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, which primarily refer to terror attacks against abortion providers committed with the aim of preventing abortion as "anti-abortion violence". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Citations Needed - United States - Murders

There are several unreferenced incidents in the US Murders section. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue appears to have been addressed. Thank you! --Zfish118 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I made a few problems while fixing some. I accidentally moved them to the wrong heading. Appears to be corrected now.(173.62.187.160 (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

I was curious about some of the edits. The edit found here seemed to remove several incidents, but they appear to have been put back at some point. --Zfish118 (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Friendly hint, sign your talkpage entries with for tildes (~~~~), as this will add your user name/IP address so we know to whom we are speaking! --Zfish118 (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks(173.62.187.160 (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

2015 Colorado Springs shooting

What is the consensus? Should the incident be included? --Zfish118 (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included unless and until it is classified by law enforcement to be anti-abortion violence. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I mildly disagree, given the existence of an article discussing the incident. Perhaps the link should provisionally stay until more information is released? --Zfish118 (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

|I concur. It did happen, and we do not know for certain his intentions. However we may not know for sure if all of the listed are accurate either. Just don't claim to know.(173.62.187.160 (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

No, for reasons stated above. Just because people are getting into the rhetoric that this was an act of anti-abortion violence doesn't mean Wikipedia should follow suit. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet, there the incident is, listed once again regardless of talk page discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. I do not care strongly either way, but I would like a consensus here on the record, rather than fleeting comments in the edit summaries. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There still is no official motive given by law enforcement regarding the incident. Lack of a motive means: it is inappropriate to have the incident listed in this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thats fine and I respect the attention to detail and fact, but I am not sure that all of these incidents listed can be verified that way. I would be more pleased to used alleged and then pull it if facts point another way, (though we know they will not) (173.62.187.160 (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC))

Police did say he referred to baby parts. A neighbor had him handing out anti-Obama lit recently. Not wanting a motive isn't the same thing as there not being one. DreamGuy (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No, an alleged, unnamed, police official said it. Hardly reliable. Barely worth mentioning since it's anonymous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's been in a lot of reliable sources. and it's NOT a police official even. Are we even talking the same thing, because you are saying strange things about it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Any thoughts? --Zfish118 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on the sourcing available, it seems reasonable to include this given the murderer's political comments. If it later emerges that there was no political motivation whatsoever and he was, I don't know, trying solely to murder an ex-girlfriend or something, we can always remove it, but the best sourcing currently available supports the idea that this had at least a political component. (From NYT: The official said that Mr. Dear “said a lot of things” during his interview, making it difficult for the authorities to pinpoint a specific motivation.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well now he outburst in court that he was a "warrior for the babies". And he asked for directions to the clinic so it was not random, and he is an active anti-abortionist according to his ex-wife. I think that makes the case for inclusion.

http://news.yahoo.com/planned-parenthood-suspect-am-warrior-babies-214004459.html (173.62.187.160 (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC))

If its going to be included, then it should clearly state that the incident remains under investigation. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 03:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's under investigation, it was only a few days ago. Why is that it's under investigation notable? DreamGuy (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As has been pointed out on this page and in various edit summaries, authorities have not ruled it an act of anti-abortion violence. To include it would be original research; to omit it would be a disservice to those who might be looking for information about it. The best we can do is include it as a courtesy, noting it is not officially been ruled anti-abortion in motive. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 06:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you believe it's the job of "authorities" to "rule" what the murderer's motive was? Authorities have already told reliable news sources what they learned about his motives, and reliable news sources have likewise done further investigation into his views. Any information that comes out from his trial is going to be more of the same kind of thing, because criminal juries find people "guilty" or "innocent" of the charges against them, not "anti-abortion" or "misguided" or "angry." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

In nearly every other incident, the investigation is closed or suspended. Here it is still open and active, and new information may rapidly come to light. I fail to see why this would not be a notable feature of the current incident, and truly fail to understand why this is frequently removed. Though too much for a single entry, there are templates for articles discussing current events where information may rapidly become out of date. As for motive in particular, the suspect has made statements about protecting "babies". Other evidence suggests that he is severely mentally ill. Both will eventually factor into how this entry is structured. Until a strong and consistent story emerges, documented in reliable sources, the best that can said is that the incident and motives are under investigation. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 16:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Double listing and references query

Two concerns: This most recent incident has murders and attempted murders attached to it. I edited to create a second listing under Attempted Murder headline that was deleted. Dr. Britton's, Officer Sanderson's and the receptionists' murders are listed under Attempted also for the people who were injured. I think it should go back in. Also I do not know the editting used for the refs on the Colorado shooting in the list so I could not correct it, but the others in the list are grouped separately. I could use an explanation of the editing used before changing it.(173.62.187.160 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

I disagree with double listing the incident. Murder is obviously more serious than attempted murder, and the incident, if it is listed at all, should only be listed once there. I will double check the references. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

what about the other listings that are done in each category, as I listed? Maybe it helps to see the varied impact this violence has had. After all the nurse Miss Lyons was a victim, so does deserve to be counted but not under the murder heading.(173.62.187.160 (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC))

For references only used in the incidents section, add "group=I" to the ref tag (<ref group=I><ref />). This is optional, but helps identify where sources are used. Without the group tag, they will simply appear in the general references section. If the citation template is your concern, you can review the documentation at template:cite web. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It was the other style of ref with a heading name or such that I did not understand, but thank you for responding with help (173.62.187.160 (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC))

More Incidents to be listed

Here is a link to a list of bombings, some of which are not listed. I will pick away at adding them, but if anyone else wants to, have it. History of violence abortion section

New Zealand

I believe that the section on NZ ought to be removed. There was no attack, and certainly no violence. It appears that the man concerned did try to dig into a clinic, and did have an incendiary device. But it may have been for lighting in the tunnel - he stated he didn't intend to burn the place down.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree that there was "no violence" - dismantling the sprinkler system in a busy hospital full of people and then using an accelerant (in this case kerosene) in hopes of starting a fire is a serious attempt at ending human life. However, even if one was to ignore the 1999 incident, there is still the arson attack of 1976 in which the Auckland Medical Aid Centre was burnt down (and another fire was started the same evening in the Aucland offices of Sisters Overseas Service, which helped New Zealanders travel to Australia to access legal abortion services). I am amending the NZ section to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.29.188 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Els Borst

@NeoRetro: I'm not sure this is really in the scope of the article - neither Borst's murder nor the sister's. As much as a political disagreement over abortion is abortion-related, it wouldn't seem to be about preventing abortion by committing violence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Christian terrorism sources

The following are existing sources already within the article that classify anti-abortion terrorism as, Christian terrorism when applicable. --Zfish118^⋉talk 15:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Numerous organizations have also recognized Anti-abortion extremism as a form of Christian terrorism:

• Al-Khattar, Aref M. (2003). Religion and terrorism: an interfaith perspective. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 58–59.
• Hoffman, Bruce (2006). Inside terrorism. Columbia University Press. p. 116.
• Harmon, Christopher C. (2000). Terrorism today. Psychology Press. p. 42.
• Juergensmeyer, Mark (2003). Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence. University of California Press. p. 4,19.
• Bryant, Clifton D. (2003). Handbook of death & dying, Volume 1. SAGE. p. 243.
• McAfee, Ward M. (2010). The Dialogue Comes of Age: Christian Encounters with Other Traditions. Fortress Press. p. 90.
• Flint, Colin Robert (2006). Introduction to geopolitics. Psychology Press. p. 172.
• Peoples, James; Bailey, Garrick (2008). Humanity: an introduction to cultural anthropology. Cengage. p. 371.
• Dolnik, Adam; Gunaratna, Rohan (2006). "On the Nature of Religious Terrorism". The politics of terrorism: a survey. Taylor & Francis.
• The terrorism ahead: confronting transnational violence in the twenty-first century, Paul J. Smith, p 94
• Religion and Politics in America: The Rise of Christian Evangelists, Muhammad Arif Zakaullah, p 109
• Terrorism: An Investigator's Handbook, William E. Dyson, p 43
• Encyclopedia of terrorism, Cindy C. Combs, Martin W. Slann, p 13
• Armed for Life: The Army of God and Anti-Abortion Terror in the United States, Jennifer Jefferis, p 40

Is there a source that says all anti-abortion acts of violence are always acts of terrorism? Sometimes a violent act is just a violent act. Domestic violence is a common occurance; must it now be labelledas "domestic terrorism"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Let us please stay focused on the particular issue, on whether category:Christian terrorism is appropriate; the number of sources that classify certain incidents clearly justifies the category. Whether all incidents qualify as terrorism (which they clearly do not) is not directly applicable to whether the category is appropriate. If you wish to expand the scope of the discussion, please start a new section to discuss to your concern. --Zfish118^⋉talk 14:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a serious question. It's not a concern, just a question. The question is focussed on this issue. I take it that the existance in wiki of an article on Christian terrorism, is, ipso facto, proof that such a thing exists. Let us move on from that assumption then. To formulate it in formal term, I suppose it might be "Is an act of violence by a person or an organisation either in support of a pro-like cause or in opposition to an abortion cause (aka "anti-abortion violence") in itself sufficient to merit inclusion to the category "Christian terrorism"? To be considered: (1) was the person/group legally convicted of an act of violence? (2) if not, was the person/group accused by other perple/groups of an act of violence? (3) did the conviction cite a motive for the act of violence? (4) if no motive is cited in th3e conviction, why would wiki want to impute a motive? (5) if a motive was cited, and that motive was one of criminal insanity / mental incapacity / jealosy / financial gain / arson addiction / personal animosity or the like, may wikii categorise the act as Christian terrorism? (5) if there is reason to believe that the act was mainly / primarily motivated by feelings of religious piety, ought wiki to look for evidence that the particular religious denomination to which the person / group was affiliated in any way authorised or approved of the act? (6) if no such evidence can be adduced, ought wiki to include the act in the category in such a way as to associate the denomination / branch of Christianity with such an act when that denomination might otherwise disavow / disown such acts? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a list of violent acts, some of which qualify as terrorism, some of which were motivated in part by an individuals religious beliefs; some of whom were mentally competent, some of whom were not. It does not matter if any denomination endorses the individuals beliefs! Not all incidents were religiously motivated; that does not mean that the category does not apply. --Zfish118^⋉talk 16:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If "Not all incidents were religiously motivated" then the act would only quality for inclusion to the "Anti-abortion violence", not the "Christian terrorism" category. So then, one would have to select candidates for the "Christian terrorism" category from among the "Anti-abortion violence" members. That is, the the "Anti-abortion violence" category itself in its entirety is not an automatic child of the "Christian terrorism" category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe this discussion has reached an impasse; I will open a straw poll to gauge consensus on this matter. --Zfish118^⋉talk 15:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Poll: Category Christian terrorism

Proposal: "To remove the Category:Anti-abortion violence from the Category:Christian terrorism an to disperse, on a case by case basis, those articles where it is reasonable to conclude the the act of violence noted was both an act of anti-abortion violence and an act of Christian terrorism." Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose removal of Category:Christian terrorism for previously stated reasons; removing category further obscures topic. This is the primary list for both 'Christian' and unspecified acts of anti-abortion violence and terrorism. --Zfish118^⋉talk 15:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as bad categorization practice, and as a justification after the fact of a POV edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw proposal. From the above comments, the article is getting obscured with the category. Will open a new discussion at WP:CFD. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment The vast majority of incidents here will not warrant a standalone article. Any article written for these incidents would essentially be a redirect back to this page. Therefore, since this list is effectively a collection of individual stub articles, some of which would be classified as "Christian terrorism", it inherits the tag from the those stubs. Removing Category:Christian terrorism, whatever the rational, would have the effect of "declassifying" these stubs (many of which were actual stubs articles merged into this list at one time). The proposal to "disperse" the category to the handful of standalone articles is not sufficient, because it will not account for the vast majority of entries that are summarized in this list in lieu of a standalone article. In my humble opinion, Categories for Discussion is unlikely to reach a significantly different result; if you do start discussion there, please copy this comment over to it, as I will be away from Wikipedia for the next several days. --Zfish118^⋉talk 14:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

1982-87 study

In the lead, who did the 1982-87 study mentioned? Thanks! --Zfish118^⋉talk 14:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the citation got lost at some point; I'll put it back in a sec. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-abortion violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926221700/http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/arsons.asp to http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/arsons.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211093851/http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/Abortion-Access-to-Abortion-Violence.pdf to http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/Abortion-Access-to-Abortion-Violence.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/833730.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-abortion violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120906002158/http://washingtonindependent.com/45408/prosecutions-of-anti-abortion-extremism-fell-under-bush to http://washingtonindependent.com/45408/prosecutions-of-anti-abortion-extremism-fell-under-bush
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nrlc.org/news_and_views/Oct09/nv102309.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)