Talk:ShoutYourAbortion

Removed that Ameial Bonow "forced to leave her home" per WP:BLP

Amelia Bonow has criticized media reports that threats have “forced her to leave her home” as sensationalism. Bonow reports she hasn't received credible threats [1] . Additionally, WP articles tend to have longer staying power than individual LA times articles etc, so it seems we probably should not publicize that Bonow's address has been made publicly available (the article linking apartment complex is still available online as far as I know) because announcing this on Wikipedia could potentially lead to credible threats or stalking.

Staying on topic per reliable sources

Some of the content recently reverted appeared to be the sort of thing that would be added to college research paper on this topic, but it did not adhere to sourcing per Wikipedia guidelines. References that made no mention of Shout Your Abortion were added to veer off into the wider topic of abortion related violence. These references made no mention of Shout Your Abortion and would be more appropriate in Anti-abortion violence article. This article should be referenced by sources which specifically refer to the Shout Your Abortion social media campaign. We shouldn't add our own interpretation or our own idea of what is relevant background information for this article, but rather rely only on what reliable sources which specifically discuss Shout Your Abortion present as the background and the context here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Feministyolo, your undiscussed total rewrite of the article has been reverted. Please review WP:No Original Research. I notice from your user page that you are a student editor for “Advanced Readings in Feminist Theory” and that you have added many sources to the article which do not at all mention SYA social media campaign. As WP editors, we are only suppose to report on what reliable sources have published in relation to the topic. We can’t add sources from an Advanced Readings in Feminist Theory course, when those sources don’t discuss the topics (in this case abortion stigma, abortion violence, history of planned parenthoood etc) specifically in relation to Shout Your Abortion. We can’t publish original thought on WP. Also, all articles on the topic of abortion are covered by Wikipedia:Community discretionary sanctions and are subject to WP:1RR rule. You technically violated this today (Nov 11).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Splitting media reaction into "support" and "criticism"

I don't think we should change the media attention section into two different sections for "support" and "criticism". Doing this seems confusing because it requires O’Doherty's comments (which were mixed) to be split, into 2 different sections. Also, some of the commentary seems neutral, and it seems we shouldn't require editors to make a personal opinion judgement on whether a commentator is being supportive, critical or neutral. Also, it seems confusing to mix the coverage of reaction on twitter with the reaction of mainstream media. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

They do describe themselves as pro-abortion.

https://shoutyourabortion.com/get-involved/ "The best way to learn more about SYA is to sign up for our newsletter (you’ll get SYA news, info, and calls to action) and follow us on Instagram (where we’ve cultivated a robust and very active pro-abortion community), or check out the Abortion Academy archive of ongoing webinars."

https://shoutyourabortion.com/ "Educate and beautify your community with pro-abortion posters, stickers, art, and info."

https://shout-your-abortion.square.site/ "Shout Your Abortion is normalizing abortion and elevating safe paths to access, regardless of legality. It is an important part of our mission to have pro-abortion messages out in the world as wearable info/propaganda."

@Toughpigs, please don't revert an edit by using false claims.

DocZach (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)