Talk:Anti-abortion violence/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intro

"resort to ... violence in an effort to prove their point."

To prove a point is not the only reason given and likely not the foremost one. I know that one reason has been to simply stop abortions; with a doctor or clinic out of commission, they reason that some abortions may not take place, or at least it puts strain on the system. Another frequently given reason is defending/protecting innocent lives. (I'm looking at [1] where some statements are available.) I would guess that another is extra-legal justice. Others I saw included opposing the pro-choice government, getting attention to various aspects of the situation, etc.

Suggestions for better phrasing? Darrowby 08:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence contains "most frequently by anti-abortion activists", a statement which has no citation to back it up. As such, it is opinion and not fact. Unless there is a reputable source that can outline a case by case backing of pro-choice versus anti-abortion violence, any suggestions to "most frequently" cannot be backed up by fact and should not be included. I request that the section of the sentence "most frequently by anti-abortion activists" be excluded until it has been substantiated. HastelloyX 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This source[2] says " In recent years, some abortion activists (especially on the "pro-life" side) have engaged in unconventional, sometimes illegal, and occasionally violent activities.". I found that with 2 minutes of googling.-Andrew c 15:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That souce does not expressly state that the violent activity is more prevelent on the pro-life side. It discusses uconventional, then illegal and then violent activities. Is the "especially" referring to the unconventionality? To the legality? To the violent nature? It is simply too vague to support the specific statement made in the intro to the Wiki entry. And while the author has a list of references at the bottom for the article as a whole, this particular statement has no backing; there is no indication of how this observation was arrived at anywhere in the article. It is a similar problem as I have described below in the "Recent Changes" section concerning the NAF data set presented. This article does not conform with Wikipedia standards for sourcing, as it does not present numbers and explain the tabulation methodology from which this writer drew his conclusion. As such, this conclusion cannot be verified in any way and thus fails the test of corroboration as a reliable source. And, once again, by not describing any methodology of the collection of the numbers from which the author based his judgement, there is no way to examine flaws in methodology or misrepresentation of data sets. This fails the test of replicability and declaration of sources as a reliable source. That's three strikes against it: corroboration, replicability and declaration of source material from which it's conclusions are drawn. And since the statement itself is vague as to specifics, it doesn't support the position of whether anti-abortion violence is more prevalent. Keep googling, but let's remove that statement from the intro until it is backed up with numbers and a source that is not vague. As a suggestion, try spending more than 2 minutes this time. HastelloyX 12:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Severa, please see heading 22 in regards to your reverting the intro. HastelloyX 11:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidents in the UK

I fixed the wording of this sentence, but I was surprised at the claim itself. Have there really been no incidents at all? Thanks for adding the citation needed tag, Quasipalm, as I meant to do it but forgot. romarin[talk to her ] 15:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if there is no actual physical violence, what about adding information about harassment? Here is a recent story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2078782,00.html romarin[talk to her ] 15:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the section, as being only one sentence and featuring no specific information, it seemed unwarranted. Futher research could definitely produce a more informative section. -Severa (!!!) 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr's source concern

Chooserr raised the issue that the National Abortion Federation article, "Incidence of Violence & Disruption Against Abortion Providers in the U.S. & Canada," used as a source in this article is not neutral. However, in my experience, NAF is the only organization to collect such detailed data on this subject. Thus, there is no impartial alternative, as even an article from Religioustolerance.org, "Violence & Harassment at U.S. Abortion Clinics," is just quoting the numbers reported by NAF. The Feminist Majority Foundation also gathers statistics but, again, this is hardly a non-partisan player in the abortion debate. A 1995 article from the Washington Post, "Clinic Killings Follow Years of Antiabortion Violence," also contains statistics on incidents — but these are 11 years old. For the time being, I am going to restore the source, but note in the text of the article that the data are from the National Abortion Federation. -Severa (!!!) 20:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Severa, I personally don't feel that this source is capable of being netural, however since there isn't a better source available I don't have problem with it being kept so long a notation along the lines you mentioned is used. Chooserr 21:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Article move

Given concerns recently raised in the Talk:Pro-choice thread, "Pro-choice violence," would it be warranted to move this article to Abortion-related violence or Violence in the abortion movement? -Severa (!!!) 02:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Abortion Violence site

The Human Life International source is problematic, not because because it is produced by a pro-life organization, but because it conflates many non-politically-motivated crimes with "pro-abortion violence." We should careful in maintaining a consistent definition throughout this article: the incidents in question should have been committed for political reasons. After all, this is the standard in the "Anti-abortion violence" sub-section, and this standard should be adhered to throughout the article. For this reason, I think we should refrain from relying upon AbortionViolence.com, and instead indepenedently source information. -Severa (!!!) 21:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The AV site is excruciatingly difficult to cite, because of their blurring of the political and non-political. The numbers I used were checked quite carefully; the difficulty is in coming up with a single source that can summarize those numbers. Otherwise, we'll be 20 meters deep in footnotes. Until there's a better site out there, one that does a comparable job of quantitative measurements, I think editors are just going to have to use their discretion and be careful in their editing. I am, for the time being, going to restore the paragraph that was there, because it was pretty well-grounded. --BCSWowbagger 06:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

reliable sources and Canada

A self published video on youtube is akin to a blog post. A 'news story' on a pro-life website clearly has "an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report". Both of these 'citations' fail WP:RS. I do not believe this attack in Canada is notable enough for it to be published here in wikipedia. I am not saying it didn't happen or anything like that. I just feel that the current information in the article is not up to wikipedia standards. I think the whole article needs examination. Citing mainstream news sources is good, citing political activist organizations is not as good. I'll see what I can do, but I won't remove the Canada part without further comments first.--Andrew c 21:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, we have very little to go on here. We would pretty much have to build this section from the ground up, because, whether incidences of pro-abortion violence are underreported or simply do not occur in the same proportion as anti-abortion incidences, there isn't much with which to work unless you're willing to dig, dig, and dig. The information in the "Incidents in Canada" sub-section was certainly a lot less problematic than that in the "Incidents in the United States" sub-section, because, as noted above, HLI tallied non-politically-motivated incidents to arrive at its numbers. Some potential sources to be used in the "Pro-abortion violence" section.
-Severa (!!!) 22:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There is indeed much building to be done. The section was, when listed as a separate article, marked as a stub, and for good reason. Severa's got the idea: dig, dig, and dig for individual incidents. For quantitative analysis, it's going to be a lot harder, because AbortionViolence.com can't be cited without careful review and clarifications, and pro-lifers just don't have the same level of organization as does the NAF. So it will take some time to assemble a good section, I think.--BCSWowbagger 06:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pro" sites

As many articles have pro and anti sites in the external links sections, this should as well. There are plenty of anti sites already. I attempted to add sites in favor of anti-abortion violence, but someone removed it. If I try again, will that be alright? Tim Long 00:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the edit logs--there's no sign of you being reverted on anything recently. At least, not on this article. Are you sure you saved the edit? As for your actual question, if they meet the guidelines for External Links, there shouldn't be a problem. It really depends on the links, I think. --BCSWowbagger 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Choice violence merger

since the Pro-Choice violence section is pretty small I'm going to suggest that it simply be merged into Pro-Choice as that article currently has no mention of pro-choice violence whatsoever.

Pstanton 02:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been quite some time since I've been on Wikipedia, but I tend to disagree; the pro-abortion violence section is 1) Not exactly pro-choice, nor something the pro-choice movement would generally countenance (arguably), and 2) Pulling that out would strip this article of one half of its fork. Opinions from more regular editors who are more familiar with current situations are, however, to be taken with more weight than mine own. --BCSWowbagger 05:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article should be titled: Violence in the anti-abortion movement.

As much as the anti-choice people want to dress it up, there is no evidence in the articles of actual pro-choice violence - that is violence intended to rob anti-choice people of their right to free speech, or to force them have abortions.

Why does this article put responsibility for crime on the non-criminals?

Berniece LaFever 21:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure how incidents of assault, vandalism and death threats against anti-abortionists don't constitute violence. Clearly, there have been several more cases of major violence (bombings, etc.) against pro-abortionists (or, to use the terminology in the same unfair way you did, "pro-deathers"), but there is a significant amount of somewhat less pyrotechnic violence on both sides. The article, you'll note, also puts responsibility for crime on criminals--from both sides--and only on criminals. This is the one article in Wikipedia that I am aware of that does not use the "pro-choice/pro-life" terminology, instead referring only to the extremist wings, which are referred to as "anti-abortion/pro-abortion."

However, greater documentation of the pro-abortion violence, as well as significantly greater detail on the most prominent incidents would, I think, be very beneficial to the article and help put to rest some of your concerns that these acts and crimes are purely imagined. Hope that answer helps. --BCSWowbagger 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there would be more evidence of violence by pro-abortionists available if people didn't stop deleting it as soon as it is put up on this page. Just because people don't like the truth doesn't mean it isn't there.

As for being unsure "how incidents of assault, vandalism and death threats against anti-abortionists don't constitute violence", if you can see it on one side, you should certainly be able to see it on the other. Pro-lifers don't consider those who kill abortion doctors to be part of their movement, and yet they get lumped into the same category. But, pastors being killed by rabid pro-choicers or a pro-choice politician shooting a pro-life one during a campaign is the exact same thing as a man upset that his girlfriend got an abortion killing the doctor. The litmus test of preference will produce the same results regardless of who it is put against. Otherwise, don't use it.

And as for how clear it is that there have been more cases of major violence, this hasn't been proven (see the intro remark). Just saying something is so is not proof. -- HastelloyX 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate sources

The Human Life International site, which was cited in the "Pro-abortion violence" sub-section, is not an appropriate source. The site conflates many kinds of non-politically motivated violence with politically-motivated violence. These are some of the incidents which were included under HLI's definion of "pro-abortion violence" to produce its statistics:

  • Murders of pregnant women: The murder of a pregnant woman is immediately classified as pro-abortion violence by HLI. This does not take into account the fact that her murderer might have been motivated by things completely unrelated to abortion; the mother might have been in a bank during a hold-up or might have been witness to another crime. Perhaps her killer was simply insane and had no discernable motive but the insanity itself. The only instance in which I could see the murder of a pregnant woman possibly being construed as "pro-abortion violence" is if her boyfriend killed her because she refused to have an abortion. But, even so, it's a tough call, because the violence was more personally-motivated than politically-motivated; after all, if a woman came home and found her husband in bed with another woman, and shot him in a fit of rage, would we refer to it as an incident of "pro-marriage violence?"
  • Deaths of patients at abortion clinics: This is known as medical malpractice. While a serious issue in its own right, it is a completely different kettle of fish from politically-motivated violence. Last I checked, no one was attaching political motivations to the negligence of cosmetic surgeons, anesthesiologists, or dentists.
  • Murders commited by abortionists: An abortion practioner commits a violent crime, and, by the standards of HLI, it's immediately defined as pro-abortion violence. But, clearly, it's not politically-motivated, because abortionists, like all other people, are capable of committing violent acts for a whole range of reasons, including insurance fraud, to conceal another crime, robbery, revenge, insanity, etc. It's also just as important to consider that abortion practioners, clinic staff, and pro-choice activists could be victimized for reasons other than abortion, and so not all murders of clinic workers might be anti-abortion violence.

It seems to me that HLI's catch-all definition is, at best, misguided, or at worst, an attempt to augment the numbers. We might as well go fishing for every single crime ever committed by a pro-life activist so that we can label it as "anti-abortion violence." But this would be unencylopedic, bordering on OR, and would not in any way help to build a better and more informative article. It goes beyond the sensible goal of inclusivity and into the territory of undue weight.

The definition of "pro-abortion violence" used for the purposes of this article should be the analogue of the definition used for "anti-abortion violence." This would include:

  • Violence committed against pro-life activists, because of their involvement in the pro-life movement, and with the intent of intimidating or discouraging others from future advocacy
  • Vandalism, arson, or destruction of pro-life property, including attacks on crisis pregnancy centers, because it is used for the purposes of pro-life advocacy

Future edits to the "Pro-abortion violence" section should focus on finding documentation of these sorts of incidents. -Severa (!!!) 05:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

the section should be removed entirely untill there is at least one source documenting such an event. --Lehk 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the same standard be used for the anti abortion violence section? How do we know the "pro-life" murderers weren't just insane? And do you really think the NAF numbers are any more reliable than the HLI numbers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.244.79.193 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Severa made some specific claims why the HLI numbers were padded. Do you have any specific claims that the NAF numbers are likewise inaccurate? Having a strong POV is not, by itself, enough to discount something as a reliable source. Especially if the organization/POV is qualified. I'd be interested in hearing your criticisms, but please be more specific, instead of these vague accusations.--Andrew c 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As one example, a significant number (at least 70) of the arsons listed are unsolved, so the motive is not known. Including that number clearly does not meet severa's standard (if you want a documented case, Alan L. Weisenberg was one abortionist who was the primary suspect in the burning of his own clinic). 69.244.79.193 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You are bypassing the discussions above. I am not the only one to previously take issue with this section or its standard of sourcing. As Andrew c noted on September 26:
"A self published video on youtube is akin to a blog post. A 'news story' on a pro-life website clearly has "an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report". Both of these 'citations' fail WP:RS."
If there is solid evidence that there is reasonable doubt, it can be noted in the article, as it currently is for the George Patterson case. I don't know from what source you are basing your claim, "a significant number of the arsons listed are unsolved," but as the NAF Violence and Disruption Statistics publication notes in a footnote applied to murder, arson, bombing, and attempted bombing/arson:
"Incidents recorded are those classified as such by the appropriate law enforcement agency. Incidents that were ruled inconclusive or accidental are not included."
I think, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to conclude that these numbers are not being padded by grouping in electrical fires and Halloween pranks. But, if NAF makes a single error in its otherwise sound tally of "anti-abortion violence" — as it does in its inclusion of "picketing" in its statistics for "disruption" — we can simply not include these conclusions in the article. However, when the entire statistical system is flawed, as it is in the case of HLI, the only solution is not to use the source. -Severa (!!!) 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As requested, please find the following article on how reported incidents of violence against pro-choice supporters have been padded (adding picketing -- a peaceful protest guaranteed under the Constitution -- in their numbers), falsified and mislabeled (including the sending of religious and mail with messages of "love" to abortion providers as "hate" mail), including by the NAF and members of NOW.[3] As well, there is the well-known case of Joan Appleton who was employed as an abortion provider who testified to the routine practice of fabricating incidents of violence against her employers. [4] If the HLI numbers are considered unusable because somebody's personal downplaying of the incidents of violence/threats are considered worthy enough, the NAF numbers as shown to be heightened by the exact same numbers enhancement bia are unusable. -- HastelloyX (!!!) 06:32, 6 Febuary 2007 (UTC)


The general consensus on proper sources seems to stem from whether they are from a political think tank, an organization with a clear bias, or whether the sourcing is too vague. In that optic, the references as presented at the bottom contain the following

  • reference 1 is an opinion piece and does not constitute legitimate news
  • reference 4 is from the National Abortion Federation and is displayed on the ProChoice.org website. If the LifeSite website is off the table for being a bias site, this site falls under the same rule
  • reference 8 is also from the National Abortion Federation. It sites incidents without providing follow ups as to the full course of investigations nor does it provide references. In that, there is no clear case that the incidents discussed are directly related to anti-abortion activism. And, once again, coming from such a heavily biased source it is unfit for this page.

However, the true basis upon whether a source's information is denied should be based upon whether the information provided is proven to be false. Somebody personally disliking the source is a poor substitute for fact, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about (fact not opinion). If there is proof that individual points from any source are factually incorrect, people are free to indicate that here. That should be the only basis upon which pieces of information are rejected: that they have been refuted by fact alone. As somebody above said, "If there is solid evidence that there is reasonable doubt, it can be noted in the article, as it currently is for the George Patterson case" -- HastelloyX (!!!) 22:23, 5 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

    • Reference 1 is published by the Canadian government. We qualify that it is an individual speaking, not the Canadian government. There are extensive footnotings, and the author is clearly an expert in his field. Passes our sourcing qualifications.
    • Reference 4 is questionable, so we qualify it by saying who is providing the statistics (we not only state that it is NAF, but we go on to explain who NAF is). This is part of qualifying and substantiation in the NPOV policy. On top of that, we have to recognize that NAF is basically a trade organization and that they are qualified to self-report on incidents. It would be like saying we could not use any information that the AFL-CIO compiled regarding worker injury. Sure there are bias concerns, but we present the information neutrally.
    • Reference 8 (which I think now is 7) seems superfluous. There seem to be multiple citations for single statements so I would not be opposed to removing this reference due to your concerns.
You say the true basis upon whether a source's information is denied should be based upon whether the information provided is proven to be false. and I say that that goes against everything wikipedia is about. We can't include just anything because we don't have other sources disputing it. We have to keep in mind all the things I pointed out lower in the page. I could purchase a domain name (say truthbeknownregardingpro-life.org), make it look professional, and say that Pro-life protesters in Atlanta, Georgia regularly vandalize cars, and punch pregnant women. How would you go about proving me wrong? I could take some photos of someone holding a pro-life sign punching a woman. etc etc. We have policies in place to avoid publishing original research, things that cannot be verified, things from questionable sources. I say, instead of arguing basic wikipdia policy point here, why not spend your time finding better sourcing for your information. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Title and terminology

The title is really unhelpful in its reference to the "abortion movement" - as far as I can tell, there is no such thing. There's a pro-choice movement and a pro-life movement, and an abortion debate between the two. Calling it "violence in the abortion movement" leaves the impression that it's members of the abortion rights movement (another name for pro-choice) that's primarily responsible.

It's arguable people who kill in protest against abortion can't readily call themselves "pro-life", but, the principle seems to be to refer to groups by what they call themselves. I'll have an edit and see if I can make it sensible and fair.

In terms of weighting and balance as well, the pro-life violence section begins with fluff about a small fraction and a vast majority, before the actual examples or any actual analysis of what it's about. This reads as POV to me - this article isn't about the vast majority of the pro-life movement and how they feel about it, it's about acts of violence. After the examples/analysis, it would then be appropriate to cite pro-life supporters as denouncing those acts of violence, particularly if they represent large groups. That way, the majority point of view is represented at the same time as fairly describing the issue. --Tirana 07:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Would the title Abortion-related violence be more clear? Also, it is important for the lead-in of the "Anti-abortion violence" section to place these incidents within the larger context of opposition to abortion, as to avoid issues of undue weight. We do not want to give the impression that most pro-lifers commit or condone such acts of violence. However, "a small fraction" and "the vast majority" could be simplified to "minority" and "majority," if they give the impression of POV. -Severa (!!!) 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought yours was a good suggestion; it is much more accurate. I have moved the article to Abortion-related violence. Joie de Vivre 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Many countries?

Perhaps I should have argued for that alteration more explicitly, but I strongly disagree with describing violence in abortion politics as happening in many countries. From the information that's on this page, it's restricted to the US, Canada and one incident in Australia. If there are incidents in other countries they should be listed and the beginning amended, but as far as I can tell, every other country has managed to deal with the subject without violence. --Tirana 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This goes double now that I've reread the article and the Canadian incidents seem to all be the work of James Kopp. Separating out the countries makes it seem as if there are independent movements popping up, when it mostly seems to stem from a few organisations and individuals from the US. --Tirana 20:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the point that most of the abortion-related violence in Canada can be traced back to U.S. culprits. However, the 2000 stabbing of Dr. Romalis of Vancouver, British Columbia was independent of Jame Kopp's series of shootings, and, although it remains unsolved, there's nothing to suggest it was done by an American. I have also edited the introduction to read "in a few countries" per your suggestion. -Severa (!!!) 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-abortion_violence/Archive_1&oldid=1136524137"