Talk:Abortion-related violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This is not a forum for general discussion of personal opinions.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (June 2006 - January 2007)
  2. Archive 2 (February 2007)


Contents

[edit] Removal of one event

I removed the following event from the list of events under "Violence against those who oppose abortion"...

  • February 23, 2006: Rubina Kousar, a nurse at the Mattrai health center in Pakistan was gang-raped after refusing to perform illegal abortions.[1]

The reason is that there is no indication in the article as to why she refused to perform abortions. She may have refused because abortions are illegal, and she didn't want to break the law. We don't know. There is no indication in this article as to whether or not this woman "opposes abortion", so this event cannot be included in the list. Joie de Vivre 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Although its interesting to note that this violence rose out of a situation where abortion cannot be obtained legally. Joie de Vivre 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your reasoning, and, when this incident was was initially added to the article, it also occurred to me that the Kousar could have refused to perform the abortions not because she was pro-life, but because she didn't want to break the law. Perhaps we could revert to the former title, "Pro-abortion violence," to accommodate this incident without commenting on her opinion of abortion. After all, the violence was pro-abortion insofar as being intended to terrorize someone into providing an abortion against their wishes, and would fit the definition of "politically-motivated violence" which I proposed above, if the definition was slightly modified:
  • Violence committed against a person, because of their involvement in providing abortion, their refusal to provide abortion, or their participation in the pro-life movement, and with the intent of intimidating or discouraging others from continuing the same activity in the future.
But Kousar states in the Telegraph article that her attack was about "revenge." I don't know. It's a rather difficult call. -Severa (!!!) 03:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove two more events

I removed the following content. The reason is provided below the content.

There is one documented case of the murder of a pro-life advocate.

  • March 3, 2006: A 52-year-old woman drove her car into a pro-life rally in Nampa, Idaho, wedging a protestor's foot between her car's tire and a sign held by the protestors. The protester was not injured. The woman driving stated that she had made a complaint to the police that the sign depicted graphic photos of an aborted fetus, and stated that the police had done nothing to remove the sign. She stated that she did not want local schoolchildren to see the images, and that she intended to block the images with her car.[8][9]

I don't agree that these should be included. The first woman claimed to be carrying out "Satan's will"... what does that have to do with a stance on abortion? It could just as easily be classified under "Mentally ill violence". And the second one, this woman could have been pro-life for all we know, but she may have opposed the use of a bloody image near a children's school. Joie de Vivre 00:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, given the ambiguous information on the Janezic incident, it's a stretch for it to be labelled an abortion-related incident. But the vehicular incident from Idaho, as well as the sexual assault from Pakistan, were abortion-related incidents, if not demonstrably pro-abortion incidents. We could resolve ambiguity by simply placing indeterminately "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion" incidents under a neutral section title, such as "Other incidents." -Severa (!!!) 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-choice violence?

Just curious, has this ever occurred? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.75.187.195 (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The simple answer is that, yes, it has, but not on the same level as anti-abortion violence. A number of possible incidents of pro-abortion violence have been put forward on this talk page (see the two "Removal" threads above and the archives) but there's been some disagreement over how the topic should be approached in this article. -Severa (!!!) 08:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. People with strong opinions want to have only their toughts to go through Wikipedia, and therefore it is absurd to say that only pro-life groups have attacked against pro-choice groups. We have evidence (on the net, which in itself is rather unreliable) too, that pro-choice people have attacked and murdered pro-life members. Therefore I edited the first sentence that a new reader can make his/her own opinion about the situation by reading further. The current sentence does not favor pro-life groups, either.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.102.70.201 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 July 2007.
Your edit was problematic because it is giving undue weight to "pro-choice" violence. We can't present both sides as equal and let the "reader decide", if in fact there is a disproportionate relationship. This article clearly shows that the anti-abortion violence is more notable/prevalent than the anti-pro-life violence.-Andrew c [talk] 00:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Every abortion is a form of pro-choice violence. The pro-abortion violence is way more common than anti-abortion violence. Many more people have been killed by abortion than by anti-abortion activists. Pacifist3536753 21:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please delete the above personal opinion. "This is not a forum for general discussion of personal opinions.

Any such messages will be deleted." 199.125.109.66 03:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This editor (Pacifist3536753) has engaged in talk page discussion (see below) and has been generally civil, so we must assume good faith. Just because someone has a strong opinion does not mean we are allowed to censor it. Why not respond to the suggestion that we mention in the article that abortion itself is a violent act? I'm sorry, but I disagree that the above comment was an attempt to use this talk page as a discussion forum. It doesn't hurt to leave the comment here (it will get archived eventually). There is a fine line between discussing personal opinion and discussing article content. Saying "I think pro-lifers should be put in jail for harassing women" is expressing a personal opinion, while saying "I think the article should mention that harassment is a violent crime" is discussing article content (even if it is only an opinion, and an incorrect one at it.) We don't require that editors only speak the truth, and censor all opinions. We just ask that talk page be used for what they are intended. Hope this helps.-Andrew c 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with his comments below where he says shouldn't this be in the article, I do have a problem with his unrelated personal opinion above about this that and the other. 199.125.109.79 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another arson

Here is some 'breaking news': [1] I think we should probably wait to see if more comes from the investigation and see if other news sources pick up the story, but giving everyone who's watching this page a heads up.-Andrew c 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Another article:[2]-Andrew c 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I tried updating the sentence in the introduction, but then realised it's not certain that this incident was an arson yet, so I agree we should await further developments before changing the most recent event listed in the intro. -Severa (!!!) 15:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The authorities know it was a set fire, as the Virginian Pilot article states. Not sure, legally speaking, if that means it was an "arson". I believe it does, but I'm not a legal expert. This article calls it arson. -Andrew c 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Arson, "Arson is the crime of setting a fire for an unlawful or improper purpose," so, this definition is broad enough to include any deliberately-started fire. Thanks for keeping us posted with these news stories -Severa (!!!) 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV concern

It needs to be pointed out in this article that abortion is a violent act. Pacifist3536753 03:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Are you saying that all surgical procedures are a violent act? 199.125.109.2 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that all killing of human beings is a violent act. Are you saying that murder is just a surgical procedure? That is nonsense. Pacifist3536753 04:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Talk pages are a place to coordinate the writing of an encyclopaedia article, not a forum for debating what we think of abortion, or any other issue. Let's try to keep discussion related to this article. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 06:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not a debate of abortion but a disscussion of what should be included in the article and abortion being an act of violence needs to be noted in this article. Pacifist3536753 06:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Well, first and foremost, wikipedia has specific guidelines for article content. Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. So first of all, can you attribute this position to reliable source? This also brings up the scope of this article. What do we mean by "violence"? Does this refer to criminal acts only? All things to consider. For example, I could see an example of forced abortion fitting into this article because it is a criminal act, but legal, consensual abortion is more of a grey area, and may be considered 'violent' only by a specific POV. The sources can help us figure this out, so please do some research and post your sources here. Thanks.-Andrew c 11:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Does wikipedia go by a standard that something is only violent if it is illegal? Pacifist3536753 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, could you try to address my "first and foremost" concern? We can discuss the scope of the article after we get verifiable, reliable sources. Feel free to read the links in my last post if you don't understand the concepts, or ask us any questions you may have. Thanks.-Andrew c 01:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HLI statistics

I've reverted a lot of the recent changes to the section on Human Life International - they seemed to veer towards endorsing rather than reporting HLI's statements, and didn't have any particular justification for the changes other than "De-NPOV" in the edit summary. Maybe that's a typo, but we need to have more rather than less NPOV here. Just because we can cite HLI's statements doesn't mean we have to take them at face value. Since HLI are explicit about the way they count things, we should also note their research methodology. I don't think it's POV to highlight obvious issues with research methods - we'd certainly question it if abortion providers were claiming non-political graffiti on their walls, say, as anti-abortion property damage.

It's a shame HLI are offline otherwise I'd quote them explaining their methods myself, which raises the question of whether their opinions are still citable if they're offline for a significant length of time. The thing about the Nicaraguan plot would be interesting and relevant if it were properly cited. --Tirana 04:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw men A couple of points which I don't think should be included - firstly, nobody has argued (or been cited at it) here that the anti-abortion movement is more violent compared to animal rights activists etc, so HLI's arguments that they are not are irrelevant. Secondly, you don't need to be a pro-choice activist to criticise violence in the pro-life movement - two paragraphs above, we've describe pro-choice criticism of violence. We don't know (without a cite) why HLI is publishing their "statistics". And I still can't view their site to check the references. --Tirana 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You can view it at http://web.archive.org. Note that Wikipedia pages are NOT debates, so nobody needs to forward an argument for a "counter-argument" to be made. I am merely citing part of HLI's reaction to pro-abortion rights criticisms. If you view their archived page, you can see that they are obviously responding, at least in part, to "pro-choice" criticisms of the movement. --Jakes18 22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're describing a point of view in a debate, you need to cite that point of view. There's no evidence here that pro-choice people criticise anti-abortion violence on those terms (as opposed to violence in general being bad). It's no different from saying "HLI respond to pro-choice claims that they're space aliens by citing statistics etc." You (or HLI) are putting words in the mouths of others and then responding to them. It's called a straw man and it's a hallmark of faulty argument. --Tirana 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you might want to update the references to their new location if they can't be found in the current internet, and maybe change the tense of the relevant pages ie HLI used to maintain --Tirana 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting this section. The section has only one source, http://www.abortionviolence.com (not http://www.hli.org), and there is no way this is a reliable source. The site iself has no scholarly merit and the info sourced from the site is original research lacking any description of methods, context, sources of data compiled. The section as it stands could constitute libel. Not to mention the position is fringe at best, and need not be included (not to mention the abortion in the arts section) in an article that is already lengthy. Phyesalis 06:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I am restoring the deleted section. If you wish to delete an entire section, please discuss it first, or do the edits necessary in your opinion to bring it to NPOV.

Perhaps I should delete all of the information on this site taken from the National Abortion Federation. Please explain the "scholarly merit" you demand. Also, the site itself provides information on the techniques used. See past edits, especially in reference to the "double-counting" fallacy. --Jakes18 (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Salvi and Human Life International claim=

Does anyone have a source for the claim that John Salvi was seen distributing HLI pamplets? I've found sources that he possessed such pamphlets [3], but not that he distributed them. Silverfish 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

I don't know whether this has been settled or not, but it seems that this article might be leaning a bit to one side.

Anti-abortion violence Incidents: 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 assault and battery, 3 kidnappings, including other incidents in other countries. Section also includes "Support of Anti-Abortion Violence," "Pro-life reactions to anti-abortion violence," and "Pro-choice reactions to anti-abortion violence." This section length is 13,139 characters with spaces. So it's pretty long. I know it was once an article by itself, but it's quite a bit longer than it's mirror section.

Pro-abortion violence (alleged; obviously not all abortion-specific) "Incidents:" 360 'fatal botched abortions', 405 murders, 86 attempted murders, 23 arsons and firebombings (both successful and attempted), 787 incidents of assault and battery, 13 bomb threats, 351 death threats, and numerous incidents of vandalism and other illegal activities." This section length is 1,904 characters with spaces. There aren't any bolded or headlined words.

I'm thinking this might deserve an NPOV tag instead of a "too long" tag. Since it was moved to this article and Pro-abortion violence was added, the article hasn't really been ironed out for non-NPOV stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by THEemu (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view doesn't mean that all sides are presented equally. NPOV means that we are supposed to represent our sources accurately, and not give undue weight to minority views. Either there is actually more anti-abortion violence than pro-abortion violence, or at least the reliable media sources give much, much more coverage to anti-abortion violence than pro-. Either way, it isn't our job here to try and 'balance' things, or fix some imbalance found in media. The article presents the sides in an unbalanced manner because we reflect how things are presented in society. If you have any new sources to add to the article (either side) that could help things. Did you have anything in specific in mind to remedy the situation?-Andrew c [talk] 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm just bringing it to your (Andrew) attention. If it's okay, then I won't try to argue. THEemu 15:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Church Passage

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

[edit] "Pro-choice violence"

  • Neither of the sites listed (http:abortionviolence.com) are www.hli.org, nor are they linked to HLI. "Abortion violence" is an anonymous personal domain with no reputation for anything.
  • Quote attributed to HLI is actually original text on extremist site.
  • Their figures discuss no sources of primary data, no methodology, no references and include gambling, as a violent act (for example). This list lacks every single attribute that makes a site reliable.
  • The very idea of pro-abortion violence is tenuous at best. First it's apples to oranges, one group is committing illegal violent crimes to prevent another group from receiving or performing the legal act. Pro-life violence is violence against other people of an opposing ideology in the name of stopping an associated action. There is no evidence of Pro-choice violence done against people of opposing ideology to stop them from engaging in the legal activity. The article describing abortion as a single-issue form of terrorism never mentions pro-choice violence, because there isn't any. This isn't even fringe.

If someone can name two notable proponents of the position and find any reference to these people and the explication of their position in a reliable source, there may be something to work with, if not it goes and should stay gone. If editors feel otherwise, please respond here on the talk page. In the interim, the material should be moved due to issues of reliability and verifiability. Phyesalis (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting Jake's use of a popup. Please discuss future reversions here, adressing the issues of disputation before making any changes. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As abortionviolence.com is not a relaible source, I have removed the link from the page, as well as info sourced by it. I did replace the one alleged "HLI" quote with another similar quote and context cited from a peer-review journal. The "pro-choice" violence section has also been removed. Until reliable sources can be provided to show that this is not just an extremist neologism, the material should not be in the article. I also reworded the intro and sub-heading title to clarify just what the "abortion-related violence" article is actually about, as considered by the numerable relaible sources already in the intro and body of article.Phyesalis (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have confirmation that abortionviolence.com is part of HLI. (http://www.hli.org/mini-sites.html). They consider it one of their "mini-sites." Life Site News also cites pro-choice violence. (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/sep/06092902.html and http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/apr/06042402.html). Fox News also does a story on pro-choice violence (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214328,00.html). It was said above that if two notable proponents of this position could be found, then the information could be used. I therefore motion that their statistics be represented in this article, in order to conform to a neutral point of view. ...Andy120... (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The Fox News story does not mention 'pro-choice', so making any implications otherwise would violate WP:NOR. lifesitenews.com is questionable in regards to WP:RS. I also don't agree with Phyesalis' suggested ultimatum about finding two sources. If we can find a single source that meets WP:RS, we should include it. If we can only find non-neutral, self-publish sources from opponents, then we shouldn't include the information. -Andrew c [talk] 00:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I see your point regarding the fact that the Fox story does not mention 'pro-choice' however it is clearly 'abortion-related violence' which is the title of this article. We should also then consider (if we will not use "pro-life" sources) removing facts that are cited using the NARAL as their primary source. ...Andy120... (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)