Talk:Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights

Maintaining neutrality in reference to unproven accusations

I am not a registered Wikipedia user and don’t intend to become a regular editor, but I am familiar with the recent allegations made against Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights by some pro-choice groups and by articles on the internet which echo these accusations. The last paragraph gave unfair credence to the charges.

The charges made were assertions with no proof offered. The coverage in articles in The Daily Beast, The Intercept — and also in the right wing Daily Caller (a source that cannot be cited in Wikipedia because it is a highly unreliable) — are virtually the same in their usage of what can only be described as yellow journalism (to use an outdated but fitting term). All are based on tweets found on the internet and various “opinions”.

So I feel that it is very important that Wikipedia steer clear of stacking the deck in favor of questionable allegations that are amplified by questionable journalism. This is a bad trend on the internet and, as the saying goes, “a lie can travel around the world before the truth even puts its shoes on”. 50.193.99.89 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that the paragraph about notable supporters should not have been removed, the other paragraph was vaguely worded, so I reverted this portion of the edit. Wikipedia requires specificity. See wikipedia:Vagueness While I may personally agree that the accusations are unproven, both sides of the current debate in the media are represented in the original paragraph and its references, giving readers the ability to read the linked source material. Kiddo27 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting page protection

Due to constant editing and reverting over the past month based on recent news articles about this group from Wikipedia contributors with opposing opinions, I’ve requested that this page be protected. [1] Kiddo27 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2022

After the first mention of "Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights", add "RU4AR" in parentheses so that the reader knows that this acronym will henceforth be used to refer to the group.

Remove the word "flagship" in "led a flagship protest." There is no source to prove this.

Add a comma after "Since its founding"

Change "On May 12th, 2022" to "On May 12, 2022" for consistency with how the other date is formatted.

Under "Type," replace "Coalition" with "For-profit company." Source: Department of State Division of Corporations https://apps.dos.ny.gov/publicInquiry/EntityDisplay (search "RU4AR") Under "Type" add "Company: RU4AR." (same source as above)

Would be helpful to add a section about the group's fundraising (RU4AR does not believe in fundraising for abortion funds: https://revcom.us/en/service-abortion-funds-have-some-value-strategy-they-are-deadly) and its incorporation as a for-profit company on June 16, 2022 (search "RU4AR" here: https://apps.dos.ny.gov/publicInquiry/EntityDisplay). Sundriedplums (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the date formatting and removed flagship.

Phrases under 4 words don’t require a comma grammatically.

Need a third-party source for the fundraising information. Revolution magazine would be biased.

According to the definition, the group actually is a coalition since it brings people together across boundaries for a common cause: “A coalition is a group formed when two or more people, factions, states, political parties, militaries, or other parties agree to work together, often temporarily, in a partnership to achieve a common goal. The word coalition connotes a coming together to achieve a goal.”

Is there an easier link to determine NGO or for-profit status that doesn’t require instructions for a form? I had trouble accessing that information. To my knowledge in order to accept money a company has to file as a company before it can even request non-profit status. Kiddo27 (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Avoiding implying the validity of allegations

I made some edits and reworded parts of the final paragraph of this article (now two paragraphs) in order to better handle reference to the allegations made against Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights. I tried to retain as much of the existing paragraph as I could while making the corrections that were necessary for accuracy and reliability.

Having read all of the source references in the article, it seems clear that this article should take pains not to imply the truth of the allegations being made against Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights (and the Revolutionary Communist Party as well) just because accusations have been made in some media sources. The prior wording, perhaps unintentionally and somewhat sub-textually, gave this impression. The articles in The Daily Beast, The Intercept, VICE, and Daily Caller are all cut from the same cloth. They are embarrassingly crass hit pieces and not responsible journalism. So, for an encyclopedia, care should be taken not to unduly rely on or promote them. They can be noted and referenced, but the articles and sources rebutting the charges in these articles should also be prominently and properly noted and referenced as well.

In addition, it seems important and incumbent on an encyclopedia, in light of the facts involved, to give some background as to what actually prompted some abortion rights groups to denounce Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights. The locus of the contention clearly lies in a basic divergence of views and strategies for action between some other organizations and Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights, which is plainly stated by these groups and in the referenced articles. This is why I added to the beginning of the paragraph.

I also removed the reference to the Salon article because it has no mention of Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights, which did not exist in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimeorLemon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I went through your rewrite and italicized the names of publications as is the correct formatting for magazines, and re-wikilinked some articles.

I would recommend you add more inline citations to the claims in the first portion of your rewrite, or it all runs the risk of being removed by another editor—-especially once the article isn’t semi-protected.

Also the paragraph is vague, and perhaps, some of the groups should be named.

A reference link also needs to be provided to the Daily Caller article if possible.

Using revcom.us as a source for rebuttals also runs the risk of being removed since it is closely linked to the group. References should ideally be third-party.

I am leaving them up, though given the past month, it’s likely someone else will come along and remove it. Kiddo27 (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with failed verification tag

I won't remove it, but I disagree with the failed verification tag. In the KTVU article, footage linked clearly shows McKnight wearing a Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights t-shirt. She wears this same t-shirt at the press conference as well as stickers from the organization. Social media for the Bay Area chapter of the group promoted the press conference. The KTVU article also mentions that the footage was provided by Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights. The ABC article clearly shows the press conference taking place in front of a green banner reading Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights. McKnight is also clearly pictured in one of the photos on this Wikipedia article. The KRON4 article mentions that she was chanting the groups' name while being arrested.

On August 10th, 2022, Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights held a press conference with civil rights attorney John Burris, announcing a lawsuit against the City of San Francisco by affiliated activists, alleging mistreatment by the city’s police and fire department during a San Francisco Warriors game on June 13.

Kiddo27 (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:V: "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". None of the citations are reliable sources that support the statements made in the article. Also consider OR and BLP. I am removing this for now, though perhaps it could be rephrased. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation! Thanks! Kiddo27 (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

More specifically, even though some photos are included by RS that might imply certain facts, we would need those facts stated explicitly by the RS to avoid OR (especially for BLPs). Freelance-frank (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Restoring needed background

Have added important background in the Reception section giving the reasons for some differences between abortion rights groups. Also I noted continuing actions by RU4AR and others in the Marches and Actions section. Thanks for help with formatting titles in italics, and formatting of repeat references.LimeorLemon (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Please cite your sources. Kiddo27 (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

LimeorLemon, I reverted your recent addition of the material you are repeatedly adding. To echo Kiddo27: please cite your sources. In particular, consider Wikipedia:RS and Wikipedia:Primary sources. Also note that "significant" and "important" is determined by RS coverage. This article is at least a little past stub stage, so per MOS:BODY sections can be useful. Freelance-frank (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Also note that there are quite a lot of sources that make only passing mentions of RU4AR, including some already included in this article. It is probably undue to go into great detail regarding these passing mentions, especially for those already included. Freelance-frank (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

And original research issues. If a statement is not stated explicitly in a reliable source, especially about living people, then almost it certainly shouldn't go in this (or any) article. For example, see the discussion above regarding the problem of using articles like this. Freelance-frank (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)