Talk:Anti-abortion violence/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Additions to "Violence against pro-life advocates"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New additions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Issues with "Pro-life condemnation of anti-abortion violence"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Footnotes and references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Re-ordering

message: 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.Jelen, Ted G. (1998).  Abortion. In Encyclopedia of Religion and Society.  Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.  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. National Abortion Federation. (2005).  Incidence of Violence & Disruption Against Abortion Providers in the U.S. & Canada.  Retrieved April 13, 2006.  HastelloyX 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Unreliable sources

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

text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removed comments from "pro-life reactions" section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Slight change to two headers, move of one paragraph

message: Here is some 'breaking news':  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)
replies: text: Another article:-Andrew c 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another arson 

message: 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 , but not that he distributed them. Silverfish 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Salvi and Human Life International claim

message: 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)
thread_title: Catholic Church Passage

message: 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.  Matchups 11:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-abortion terminology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Abortion doctor"? 

message: Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  George Tiller Death 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recreation of Pro-abortion violence article 

message: One line in particular states, "Pro-life activism generally consists of activism such as picketing, vigils, and "sidewalk counseling" outside abortion clinics." 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, They showed reporters and lawmakers tape from a security camera at Planned Parenthood's Allston clinic, which showed protesters standing beside the clinic doorway and yelling at patients on their way in.
The tapes also showed abortion protesters videotaping patients driving in and out of the parking lot, some of which were later posted on the Internet, said Angus McQuilken, vice president for public affairs for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.
"That's not speech; that's harassment," he said.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.244.74 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So far everything I've seen from the pro-life people has been completely negative about the murder of Dr. Tiller http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/01/abortion-opponents-discouraged-doctors-murder/?test=latestnewshttp://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/46672422.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUshttp://www.speroforum.com/a/19446/Reaction-to-murder-of-abortionist-George-Tiller and dozens of others... Rapier1 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of "Pro-life reactions to anti-abortion violence" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pro-life terrorism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Direct action

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? Whatever404 (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: It is obvious that Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism, and there are many reliable sources which say so, e.g.  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)
thread_title:  A single "opinion-quote" link to terrorism looks like white-washing 

message: 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.  ADM (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Allegations of antisemitism

message: 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)
thread_title: People who shouldn't be cited

message: 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)
thread_title:  Registry proposal in article 

message: 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)
replies: text: The WorldNetDaily link is written by Jack Cashill, a noted political observer. Cashill's observations can't be dismissed out of hand. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Attempted Murders" Improperly Categorized or Sourced 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pro-Abortion violence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NAF  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  motives 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wording of "Pro-life  violence" 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Abortionist vs. abortion provider