Talk:Abortion in Vermont

Poor quality
I'm not getting into the politics of the issue here, but I feel this article is very poor quality. It doesn't tell us much about the subject as very little is specific to Vermont. What is the current status of abortion in Vermont? Who can access it and why? Are there still barriers, issues, problems? I really can't tell from this article. And it certainly is not from a neutral point of view. I'd fix the intro if there was something in the body of the article to put in there, but there isn't.--Murky Falls (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree. I have removed loads of extraneous content. I believe the Abortion_in_Vermont and Abortion_in_Vermont sections should also be removed as they include no information specific to Vermont. 129.67.117.45 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. The article is somehow both wordy, and not-wordy-enough. It seems that most of the irrelevant topics/topics unrelated to VT, are the most touched upon. The VT-specific topics, however, are briefly detailed, and there is little to no focus on abortion activism in VT. In short, the information is too general and unspecific. Likewise, the sentence-structure/paragraph-structure is unimpressive and does not flow well. When reading a Wikipedia article, it is important to be able to navigate each section and idea easily. However, when reading "Abortion in Vermont," I struggled to understand certain sentences and connect relevant ideas to each other. This article should be heavily edited and revised in order to produce a more accurate, concise, and representative picture of abortion in Vermont.El34aya (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is nothing “poor quality” about this article and it’s very unfortunate that some people have targeted it when it’s of better quality than most state-specific articles on abortion and certainly now provides everything that was mentioned. There are no issues with this article and it’s very suspect how a few people seem bent on inventing them. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No link to topic

 *  Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk page of WP:VERMONT. Notification of individual editors is to be avoided per WP:CANVASSING. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 

Half of the "chapters" don't have any ties to Vermont and about half of the content on this page has zero relevance to the article. My edit was not approved. 213.225.14.108 (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your claims are incorrect. Everything in this article that you deleted in your edits is specific to Vermont, and entirely relevant to the topic of abortion in Vermont. The only parts of the article that aren’t specifically about abortion in Vermont in particular—the Context and Terminology sections—are the parts of the article that you did not delete, in fact. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I am glad you agree that the context and terminology sections are not specifically about abortion in Vermont and have deleted them accordingly. 129.67.117.45 (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, why do we need to set out the contested terminology of abortion and provide a (poor) review of reproductive rights/health when both things are better done at Abortion? 129.67.117.45 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You committed vandalism by blanking the page and removing all of the important and relevant information. Stop. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, vandalism on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning (see Vandalism). Please strike your accusation. You are obviously welcome to test it at the appropriate noticeboard. You are also incorrect in accusing me of "page blanking", which also has a specific meaning (WP:BLANK). I notice that you did not respond to my explanations for removal above. Please do so we can work towards achieving consensus. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, Vermont is not mentioned in the citation provided . Please do not edit war unsourced and challenged content in . 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I did respond to what you said, which was contrary to your actions. Stop behaving disingenuously and clearly out of spite and denial of the obvious facts. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, please do not make assumptions as towards my motives without reasonable cause (WP:ASPERSIONS). Where have you responded to what I said beyond "Restoring previous version of page after destructive and false edits from an IP page-blanking"? 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

On this very page. I said that you removed all of the relevant and important information on this page relating to the topic of the article. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Your edits—or, I should say, deletions done without any discussion whatsoever—are the only disputed ones. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

All I and the other user are doing is acting to protect this page from being blanked by you with no cause or reason. You could have easily looked up those citations yourself, but instead chose to delete even the well-cited sections of the article without anyone agreeing with you. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement to establish consensus before editing. "blanked by you with no cause or reason" - I have provided reasons for the removals. There is also no requirement to seek consensus before editing, see WP:BOLD. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You have provided no reasons for the majority of the deletions you did, and what you said you would do ran contrary to what you actually did do. You’re throwing around Wikipedia policies while making extreme edits removing whole and cited and relevant and important sections of the article as an IP. Your behavior is destructive and entirely unjustified. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have as many rights with regard to content as registered editors do. Which deletion did I not provide a reason for? And what did I say that ran contrary to what I actually did? Be specific. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to go to sleep. I just hope that someone else will arrive and help, since you’ve clearly been preparing for this push to alter the article to your will for some time. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@129.67.118.6 Per WP:ONUS and WP:STATUSQUO the version of the page before you edited is meant to stay up, as your edits are against the consensus. You are breaking WP:3RR and edit-warring by repeatedly blanking the page despite your edits being against consensus. Please do not blank the page again whilst your edits are not the consensus.Stephanie921 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, your comment is incorrect in several ways:
 * WP:ONUS, which you helpfully link, says that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
 * As I pointed out in the above discussion, you would see that removing parts of a page does not constitute blanking it. See WP:BLANK. In any case, I removed content once, not "repeatedly", except to remove an unsourced sentence. Please strike your accusations above.
 * "Is meant to stay up"? A page can always be edited (WP:BOLD) and I do not see how my initial edits were against consensus. When I first edited the article, I was not even aware that the inclusion/deletion of the content in question had been disputed before.
 * I did not violate WP:3RR. If you believe I do, please point out the four reverts that are necessary for the rule to be violated. Note that A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert (per WP:3RR). Please also strike your accusation of me violating 3RR. 129.67.117.180 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that all three of you have edited other pages since my last comment at 14:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC), there does not seem any interest in engaging further on this topic. Given the lack of discussion and other relevant policy-based concerns, I will reinstate the deletions. 129.67.118.248 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Communication is required: If there is no policy-based objection within a week, which is more than enough time to respond given that you are making plenty of edits elsewhere, I will remove the disputed content. If I get reverted again, I will elevate appropriately per WP:STONEWALLING and file a report at WP:ANI or WP:AN3. 129.67.116.144 (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 129.67 makes a compelling point here. The "Terminology" and "Context" sections are given undue weight as the cited sources do not mention anything special about Vermont. We're a wiki, we can link to related subjects rather than repeating tangential content here. It's the responsibility of editors who wish to retain this content to cite reliable sources that specifically mention the subject: Abortion in Vermont. Woodroar (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Women's abortion experiences
Why is Abortion_in_Vermont included? It seems like a pretty stark contravention of WP:NPOV and it is very unusual to include "heart-wrenching" testimony on something so politically charged. This part of the article might as well be found on a Planned Parenthood fundraising leaflet. Absent policy-based rationales for its inclusion, I will remove it. 129.67.118.248 (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Anti-abortion views and activities
Why is Abortion_in_Vermont included? It seems like a pretty stark contravention of WP:PROPORTION. The degree of coverage of a subtopic by Wikipedia should largely reflect the amount of coverage that the issue gets in reliable, secondary sources. I do not see how a row in a table of an appendix fulfills the requirements of WP:PROPORTION, particularly to warrant an entire section. 129.67.118.248 (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting this
Users are taking this discussion, which seems to have been carried out by several sock puppets and anonymous users, is a broad consensus to remove sections from abortion articles. I do not think that there is a consensus to do this. Please start a new discussion if this is still desired. I can see the argument that having generic copy-pasted boilerplate text might not be desirable, but before making such a large change, you need to solicit broader participation from topic area editors or local wikiprojects or RFC/noticeboard participants. Andre🚐 22:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Clinic History
I feel like the clinic history is lacking in information. It jumps from 16 clinics in 1992 to 6 in 2014. Are there any sources which describe the decline in clinics during 1992-2014? SkylarClaire1 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Montpelier, Vermont - Women's march! (source Putneypics).jpg