Talk:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization/Archive 1

Background
I recommend a change for the background tab on the page, the background does not detail anything regarding the case, but instead gives an opinionated description of the statute and what it's trying to change. Reeeweee (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree; feel free to replace it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Supreme Court Leaks
Sticking this here, though it's also applicable at Roe v. Wade and other related pages. I really don't think we should be covering this leak, and we certainly should not be writing as though it is a sure thing. This is per policies WP:NOTNEWS for the former, and WP:CRYSTAL for the later. While I agree that it is important, I cannot reconcile that with both policies which say we should not cover it until the final decision was released. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Ignoring it would stick out like a sore thumb, a huge elephant in the room. I think a good compromise would be what I've suggested and making a separate page for it. The fact that there might have been a leak at all, or that it appears that that's happened, is an event already worth covering in my opinion just from the reaction and possible ramifications. Pickle Mon (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While I empathise, and I agree that the leak is unprecedented, when it comes to enwiki policy even a separate page has its own issues. WP:NOTNEWS clearly states While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Emphasis mine. With this story breaking only in the last hour, I'm not sure we have enough RS to justify its own article yet, and when it comes to judgement there is no guarantee that the draft will pass as it currently stands. However if consensus is against me on this, I will not stand in the way, as that would be tendentious. I just want us to be cautious with a "hot item", and anything involving Roe v. Wade is a hot item. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are enough sources by now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's so widely covered that I think we have an obligation to cover it. Endwise (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As a general comment I know there are several RSes dissection the leaked opinion to make assertions of what may be at risk (like Obergfelt). I would strongly recommend that we avoid any significant descent into this type of analysis on the leaked draft until after the final decision is reached. If the final is mostly unchanged from the draft then we don't even need to talk about the draft contents. If the final is different, then we can let RSes guide us to key differences to include. --M asem (t) 16:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 abortion protests in the United States
Page watchers are invited to help expand the newly created 2022 abortion protests in the United States. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that is jumping the gun, as while there are protests, its not (yet) the scale I'd have expected for a separate article. That is, a separate article is failing not:news in that we are crystalballing the impact of the protests. --M asem (t) 23:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia loves protest and mass shooting articles...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

AfD discussion for 2022 abortion protests in the United States
If you wish to participate, see Articles for deletion/2022 abortion protests in the United States. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Supreme Court leaks are (apparently, not) unprecedented.
Supreme Court leaks are (apparently, not) unprecedented. Source: The original Roe v. Wade decision also was leaked to the press, The Washington Post. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The article says it is unprecedented "in the modern history of the court" for draft opinions to be leaked, but that in the Case of Roe vs. Wade the final decision was leaked to the public a few hours before it was read out in court. Perhaps that could be mentioned though. Endwise (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently -- and unknown to me -- there were quite a few leaks in the past for SCOTUS. I guess it's not all that rare / unprecedented.  Source: . Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page for Leak?
The leak aspect of the Politico story is already making huge waves; the fact that there was a leak at all is huge. SCOTUSBlog is enraged for example and there is already speculation about who did it and why. I think a new page should be made covering just the leak and all of the respective speculation and consequences. If we create it now, it'll be less of a mad dash to fill it out later. Pickle Mon (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * While I agree it's a big deal, as a current event, one that only broke about an hour ago, I'm not sure if we have enough RS to satisfy GNG yet. I think it would be best to start it in draft space, and move when there's sufficient sourcing from NEWSORGs other than Politico. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be included in this page. Unless further leaks develop, it is confined to this case. It should be covered, though. It has been reported in reliable sources. BD2412  T 02:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It could very well blow over, or it could be a huge story. But until follow up articles with new information emerge, a single Politico report is not enough for its own page. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There's zero need for a separate page just for the leak. Now, if there are riots (eg: there's already fencing up outside SCOTUS) on the scale of the George Floyd, that would likely merit its own page for that reason. But not just because of the leak for now. --M asem (t) 03:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, the leak is far too recent and unclear how it represents the final decision for the lede. Events over the next few days may necessitate its coverage in the lede if, say, mass protests start or other events, but right now, we should be handling this carefully ourselves and wait for the final decision.
 * Also also, leaked government documents are not necessary in the public domain even if they would normally be if published by a normal routed. The public never has seen a draft SCOTUS decision so we should not assume this one can be published freely by us. We can still use Politico's mirror, though again, only to discuss its existence and high-level outcome ince it is no final. --M asem (t) 04:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * may I suggest using the current event editnotice for the pages? It should help deter some of the editing and make sure people ge the basic editing info for the pages. 2600:1011:B11E:5520:9C5D:7352:BE7F:45E2 (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with starting a new page for the leak; There are already enough sources to meet GNG. Dobbs is a large enough topic that it could use the free space for when the ruling is issued and the extended follow-up over the next few years. So making a separate article about the leak now when there is a lot of energy and motivation to get it done makes sense. The document is necessarily in the public domain because it was the product of the federal government. Nor is it classified.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No there is no need to start a separate page just about the leak. The case page is short enough to cover it. It is not about the GNG, just that it make no sense to separate the leak coverage at this time period notnews. Also, while the leaked document may be pdgiv if it is legit, we don't have that assurance yet. --M asem (t) 04:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we don't know, as of this moment, since the news only broke an hour or two ago. But, this is certainly a notable event ... not only the (supposed) overturning of Roe ... but also the (unprecedented) SCOTUS "leak" incident proper.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just did a quick check ... there are tons of RS's out there, at this point.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, a big impromptu protest at the SCOTUS court house.   Notable incident, indeed ... even if it turns out to be false.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the actual decision had been made, we'd be covering the decision on this page -- but on the presumption that there would be protests and such as a result that would then be its own event. But we would need to have that at scale. The leak is a key part of this decision page and should itself not be treated separately, but any protests that spin out of it would have the potential for their own event but again, its the scale that needs to be reached first, right now there's lot of angry people to something that is not a final decision and may not reflect the true one. --M asem (t) 12:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that a page on the leak is not independently notable. What do people think about a separate page, titled something like "List of United States Supreme Court leaks" that would cover this leak (and others like it) in depth? KidAd  •  SPEAK  17:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Time to create an article on the leak and/or draft. It's got a plethora of sources by now. ɱ  (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not just add it to this article? It's relevant in the context of the opinion. BD2412  T 04:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My only concern with that page would be that there has to my knowledge only ever been a single leak from the US Supreme Court, and this is it! It's not much of a list if it only has one item. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just added a Wired article that talks of other leaks but some of these were how the vote would come down, etc. I don't think a separate page is needed but there is probably a place on the general pages of SCOTUS to talk of how decision confidence is made but there have been some notable leaks. --M asem (t) 15:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently -- and unknown to me -- there were quite a few leaks in the past for SCOTUS. I guess it's not all that rare / unprecedented. Source:. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Without having read this discussion at all, I created List of United States Supreme Court leaks. Please feel free to expand :) Legoktm (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Issue of legislation of statutes to circumvent the apparent plans to reverse Roe
Congress to possibly meet as soon as Wednesday to consider legislation to pass a legislated version of Roe which would require 60 per cent majority, covered in press this morning. Should this be in this article as one of the consequences of the leaked document? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We gave the pressure for the Senate to pass the act. Lets wait for the actual vote and aftermath (if it happens) to write that up. --M asem (t) 15:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Right to abortion language
During Roe, the judges decided against a fundamental right to abortion, and instead focused on the right to privacy. There is discussion of them considering this on page 20 of this reliable source. To speak of an existing "right to abortion" in this context could confuse the readers about what Roe v. Wade really said.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a common point of confusion, even by RS.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

'Fetal heartbeat' and scientific terminology
, could you please clarify what was a bit of a pov addition about this? The removed footnote:

"Both medical and reproductive health experts have said that the reference to a heartbeat is medically inaccurate because an embryo does not have a developed heart by six weeks of gestation."

And if I missed anything in the given references, if there are references disagreeing or contradicting this — if there is scientific consensus about it, we should say it, and if there is scientific disagreement we should say it, too. So what is exactly the POV issue about it? Is there really no better way to find better references or reword it other than outright removal? Thank you everyone. Davide King (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I just found the Associated Press [and NPR, and FactCheck, you get the point] saying the same thing, too. Since the anti-abortion side has used such terminology in an emotional appeal, it would be POVish not to clarify this at least in a footnote — again, unless I am missing out something. Davide King (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC) [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Until we know what weights the SCOTUS final decision goes, the arguments about what the fetal heartbeat is or isn't is a bit out of place here as it is part of the larger abortion question. I know that this is how the science is being argued why the law is bad, but we know the courts routinely have ignored science and logic in favor of what the law says and the leaked decision by Alito points to a decision that is 100% focused on whether abortion is a protected right, period. Hence, it is a pro-choice POV (eg in favor of trying to block the law) that's a bit out of place here. --M asem (t) 13:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with Masem. The note is just not particularly relevant here. This about a court case, and we shouldn't delve too deep in the abortion debate on this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it a crime to leak SCOTUS opinions?
Is it a crime to leak SCOTUS opinions? Some legal RS's say "yes" and some say "no". (And, certainly, some equivocate.) But, this article only covers the "no" opinions ... and doesn't mention the "yes" opinions ... or even the equivocations ... and thus makes it sound as if it's not a disputed issue. Which indeed it is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have expanded details about the question of legality and made it clear that there is still some level of uncertainty. Endwise (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But, someone removed it.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources say it's "unlikely" that it was a crime. I don't think we need to go into all the speculative details. Neutralitytalk 16:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Some sources say otherwise.  You honestly think there's unanimity on this question?      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Example: A (notable) federal prosecutor (Andrew C. McCarthy) says it was "obviously" a crime.  Source: .  So, different RS's opine differently.  As my original post detailed.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Another source: . By the same author, McCarthy.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC
 * A fringy pundit on Fox Business and a New York Post article are not good sources. Neutralitytalk 18:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Neutrality did you read the article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/03/doj-scotus-abortion-leak/? That's not what it said. It said the DOJ is (very) unlikely to press charges, but that the underlying legal question is non-obvious: The law that could be at issue is 18 U.S.C. 641 — which prohibits the theft or receipt of stolen government information, as well as theft of the documents. That could apply to Supreme Court documents. The Wired article said much the same, though it focused more on the legal question than what the DOJ will do. Endwise (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like There is uncertainty over whether the leak violated federal laws,[footnote explaining details] but it is unlikely that the Department of Justice would press charges on the leaker. would be best? Endwise (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it not seem unduly speculative to delve into the details of what "could be at issue"? In any event, the Washington Post article says clearly: and then quotes legal scholars on it. Or see USA Today: "The leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade not illegal, experts say." Neutralitytalk 18:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The leaker will, in practice, almost certainly not be charged by the DOJ. But the question of whether it is illegal is not at all settled. You can find an article which quotes a specific legal scholar who has a specific opinion on the matter. But all three of the cited sourced in the article say it is legally unclear. Endwise (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't suggest that we say it's "settled." But nor can we say it's merely "disputed" or an "open question" when all the reliable sources say it's unlikely. It also raises WP:BLP concerns to suggest that a crime was committed. Neutralitytalk 14:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ALL reliable sources say it is dispositive that no crime was committed? You are in an alternate reality.  The question is "does this act constitute a crime?" ... some legal experts say yes and some say no.  The issue at hand is not will the DOJ likely / unlikely charge said crime.  (Biden's DOJ, on top of it ... and Merrick Garland ... yeah, that's rich ... LOL.)    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I will repeat myself. ''Is it a crime to leak SCOTUS opinions? Some legal RS's say "yes" and some say "no". (And, certainly, some equivocate.) But, this article only covers the "no" opinions ... and doesn't mention the "yes" opinions ... or even the equivocations ... and thus makes it sound as if it's not a disputed issue. Which indeed it is.''   Which part is unclear? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We present the "no it is not a crime" with appropriate caution and doubt that sources use that make it clear that this not an absolute answer. And from the side that it would be a crime, no one has pointed to any specific law on leaking the draft itself (there are other crimes like computer fraud that could be involved). So I think we are presenting the best early it is given in sources. --M asem (t) 23:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. There was no mention that some legal scholars opine a crime was committed.  Then, something was added in.  Then, that was deleted.  Leaving us back to square one  ...  There being no mention that some legal scholars opine a crime was committed.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And from the side that it would be a crime, no one has pointed to any specific law - What? 18 U.S.C. § 641 is the statute in question. Please read Wired's piece on the matter https://www.wired.com/story/scotus-roe-v-wade-opinion-leak-legal-risk/ Endwise (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources detailing that the SCOTUS leak may constitute a crime:

 * But a former federal prosecutor tells “NewsNation Prime” on Wednesday that if the intent was to obstruct justice, the culprit could face charges. “It can range anywhere from obstruction, if the intent was to obstruct the process, theft of government property — we’ve seen those crimes filed before — perhaps a concealment or removal of government property but it’s really an internal investigation right now being conducted by the marshals of the Supreme Court,” David Weinstein said.  Source:.
 * COULD LEAKING A SUPREME COURT RULING BE PROSECUTED AS A CRIME? That depends on the origin of the leak and whether any crimes were committed in obtaining the document, such as hacking into a unauthorized computer. Drafts of Supreme Court opinions are not classified documents like national security files, said University of California, Berkeley criminal law professor Orin Kerr, meaning their disclosure would not automatically trigger a criminal investigation. But even a leaker with authority to handle a draft opinion could potentially be charged with stealing or converting federal government property for their own use, he said. Anyone who lies to an investigator as part of the court's leak probe could also face a federal false statement charge, said Kel McClanahan, an adjunct professor at George Washington University Law School who specializes in national security law. Source:.
 * That’s how serious this is and why the leak must be regarded as a criminal offense worthy of investigation, prosecution and imprisonment. [Author goes on to detail the various potential crimes committed.] Source:.
 * Detailed discussion / analysis of potential crimes. Source:.

Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The Heritage Foundation, NY Post, etc. are poor sources. The article already notes that hacking is a crime. Neutralitytalk 14:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You conveniently left out Reuters (also listed above). Also a "poor source"?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Dude, get lost. If I find a source, it's bad.  If you find one, it's good.  Yeah, right.  There are legal experts who say it's a crime, and there are legal experts who say it's not a crime.  There is disagreement.  There is no unanimity.  This incident (generally speaking) has never happened in the history of the country ... so, errrrrrr,  it's not a settled matter.  So, there are differing opinions from legal experts.  I gave plenty of examples.  Some from federal prosecutors.  We should disregard the legal opinions of federal prosecutors ...  but rely on some random anonymous Wikipedia editor ... for expert legal opinion and legal analysis?  Good thinking there!      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can't distinguish between tabloids/partisan think tanks and mainstream legal scholars cited in mainstream newspapers, I don't know what to tell ya. Neutralitytalk 18:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ok, dude. I'll take your word (random anonymous Wikipedia editor) over that of federal criminal prosecutors ... about whether or not a federal crime was committed.  Again, good thinking!    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Main issue here appears to be the breach of trust concerns raised by the members of the court; if they cannot trust each other in circulating preliminary versions of documents then this could be seen as an impediment to the expeditious sharing of information between members of the court. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that it is absolutely true that if a crime was committed in the course of obtaining this document, then that crime could be prosecuted as a crime. For example, suppose an infiltrator kidnapped and murdered one of the Supreme Court law clerks and dumped their body in the Potomac, and then impersonated that law clerk (presuming that they had plastic surgery in advance to look like the murdered clerk, and learned the clerk's voice and speech patterns, and enough about their personal knowledge to avoid suspicion). In that case, the perpetrator could be charged with a whole litany of crimes. Of course, whether any such crime has been committed is entirely speculative at this point. BD2412  T 03:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not speculative at all. We know that someone got access to the document.  And, having obtained access, gave (i.e., "leaked") the document to the news reporter.  The question is:  does that conduct -- in and of itself -- constitution a crime?   We "could" add in a lot of speculative scenarios (such as your fanciful kidnapper/murder situation) ... and speculate if that fanciful conduct was a crime.  But, we are going by the facts as we know them today.  Which are:    We know that someone got access to the document.  And, having obtained access, gave (i.e., "leaked") the document to the news reporter. There is no speculation in this known set of facts.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Much of the analysis of whether a crime was committed does seem to rest on whether there was, e.g., hacking, or an intent to obstruct justice, or false testimony. So far there is no information regarding any of those. Ironically, I happen to be a former federal appellate law clerk, and we were very thoroughly indoctrinated with the necessity of keeping circulating opinions confidential. The parameters of when a breach of confidentiality went beyond a firing/possible disbarment situation and became a crime were also clearly explained—using inside knowledge in exchange for material gain would cross that line. For example, buying or selling stocks based on the knowledge that a ruling was going to favor or disfavor a particular company, or directly selling such information about a forthcoming opinion to an interested party. It's been a while, but my understanding is that the relevant criminal laws and canons of ethics have not changed, except of course for the expansion of what constitutes a computer crime where unauthorized access is obtained. Note, by the way, that clerks at the appellate level will generally have authorized access to most opinions. On the court where I clerked, although matters were usually decided by three-judge panels, chambers would routinely circulate opinions of particular importance to the entire court for comment, and any clerk could offer their two cents. BD2412  T 05:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you were a former federal appellate law clerk I'm sure you're far more personally familiar with this than I am. But, the Wired article had this in it: Kerr suggests that any federal prosecutor seeking to make a case against Politico's leaker might have to resort to a far shakier statute, known as 18 U.S.C. § 641. That broad statute forbids the theft or misuse of government-owned "things of value"—a broadly written law seemingly designed at a surface level to prevent embezzlement or graft by those with access to the government's property. But whether it applies to information—and what kind of information, given to whom—remains an open question in federal law, with different circuit courts fundamentally disagreeing in their rulings. "Legal scholarship provides little clarity regarding § 641’s interpretation... And that seemed to be supported by what the WaPo article said The law that could be at issue is 18 U.S.C. 641 — which prohibits the theft or receipt of stolen government information, as well as theft of the documents. That could apply to Supreme Court documents. as well as the Reuters article: But even a leaker with authority to handle a draft opinion could potentially be charged with stealing or converting federal government property for their own use, he said.
 * Does that shed some light on why the note in the article is written the way it is? Endwise (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ambiguities in the criminal law are generally resolved in favor of the accused, on the grounds that the law should be clear enough that what is prohibited can be understood. I would assume that misuse of a court opinion based on being "of value" would involve gaining some value from the misuse, but I could be wrong. Bear in mind, of course, that getting fired from a job at the U.S. Supreme Court, and simultaneously being disbarred (both very likely consequences if the leak comes from a law clerk) are highly unpleasant consequences. We work for years to get into a good law school, graduate, pass the bar, and get a clerkship. Virtually all Supreme Court clerks graduated near the top of their class and did a federal appellate clerkship first, so the future they are throwing away is immeasurable even without a criminal conviction attached to it. Another thought that has occurred to me, by the way, is that a lot of this work is now being done from home. I did plenty of work on draft opinions from home, briefs and notes spread out on the coffee table and piled on the floor by my desk, and that wasn't even a pandemic time. My wife has no interest in that work, but if she did, I'm sure she would have been able to get a look at whatever I was working on. It could have been a spouse, which would be unauthorized access. BD2412  T 05:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Republicans have also argued in a letter to the AG Garland and FBI Director Wray that the leak may violate . https://johnrose.house.gov/media/press-releases/us-rep-john-rose-leads-house-republicans-call-justice-department-and-fbi I was planning to specifically say that in the article, but since you guys are having a general discussion of whether the leak was criminal, I'll just point it out for you guys. Phillip Samuel (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits by P3Y229
, I am of the opinion that the consecutive edits in this difference are not helpful to the article and should be reverted. Specifically, they include unusual capitalization which is not standard in ordinary English and include redundant references, such as the one to a German language source. I don't see why German is necessary when there are already English sources. Also, the TV pundit you cite was previously described as "a law professor and former acting solicitor general of the United States", but you changed it to "a law professor at Georgetown University who formerly served as acting solicitor general of the United States". That hurt readability, if only slightly.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the attribution.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. Apoglogies for any edits which hurt the readability of the article. This is not intentional for I am not a native English speaker familiar with all the details of the English language I found the proposal forwarded by Neal Kumar Katyal and the associated sources in an online article of a german newspaper. In order to document all the sources I added German language source. The change you cited is a result of content I copied from Roe v. Wade wikipedia article. I corrected the change to improve readability. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you for explaining. Other non-standard English: the capitalizations for "Judical Branch Congress"; it would normally be "judicial branch, congress". And the spelling of Judical is Judicial. In my earlier post above I failed to note that you have two references, dated June 7, 2021 and May 17, 2021, both listed under the section for the reactions to the leaked draft. Because they documented things which happened prior to the leaked draft, please remove them from this subsection.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing that you have stopped editing, I went and adjusted it, added more material, and also moved it to the most appropriate section given the time period of the references; I am no longer asking for the removal of the 2021 references since the section is different now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , : Since Masem just removed the "anti-" position, I'm going to remove the stuff about Katyal as well to keep it NPOV.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @ Epiphyllumlover: Thanks for the intel on Masem and your information about the content removal. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about this, those statements were specifically about the Act on Congress and had nothing to do with Dobbs or the leak directly. They'd be appropriate on the page about the Act but not here. --M asem (t) 13:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern about relevance to the article and am willing to go along with it; the NPOV issue is a separate although related concern. Should the article cite a TV pundit's advocacy one way, but not a think tank member the other way? Both could fit on the Act article instead.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree there may be a bit of UNDUE of what expertise this person brings to the article in that regard. --M asem (t) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In its place, I'll add the Act as a "See also" article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Added leaks reported today, removed?
@Masem Can you please explain your revert of my edit? I don't understand how you consider the new Politico article I was citing as not a leak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization&oldid=prev&diff=1087368516&diffmode=source Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The inside reports of how justices may be voting aren't "leaks" in the way a whole opinion was leaked. As for the news from Politico, anything now that is coming out for the Court should be taken as suspect since the Court reported said they were clamping down on these. Remember that we are under two months from the actual release of a decision, and to that end, we should really wait on that or at least wait for more possible fallout to see what stories like this are necessary to include. This is basically avoiding going too far down along the NOT#NEWS line. --M asem (t) 01:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you are stating that inside reports of how justices may be voting aren't "leaks", I could accordingly just remove half to all of the second paragraph in that section. Considering that the Court made their statement on May 3, that would include removing the WaPo and CNN reporting in that section. Phillip Samuel (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of the panic at the time the leak was out is that Politico also reported in the same report that it has the five majority to be passed (as of Feb). The new information really doesn't change that at this point, just saying that it remains the only draft and no other opinions yet have been drafted. --M asem (t) 02:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's only addressing the first Politico article. You've already characterized inside reporting after the Court's May 3rd statement as "suspect" and such stories are not necessary to include.The WaPo reporting would still then merit removal. Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Its basically at the end of the day, the new Politico source says it is the status quo since the first leak. As we are not a newspaper, there is no need to include the status quo update legit or not in the article. --M asem (t) 21:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Background: Justices Ginsburg and Barrett
The statement "Barrett is seen by some as having anti-abortion views" seems a little disingenuous, considering she signed her name to multiple statements and advertisements that "oppose[ed] abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death," and "call[ed] for the unborn to be protected in law."

Ginsburg was also pretty candid about her position on abortion, calling the decision "whether or not to bear a child central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity." Extremely Online (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is that we don't have a statement from either Justice that says they are pro or anti abortion explicitly, so we have to ge cautious and not put either all in. --M asem (t) 16:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Both Ginsburg and Barrett's actions and statements on the matter indicate pretty explicit stances on the issue. Extremely Online (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is zero doubt in both cases. Jibal (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We as WP editors actually cannot go there as that's a violation of OR. We need sources explicitly calling them pro choice or anti abortion, otherwise we have to leave it as this "suggestion" that they are. --M asem (t) 21:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems easier to label Barrett than Ginsburg, but maybe after some decades that could change. A tricky thing about Ginsburg is that she spoke her mind on things. Prior to becoming a justice she took up a high profile case for a military woman who wanted to give her child for adoption rather than abort as the military policy at the time would have made her do. She was not anti-abortion, but did not always conform her statements to a pro-abortion rights narrative either. Although she typically voted in a pro-choice manner, she shared one or more draft opinions with Thomas to help him write his.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Re Ginsburg: the issue isn't really whether she was pro-abortion but whether the decision to have an abortion or bear a pregnancy should be made within the private conception of a patient and their doctor, or mandated by the state. Ginsburg's candid statements during her own confirmation hearing (where candidates are typically pretty reticent to discuss controversial matters) state that she thinks that the decision to bear a pregnancy is a private one. I'm not going to attempt to divine her private thoughts on the issue of abortion itself and its morality, but it seems like she had strong views about decision-making. Extremely Online (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Including all four named parties
I think the article should mention all four named parties instead of just Dobbs and JWHO. The two on one side are JWHO and Sacheen Carr-Ellis and the two on the other side are Dobbs and Kenneth Cleveland. One difficulty is that it appears that Sacheen's name is now Sacheen (Carr-Ellis) Nathan, but in the court documents her name is Sacheen Carr-Ellis.

I also think the article should clarify why "Dobbs" is named first, when in "Roe v. Wade", Roe was the plantiff. (I am not sure why).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Masem, for naming all four parties. Is "Dobbs" named first because the state is asking the courts to overturn an injunction?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Identifying who is the respondent
Masem, I noticed that you reverted my edit stating who was the respondent. I was trying to clarify what Jackson Women's Health was. Yes, the reader knows that the clinic is the other party by this point in the article, but they do not know that the clinic is the respondent. After you reverted it, I added an efn note instead. The efn note gives the answer to the question of why is it is Dobbs v. Jackson instead of Jackson v. Dobbs, just as Roe v. Wade had Roe listed first as the plaintiff.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Masem, you reverted this (spelling corrected):
 * "A petitioner is basically the same as a plaintiff, with the opposing side termed the respondent instead of the defendant; see Plaintiff or Petitioner, Defendant or Respondent? by Jedidiah McKeehan, The Knoxville Focus} }"
 * Do you have a better way to indicate that this is a petitioner / respondent case rather than plaintiff / defendant?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The standard details of how the court operates are laid out at Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States, and specifically at the "Reporting and citation of cases". There's no need to back up that far, as being a SCOTUS case, we assume the reader has some basic law information to understand this. --M asem (t) 05:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That was likely the case before the leak, but certainly not after the leak. The majority of readers to this article now are people feeding Dobbs v. Jackson into Google or Bing after they heard about it somehow. The average American reads at a seventh or eighth grade level. This is their chance to pick up some basic law information. Wikilinks, efn notes, and in-text clarifications make sense given the new situation. Plus the article should clue the reader in as to why "Roe" came first in Roe v. Wade, but "Jackson" doesn't come first here.
 * "Reporting and citation of cases" talks about how to cite things, with petitioner/respondent only coming up incidentally in the context of citations. It isn't even possible to meaningfully wikilink a petitioner or respondent from this article to the section.
 * And even if the person is familiar with law terms, did you notice how it abruptly goes from "filed suit" to "petitioner"? When did it go from being "Jackson v. Dobbs" to "Dobbs v. Jackson?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Restore the pictures of the lower court judges
wrote "their pictures aren't necessary. The judges were just following precedent, they made not real opinions, hence not significant. Their images are WP:UNDUE. I think the pictures of the two judges should be restored. They are appropriate because they show, to even the casual skimmer who scrolls down without reading much, that Dobbs did go straight to the Supreme Court, but had a "pre-history" before it became publicized so much in the media.

The judges' opinions are significant in that they appear in commentary left at the Supreme Court level in the briefs and also the two scholarly articles which are cited in the main article text. It isn't merely that they concurred with "Roe", the nuance of how Higginbotham affirmed Roe was thought to be significant by the author cited for his quote. In addition, at the time of their rulings, "Dobbs" was not as narrow of a case as it is now. Small details earlier on mattered in that they helped to shift the case in the directions it went later. The lower court opinions actually were "real opinions".

I am asking for the pictures of the lower court justices to be restored.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think their removal is fair. As noted, their decisions did not establish a new precedent or the like, but instead followed establish case law. Their opinions, following in line with Roe and Casey were not provocative, but instead, that they ruled that way was expected by anti-abortion supporters as to make this a vehicle to take to the Supreme Court. If anything, its the Mississippi governor that should have their picture, since he expected the law to be facing a lawsuit at the time they passed it. --M asem (t) 22:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I almost added his picture too, but all the pictures for him were old and showed him looking younger than he is. If you upload a newer one that would be great. Also on the same side could be a picture of Dobbs, Cleveland, and Falk. Attorney General Falk is not a named party, but appeared before the Supreme Court and appears to be handling press for Dobbs and Cleveland.
 * I couldn't find any pictures of the Jackson Woman's Health building or of Sacheen Carr-Ellis, now known as Sacheen Carr-Ellis Nathan.
 * I couldn't find any pictures of the three lawyers during oral arguments. Months ago I messaged someone who did court watercolors to see if he could donate one of his pictures for this article, but he didn't respond.
 * It is possible no copyleft pictures exist for the people I've named. Would you support adding a link to copyrighted versions of their pictures under External Links?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any pictures of the three lawyers during oral arguments. Months ago I messaged someone who did court watercolors to see if he could donate one of his pictures for this article, but he didn't respond.
 * It is possible no copyleft pictures exist for the people I've named. Would you support adding a link to copyrighted versions of their pictures under External Links?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is possible no copyleft pictures exist for the people I've named. Would you support adding a link to copyrighted versions of their pictures under External Links?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Gertner-Reinstein opinion
Greetings! Regarding this revert - this opinion piece is actually written specifically in response to the leaked draft. Perhaps I should make that more clear; would it help to change "the idea" to "Alito's idea"? -- Beland (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We should avoid including too much analysis on the leaked draft since that is not necessarily final. Just enough to understand what it would do if it did turn out to be final. If that does actually remain the final one, they we can include analysis of the final decision like that. --M asem (t) 03:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? It's one of the biggest events in U.S. national politics for the midterm election cycle, with tons of coverage in the national press, and we've got a whole article on the resulting protests. Criticism of the leaked draft by notable commentators will always be relevant, because there will be a big question of whether or not the court was swayed by it, looking at changes between the draft and the final version. -- Beland (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We can report on the events caused by the draft, but because the court has said the draft itself is not final, any analysis now is premature because it would all be wiped out with a different amjority opinion. --M asem (t) 03:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked for reviews about the draft's content and all I found were politically oriented ones, either left or right. I wondered about compiling a list of reviews on each side and adding them in groups to the external links, but thought others would object. I agree that referencing them in the article would be a mistake. Someday, a large number of law journal articles will be available and then it should be possible to even write a separate article about the content of the leaked draft.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the point of having a "Reactions" sections under "Leaked draft opinion" is if we don't collect notable reactions to the draft opinion there. Clearly it already contains political reactions, given the protests are mentioned and Joe Biden's predictable condemnation and comments from Republicans condemning the leak. I'm not sure why Biden is allowed to call it "radical" but Gertner isn't allowed to explain why someone would say that with some examples. We might not need a comprehensive list of all the opinion pieces about this leak, but a summary of the views on all sides is certainly necessary to make this section complete. Here's a summary that might be a good starting point:
 * When a regulatory agency proposes draft regulations, and they are changed as a result of lobbying by a particular political faction, if it's notable we would mention the fact that the advocacy happened and that it had an effect. The fact that public comment or politics influenced the outcome will always be part of history, and that's not "wiped out" when the final rule is published. (And if no changes are made, the criticism applies to the final version.) I often do remove mention of intermediate events since they aren't really notable in light of final events, but in this case, I think we do actually care because the difference between an opinion which does and doesn't do these things is rather broadly striking. It's also an interesting insight into originalism (which I should probably have linked to), which is at the center of the dispute of how this type of case is decided. -- Beland (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I share some of your sentiments, and even some of your energy. Would you like to make an article titled User:Beland/Reactions and criticism of the leaked 2022 Dobbs draft and move it to the main articlespace when you are done? (It is possible to get just "Dobbs" in italics using Page_name.)


 * In order to fend off criticism that the new article is not neutral, it could be divided into at least two sections at first for liberal/conservative perspectives. Only perspectives would be allowed for the scope of the article, not events such as protests. Later on, a third section could be added for reactions and critical analysis from the legal profession; pre-existing scholarly components of the existing liberal and conservative sections could be cut and pasted into a third section for scholars. The article would be allowed to have as sources anything that is not depreciated for sourcing opinions from. Such an article (I think) would be able to outlast a Supreme Court decision this summer.


 * I could try and help you on it if I am not topic banned first, and I don't think I'm the only one out there who would be willing to help. You could post it around on different talk pages and noticeboards to attract interest in it.


 * After you publish it, a line or a link could be added from this article to the new article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, having any analysis of the leaked non-final opinion is speculation of speculation, and not suited for WP, even if there are multiple sources that go over it; this is what NOT#NEWS is all about. If the leaked opinion is final, then an analysis of that becomes appropriate. If the leaked version never comes to pass, then the analysis of it is useless for us. A lot of commentators have discussed all the flaws in Alito's arguments but on something we don't know if it is the official decision or not, its a lot of hot air at this point. --M asem (t) 23:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation; these are real reactions to what has already been published. Reactions to the draft are notable regardless of the final decision, which is why there is a "Reaction" subsection and a whole article on the nation-wide protests that resulted. This is not merely breaking news; it's a notable part of history. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are topic banned, you should not be participating on this talk page. I will seek additional opinions. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not yet, wait and see what happens.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Jane's Revenge
Should the "Jane's Revenge" group and/or the two arson incidents be described under "Reactions"? Sources: a number of them linked at the bottom of this letter and also came across wpr covering it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As there's very little news coverage of those, its somewhat UNDUE to include them, particularly on the political aspects that the call is being made. --M asem (t) 03:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you see references one through two for the first link? It seems like a decent amount of coverage.
 * A list of sources covering the threating letter:
 * wispolitics
 * The Guardian
 * The Federalist
 * Newsweek
 * Washington Times
 * NBC Channel 15 (also NBC 26)
 * WGLR
 * MacIver Institute
 * Yahoo
 * Madison.com
 * St. Louis Today
 * Kenosha News
 * Lincoln Journal Star
 * The Chippewa Herald
 * Omaha World-Herald

--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There is coverage of it, sure. But is it relevant to this article on this specific supreme court case? I clicked on a few of those articles and ctrl+f'd "Dobbs" and found no results. Maybe you could write something about it at 2022 abortion rights protests in the United States, but it's not all that relevant here. The "Reactions" section is in part a summary of the article on the protests anyway. Endwise (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A quote from Business Insider:
 * "While this attack was directly provoked by the leaked draft opinion from the US Supreme Court in the Dobbs case earlier this week, this has far broader implication,' said Julaine Appling"
 * The list of links was limited to those about the threatening letter. The letter came after the arson in Madison, Wisconsin. The first round of news articles which dealt with the arson, but not the letter (because it came too soon) mentioned either Dobbs or the leaked draft. The links about the threatening letter do not necessarily mention Dobbs, but I infer that this is because Dobbs was already discussed in the first round of news articles about the arson.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This supreme court case is the background for these protests, yes, but not all of the information that can go in 2022 abortion rights protests in the United States should go in here. Endwise (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * at Talk:2022_abortion_rights_protests_in_the_United_States, Rhododendrites stated that the article was about "demonstrations/rallies/marches" and that this would fit if the article was about "Reactions". "Reactions" happens to be the name of the section in question on this article.
 * What should the threshold be for relevancy? I understand and can accept that two acts of arson isn't enough. I know it sounds callous, but would you agree to mention it if/when four separate buildings have been attacked?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that this articles focus is the court case, the arsons would have to be tied directly to it in multiple sources, now just a couple passing mentions. As these have not really gotten news coverage, it would be also undue to cover ut per NOTNEWS. --M asem (t) 15:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Rhododendrites said if it were reactions "then maybe", and also said Perhaps it doesn't yet have the weight to add to the main article (you've made a long list which includes some decent links, but it's also padded with many duplicates, unreliable sources, and press releases). I.e. whether it's due weight here is a conversation for this page. That doesn't mean what I said should be used as an argument to include here. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your conundrum. Personally I think it's fine to include in 2022 abortion rights protests in the United States (though I maintain not here), so I'll go and write a response over there. Endwise (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whichever article it goes in, maybe in-text attribution of the link between Dobbs and the arson would be best. It could be attributed to a single politician or a group of them. Some more sources: NY Times; CNN (with a picture of graffiti which ties it to Dobbs ); this letter from Hawley (cited in the media) attributes the violence to the leak and mentions the arson in Madison; same with this letter from Fitzgerald (cited here). Psaki references the incident indirectly with the statements starting with "MS. PSAKI: We have not seen violence..."; she also groups it with other reactions to Dobbs; also see The Hill for a generic condemnation from the White House.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whichever article it goes in, maybe in-text attribution of the link between Dobbs and the arson would be best. It could be attributed to a single politician or a group of them. Some more sources: NY Times; CNN (with a picture of graffiti which ties it to Dobbs ); this letter from Hawley (cited in the media) attributes the violence to the leak and mentions the arson in Madison; same with this letter from Fitzgerald (cited here). Psaki references the incident indirectly with the statements starting with "MS. PSAKI: We have not seen violence..."; she also groups it with other reactions to Dobbs; also see The Hill for a generic condemnation from the White House.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSS, the Federalist is considered generally unreliable, partisan promoter of conspiracy theories. Washington Times is considered a partisan marginally reliable source. The Yahoo source is syndicated from Fox News. There is no consensus on Fox News' reliability when it comes to politics and science. The MacIver Institute is a "conservative think thank." The last six articles are syndicated versions of an identical article by Chris Rickert of the Wisconsin State Journal. The basis of their story is a tweet from @antifawatch2. The Guardian, Newsweek cites the Rickert article as their main source. The wispolitics link points to a press release written by a Republican senator. See WP:NEWSORG and Churnalism. None of these articles are able to verify the authenticity of Bellingcat's claims. Leave it off. Kire1975 (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Kire1975, you copied this over from my copy-over section on the other article talk page. That section didn't have my 18:31, 17 May 2022 comment which links to more and hopefully better sources. If a primary source is helpful, there is a template for citing graffiti:
 * --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This addition made today would complement a brief, in-text attributed mention of the arson in Madison. I propose adding a sentence following the new sentence in the link: "Multiple officials[ref1] associated an incident of arson and graffiti in Madison, Wisconsin as a reaction to the leaked draft.[ref2][ref3]" Ref1 has the letters by Psaki, Johnson, Hawley, and Fitzgerald. Ref2 is the NY Times link above, and Ref3 is the CNN link. Alas, the graffiti template will not be used.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BI: There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked.... The reliability of press releases is addressed above. See again WP:NEWSORG and Churnalism. Kire1975 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposal immediately above cites NY Times and CNN, but not Insider.--Epiphyllumlover (talk)
 * The NY Times and CNN articles don't WP:VERIFY the cause of the fire or the identity of the perpetrators or their reasons for doing it. Kire1975 (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * CNN says, "vandalized and damaged by fire" and NY Times says "was set on fire on Sunday morning in an act of vandalism that included the attempted use of a Molotov cocktail and graffiti that read “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either,” according to the police."
 * This should be good enough to substantiate the phrase "incident of arson and graffiti". I do not prefer to say "fire" instead of arson to indicate that although a Molotov cocktail was used, the fire possibly could have been natural. That doesn't make any sense because thrown Molotov cocktails don't cause natural fires.
 * ref1 would have a link to four different public officials' statements: Psaki, Johnson, Hawley, and Fitzgerald, which would be the "multiple officials" for in-text attribution. For other readers I'll copy and paste the full text again again:
 * "Multiple officials[ref1] associated an incident of arson and graffiti in Madison, Wisconsin as a reaction to the leaked draft.[ref2][ref3]"
 * The statement would be neutral because you wouldn't know from the sentence what side did what. Instead it would just say that it happened. This should accommodate your concern that it was a false flag attack although there is no indication in the media that it was a false flag attack.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * NBC 26 mentions repeated claims that the attack may have been a false flag operation. Kire1975 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ref1 would have a link to four different public officials' statements: Psaki, Johnson, Hawley, and Fitzgerald, which would be the "multiple officials" for in-text attribution. For other readers I'll copy and paste the full text again again:
 * "Multiple officials[ref1] associated an incident of arson and graffiti in Madison, Wisconsin as a reaction to the leaked draft.[ref2][ref3]"
 * The statement would be neutral because you wouldn't know from the sentence what side did what. Instead it would just say that it happened. This should accommodate your concern that it was a false flag attack although there is no indication in the media that it was a false flag attack.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * NBC 26 mentions repeated claims that the attack may have been a false flag operation. Kire1975 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * NBC 26 mentions repeated claims that the attack may have been a false flag operation. Kire1975 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know. A larger quote from the article, going off of Evans from Bellingcat:
 * "Evans added that he felt the statement should be reported for multiple reasons, including the repeated claims that the attack may have been a false flag operation, where pro-life activists would have staged the incident to turn public opinion against their political opponents."


 * "“I would be very surprised if this was not a legitimate attack,” he concluded at the end of his thread."
 * Yet the proposed text accounts for this by not saying which side did what. Can you accept this text?
 * "Multiple officials[ref1] associated an incident of arson and graffiti in Madison, Wisconsin as a reaction to the leaked draft.[ref2][ref3]"
 * --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove the part about the multiple officials (because they're partisan) and the part about it being a reaction to the leaked draft (because that's unverified) and there isn't much left that would be WP:DUE.Kire1975 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a statement from Madison Police Chief Shon Barnes which relates the arson to Supreme Court news. In the earlier four I listed, three are Republicans and one is Democratic; that the officials said it was a reaction would be verified by [ref1], which would include a link to the primary sources all within one set of ref tags. If secondary sources are needed covering the individual officials' statements, that could be compiled too, but I don't think it would be necessary. There are also other Republicans who co-signed a letter. Earlier, I was unaware of that there were more Republicans.


 * The part about it being a reaction to the leaked draft would be attributed, so it wouldn't have to be verified the way it would if it were unattributed. It would be enough that the letters said it was unverified.


 * Besides NY Times and CNN, this local tv station is another source I think will be considered acceptable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We have clearly been at an impasse for quite sometime. I hereby WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave any further discussion about this matter to the already opened WP:ANI discussion here. Kire1975 (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I accept that this is presently WP:UNDUE for this article. If more buildings are burned that could change, but I won't add it to the article without bringing it up here first.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Subject heading for Public opinion polling
I removed the subject heading for public opinion polling, but am open to re-adding it if the paragraph grows larger. Currently it is at two of the longer sort of sentences. Possibly there will someday be another reactions section for the main Dobbs decision. I expect there will be other opinion polls which could be located there. Because of the time factor the paragraph may not be able to grow much before the main Dobbs decision is released, and opinion polls won't be strictly looking at the reactions to the leak anymore.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the court is not influenced by the public, such information is not needed here. --M asem (t) 17:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me correct myself...I saw the addition and I do think there is room for a bit of expansion re: lack of trust in SCOTUS from the leak and draft opinion. (Not necessary on the court's stance on abortion) I've seen several RSOPINION pieces on this that would not be undue to include, but I would go much over than one paragraph on that. --M asem (t) 18:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fine with it if you want to re-add the heading I removed while you get around to adding the new sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * heading isn't required since its under impact.--M asem (t) 21:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Expansion of the part about the petition
Today I expanded the section about the petition. The Dobbs side got 121 words and JWHO got 170 words. That is close enough to be fair. I reworded a summary of the petition from CRS and I reworded a summary of the brief in opposition from Mississippi Today. Then I went back over the primary sources to find the page numbers and add them to the brief. , if you think this is too much for a non-landmark case, I will not contest you reverting it. Still I'd hope that you or could add it back if it does turn out to be a landmark case.

There was once a source on the internet which discussed a shift in the Dobbs side's argument between the brief for the petition and the brief filed for the oral arguments. I tried to find it again and couldn't; it might be offline now. In theory this could be added later sometime. There will probably be more sources about it later. Maybe some legal scholars would like to publish about Dobbs, but are holding off until the ruling to avoid speedy obsolescence.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it is, but more importantly, you need to fix the excessive duplication of the same citations. See the Inline page numbers in WP:CITEPAGE for how to use one ref but indicate page numbers. --M asem (t) 16:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The sfn template would save on the kilobytes. Yet the page does not currently use it already. You are okay with a bifurcated referencing format? I mean, using sfn for this and leaving most references unchanged?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Epiphyllumlover There are some sources on the internet which disccussed a shift in the Dobbs argument in their petition brief and merits brief. I think that differnce was mostly precedural, since they asked the Court to interpret Roe and Casey in a way that upheld the Mississippi law, but in their merits brief they straight up asked the court to overrule both precedents. From the source Various law professors with a background in court procedure suggest that the case should be dismissed as improvidently granted, because Mississippi’s argument in its cert petition did not include its principal argument on the merits (that Roe and Casey should be overturned). 1 Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There's no issue that when you are reusing a ref but refering to different page numbers in it to use that sfn format, where in other refs used once to not use the sfn format for page numbers. We defintely don't want to repeat the full ref-template each time. --M asem (t) 18:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Masem, I will work at fixing the references and hopefully get done before its too late.


 * Phillip Samuel, yes, you came across it too. I didn't know SCOTUSBlog covered it; SCOTUSBlog's source is a brief. My missing source was a large pdf that briefly covered a great deal of pending cases.
 * I looked for similar sources:
 * Washington Post (reprinted on page 4 of ::::this smaller paper which is not paywalled.)
 * NY Times
 * Justice on the Brink by Linda Greenhouse
 * Of these, my favorite for inclusion is Greenhouse.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Expansion of the part about the oral argument
Today I expanded the section about the oral argument. Rhododendrites reverted me on the basis that, "'Come on now. citing just the primary source to add three paragraphs of arguments... and saying them in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. 'Scientific knowledge has grown about 'what we know the child is doing and looks like' and we now know that fetuses are 'fully human' even 'very early' in gestation') is obviously not appropriate'" I responded by fixing it so the arguments are more closely attributed to the speakers during the oral arguments. If you want to review it, see Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization, starting with the second paragraph, but not including the last paragraph. As of right now in the part I added, the Dobbs side got at 185 words, while Rikelman and Prelogar together on the other side have 224 words. That seems a close enough word count to be an even amount of space. Prelogar's section is much shorter than Rikelman's because I summarized and restated that summary from the Congressional Research Service. In CRS there is less discussion of her arguement. Then I went back over the transcript which it cited and added the page corresponding page numbers for the particular parts of the arguments as references. Since I am about to be banned from writing about abortion, I'll soon be leaving question about how to write about the oral arguments solely to you all.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally on our scotus case articles we don't present that many details of the oral arguments from the perspective of the parties; they set out their logic in their petitions and responses prior. Instead, the oral argument is on the questioning the Justices given to these parties, which is used by court observers to speculate on how the case will be resolved. Thats not to say the cases each party presents to scotus is not appropriate but it should be framed from their petitions and responses in filings. --M asem (t) 20:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * CRS relies partly on the briefs to summarize the oral arguments; you can verify this if you want by reading page three and seeing where it mentions the briefs. I thought that was strange; but it could indicate the author used the briefs as a lens to interpret what was important in the oral arguments. There were a number of points in the oral arguments omitted in CRS, I avoided them and agree it would be too much.


 * Earlier I had added material about the oral arguments in Roe v. Wade, although it already had some material to begin with. No one ever challenged any of it, but maybe whoever would have otherwise challenged it was just waiting for a topic ban before bothering to remove or challenge it. Because of this I can't really say whether that new material about the arguments was appreciated or not. My inspiration of adding more about the oral argument for Dobbs especially came on reflection with the Roe v. Wade article. I had thought about adding to the oral argument section here around one or two weeks ago and never did, but figured I'd better do it now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue here is that we're acting on if this was already decided in the same manner as the draft opinion, making it a landmark case. If this is what happens, then going into details of oral arguments may make sense. But if it turns out to be resolved far differently as to not change the situation around abortion, then this analysis is excessive. --M asem (t) 20:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One way to handle it would be to wait and see what the eventual decision will be, and then remove it after the decision if that is best. Eventually this article will fill up to 40 kB of readable prose, now being at 21 kB; the day it reaches a larger size could also present a reason to remove it further down the road.


 * I assume Carr-Ellis and Prelogar are staying away from the media spotlight because the case isn't finished, but that could change. If Carr-Ellis and Prelogar match Weddington and Coffee's prominence in the media, describing their oral arguments would be a way to tie them into the narrative earlier on in the article.


 * Maybe you saw that the CRS summary was from December 13, 2021, before the leak, but this is me bringing it up in case you didn't.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You ate missing the point. The only reason there is attention now on this article about the leak, but we have no idea on the final decision. Thus we don't know what weight to give to explaining the oral arguments, and by standard practice we usually do not cover those in great detail for non landmark cases, since there us usually not that much coverage of them in RSes. We should wait to see if this becomes landmark to add, not before. --M asem (t) 21:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. So by that standard, Dobbs might not be a landmark case, so it shouldn't merit the extra treatment until it being a landmark is a sure thing. If you remove it, I won't be available to add it back if it turns out to be a landmark case in the next month or so. Maybe you or can do that instead? If you remove it now, I am not in a position to edit-war with you over it.


 * Another thought: even if the justices re-affirm Casey completely, it still might be considered a landmark case due to the the leak and the politicization. The politicization can be attributed partly to the inferences drawn from the oral arguments. The politicization relates to why the CRS summarized the oral arguments, which it usually doesn't do; the coverage was to brief the lawmakers and their staff about related legislation.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the case turns out to be a landmark decision, then it would be appropriate to expand on the written and oral arguments. For oral arguments, we usually go more in detail about the justices' reactions and questions, like what M asem said, since they sometimes hint on the outcome. The parties' arguments are usually left to the briefs. The case got an unusual amount of early scrutiny from the leak amid possibility that it could be a landmark case, so I can see why you'd be getting ahead. Even though a lot of people could guess it's likely, no one knows for certain so we shouldn't be too excessive in the interim according to WP:UNDUE. Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , in case you missed it from earlier up in the comments, others voted to topic ban me from abortion articles. It isn't implemented yet, but it will be soon. So that was motivating me to hurry up and write right away. I was writing as if it would become a landmark decision, because by the time we'll know, the topic-ban will be in place. If you feel up to it, you can comment here and request an exception to the topic ban for this article. It could be somehow arranged so that I would be allowed to edit this article under good behavior and under your ongoing approval. If you don't want to comment I understand, because once I stood up for someone who was targeted by a group, and in response disruptive behavior was directed towards me. It didn't go on for that long, though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Questions presented
Why are you removing the questions presented from the infobox? I think it's relevant to the history of the case, which is why I reverted your earlier removal of the information. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

What does the Traditional Latin Mass have to do with this?
We currently mention Traditionalist Catholicism in the lead, which is largely a liturgical movement that is focused towards preserving the Traditional Latin Mass. An editor has inserted it intothe lead repeatedly, while both I and others have struck this from the lead, so I'd like to open a discussion as to whether this is appropriate. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Personally I think that line is too early in the lede. There's going to be tons of analysis and reactions in the next few days, and I'd rather wait to see how they can be summarize before adding this, particularly in wikivoice. --M asem (t) 15:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've restored the content. I don't think that the sources cited support the phrase (none actually mention Traditionalist Catholics, and only one mentions the "Christian right"), and I'm pinging you to alert you to this discussion. Would you please self-revert? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

How is this not on the main page right now?
Doesn't it belong on the main page? Victor Grigas (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just got added. The ITNC nom was up in minutes after the decision, and per past issues at ITNC, we make sure there's a clear consensus from a large # of editors to post so "quickly". But its there now. --M asem  (t) 16:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Begin with "is" or "was"?
The case Obergefell v. Hodges, which ended seven years ago, starts with "is a landmark civil rights case" while this article begins with "was." Shouldn't we be consistent? YourJudge (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If we are talking about the case, it is was, as the case at the Supreme Court is over. If we are talking about the decision, which stands until it may be overturned, would be an "is". --M asem (t) 16:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you mistyped, but Obergefell uses "is...case" while this article uses "was...decision." However, someone seems to have suddenly changed it. YourJudge (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested edit
This seems to be a grammmatical error: "Those laws were criminally enforceable due to Roe but would be enforceable with Roe being overturned.". 142.127.118.145 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "eliminating federal involvement" should be removed, as the decision in Dobbs still allows Congress to pass a Federal law on abortion. Other types of federal involvement would be a Constitutional Amendment, started by Congress, or a new ruling by a later Supreme Court with a different membership. 2601:18E:8203:3360:F9FE:57A4:8CC8:3BC4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Current Events - Court Case Task Force
Just alerting editors that the WikiProject of Current Events has started a task force dedicated to this article/topic. Feel free to join and help the new Court Case Task Force by WikiProject Current events. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! Breastone (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Dissenting opinion?...
Has the dissenting opinion been published yet?

I'm curious to read it, having read the leaked draft (which presumably closely resembles the final decision) a month ago. -2003:CA:8725:A892:D436:14B8:AC54:BDCA (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire opinion document (which includes the dissenting and concurrence) is here [//www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf] Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court has published the full decision, including the opinion of the court, the concurrences, and the joint dissent. The decision is currently linked in the infobox, so I don't think there are any changes that need to be made to the article relating to this at this time. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm currently reading through the concurring and dissenting opinions. I think there is a good amount we could add especially in the Roberts concurring opinion. - TheBigRedTank (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We need to use what secondary sources pull from the opinion, we can't use the opinions directly outside of the "front page matter" (holding, etc.) I haven't seen direct quotes out of Roberts' yet, just a summary. --M asem (t) 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry still fairly new to this, could you please link me the part that we have to use secondary sources for that? - TheBigRedTank (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally WP:PRIMARY but as well as WP:NPOV. --M asem (t) 05:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also think that we will be able to fill this out a bit more. The big issue with doing that now is that there aren't really all that many sources that cover the opinion in-depth, so it might be proper to wait until SCOTUSblog or something with a decent reputation for legal reporting puts out an analysis of Roberts' opinion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

How many SCOTUS's previous decisions are overturned ??
How many SCOTUS's previous decisions regarding abortion are overturned by this one ?? Only two ?? There are a lot of other abortion cases, so lets not forget about it. I think those decisions are also overturned, just look here !! M.Karelin (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many in that category involve abortion somehow but are nothing to do with a right to have them. It's a good question, though. Maybe the answer is easier to glean from Category:Right to abortion under the United States Constitution. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many in that category involve abortion somehow - LOL, those cases were based on Roe and Casey. After overturning Roe and Casey, the cases in the Category are useless now. They are technically overturned. M.Karelin (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hawker v. New York took place 75 years before Roe v. Wade, so good luck getting that thrown out. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, most of the US abortion cases on Wikipedia are from later, but half deal with other clauses, amendments and constitutions, not the relevant bit of the 14th in the famous federal one. Those remain unaffected. Unless I'm confused. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, but most of them are based on Roe and Casey. In descent opinion, it is written:" So the Court, over and over, enforced the constitutional principles Roe had declared. See, e.g., Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U. S. 502 (1990); Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U. S. 417 (1990); Simopoulos v. Virginia, 462 U. S. 506 (1983); Planned Parenthood Assn. of Kansas City, Mo., Inc. v. Ashcroft, 462 U. S. 476 (1983); H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U. S. 398 (1981); Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U. S. 622 (1979); Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 (1976).". This list is bigger I think (with many recent cases, including Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt). Regards. M.Karelin (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * From "how we document it" standpoint, we can only go by what the decision/opinion says, which is Roe and Casey and nothing else. Yes, practically several other decisions would likely fall like the WWH one, but the opinion is mum on that so we can't document it. But we can look to secondary legal analysis that may assert these cases are effectively overturned as part of the impact. --M asem (t) 12:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

What did Anito wrote in the majority opinion?
"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the on on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely – the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mention in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.' It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives." Migfab008 (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Source Review Request - Donald Trump Reaction
Disclaimer: I am not familiar with Wikipedia editing standards or source standards.

Article currently states in section 5.1.1:

>In a statement, former president Donald Trump took credit for the decision and called it "the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation”

Following the links to CNBC and CNN news sources, neither news source directly or indirectly links to such a statement. Should this text be retracted until an official or original source of such a statement is added?

216.36.140.33 (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, if the source is already reliable, and they then say "X said Y", we accept that it is likely true. --M asem (t) 19:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Significant vandalism following monumental decision
I requested semi-protection while this news breaks out. There is already vandalism ongoing. Phillip Samuel (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Not surprising! Should have been expected.  When is WP going to use flagged revs or pending changes?  Volunteers waste too much time on the shit from the vandals!!! 101.98.39.246 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022
There is a typo on this page: please change "exanple" (under "Reactions to the decision") to "example". Thank you! Sage Olson (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Religious inspiration for decision
Some notable people like Elizabeth Warren see this as six people forcing their religion upon everyone, can others please expand to the criticism section about this very important viewpoint as more notable people state the same or third party sources write up on the angle in reference to this religious decision. Thanks, Of 19 (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as you can source it through secondary sources, and not directly through primary or social media, then yes. Having secondary coverage assures there is WP:DUE inclusion criteria. --M asem (t) 02:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ugh, added despite the obvious notability. Of 19 (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know it may seem obviously, but nearly every major figure is putting out some response to the decision and per UNDUE we want to focus on those identified by RSes as significant. I'm not saying this wasn't, but having the source helps to keep this section from becoming too muhc in the weeds. At a later date we'll probably need to refine it down further. --M asem  (t) 03:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * While this is a valid concern about 70% of US adults consider themselves Christian, and there are no pro-abortion Christian scriptures. Also consider that the entire constitution was written by Christians - and that is where these judges look to make their decision. Why would their religious viewpoint be "the federal government cannot make laws to address the abortion question"? That is all they decided. That states must make the laws. That is not a religious matter at all but one of constitutionality. 92.193.218.178 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * there are no pro-abortion Christian scriptures Not to get too WP:FORUM-y, but many denominations would beg to differ - See Christianity and abortion for a taste. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 10:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * you DID get too WP:FORUM - and so did the previous poster - keep your personal discussions OFF of the TP's and discuss RS's to improve the article - I won't say "thank you" because both of you know very well you shouldn't have done it in the first place, and an admin should delete our last 3 comments from this section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.86 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "the federal government cannot make laws to address the abortion question"&mdash;I'm not sure that SCOTUS has ruled upon that matter. It simply said there is no right to abortion guaranteed by the constitution. It did not say that the federal government cannot pass a law granting the right to abortion, since that is not in the constitution either. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
In the first sentence of the second paragraph of the gestational age act section, the phrase “intentionally crushing and tearing apart fetuses” is heavily biased in favor of the decision in the article, and ought to be replaced with the phrase “aborting fetuses” or a similarly neutral phrase. WahooSS238 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Definitely not what I had written or edited around. I just used "abortions". --M asem (t) 13:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Tesla supposedly paying employees to go to other states to have abortions
The source for this seems to be the LA Times article, but that article says: ''Tesla, which moved its headquarters from California to Texas last year, appears to back health coverage and travel reimbursement for employees seeking to end a pregnancy — although its language is not clear. The company added a line to its annual Impact Report in 2021 that describes “an expanded Safety Net program and health insurance offering that includes travel and lodging support for those who may need to seek healthcare services that are unavailable in their home state.” The company could not be reached for comment Friday.''

Wikipedia should not accuse companies of activities that might break the law in their home states on the base of speculation. Unless a better source is found, Tesla should IMO either be removed from the list. --Conspiration 02:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There's nothing accusational in this, its going off RS that says Tesla will offer such support, but doesn't bring up if that's legal or not under the TX law (since there's yet no proven case to work from). It's fine, and definitely not accusing Tesla of breaking the law. M asem (t) 03:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The corporate response bears watching. Corporations have legal counsel too. kencf0618 (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

the actual vote was NOT 6-3 or 5-4; it was 5-1-3
Roberts, via concurrence, joined the judgment, but not the decision to overturn Roe; but he also did not join the dissent. The ruling is 5-1-3
 * Quoting the ruling itself [Page 8]: "ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion."
 * Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sources have the ruling as 6-3 w.r.t. the Mississippi law, not 5-1-3. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The holding on overturning Roe and Casey was definitely 5-4. It's 6-3 re the Mississippi law at issue. As a general matter you could call it 5-1-3 if you wanted to group the different camps together. I suspect this complaint is regarding the ITN blurb, which just calls it 5-4... which eh. I take some minor issue with the blurb in general. But that's the nature of such summaries, to give the general idea without requiring a reading of the entire thing. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not 5-4; Roberts did not join the dissent and the primary source document, which is the ruling itself, makes that fully clear. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The holding to overturn Roe and Casey was 5-4. The ruling itself makes that fully clear. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the ruling does not say that. I've quoted the ruling verbatim; Roberts did not join the dissent. Only 3 justices dissented. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that what the vote is is not a measure made by SCOTUS, it is instead what legal experts determine. At this point, we have the 6-3 in the decision, 5-4 in supporting the majority opinion, both supported in sources, but not the 5-1-3 split idea. Its why its good to explain exactly what Roberts said. --M asem (t) 20:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The cited CNN article says the vote was 5-3-1. So I changed it to fit the source. Breastone (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nor does it say 6-3 then. If by your measure it has to say the words "5-4" or "6-3" then it says neither. My statement before, that the Court split 5 to 4 on whether to overturn Roe and Casey is true and, frankly, obvious on even the most cursory reading of Roberts' concurrence. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "5–4" erroneously places Roberts in a partial dissent, which he is not. That inference does not follow. It would be correct to state 5–3 to overturn Roe and Casey, with Roberts neither concurring nor dissenting on that part of the majority judgment — effectively an abstention. MaxWestEsq (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Roberts concurred with overturning part of Roe and Casey, though not entirely. So it's misleading to lump his opinion in with the dissent. MaxWestEsq (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * From a hard numbers standpoint, he did not join the majority opinion, so regardless of how much he said he would support overturning part of Roe/Casey, the opinion vote was still "5-4". It's why its best to do what we've already done, explain that Roberts joined the decision but not the majority opinion for these reasons. --M asem (t) 17:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if he did want to rollback some of Roe and Casey, he certainly did not endorse that they were "wrongly decided".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Only 3 justices joined the dissent; the verbatim quotation from the ruling itself makes that clear. If we call this 5-4, we are telling a falsehood; it was not 5-4. It's less false to call it 6-3, but that is also not fully true. The true votes, as cited to the original document, are 5-1-3. Calling it anything else is absurd. And given that the overruling of Roe/Casey is the most salient aspect of this case, the true numbers on that point must be made 100% clear. Five justices voted to overturn Roe/Casey. three dissented to that (and the underlying case). On the underlying case only, it was 6-3, on overturning Roe/Casey, it was 5-1-3 Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Organized protests?
The "opposition" all seems to be opinions of individuals. A lot of the news coverage focuses on protests in many locations.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The word "opposition" suggests that the section is for any prominent opinion opposing the ruling, which is in contrast to the "support" section, which is for prominent opinions in support of the ruling. The news coverage focusing on the protests are in the "other" section. Should the situation develop to the point where the protest deserves its own section, then we can add it later. SoupI (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The protests are covered under Other, since they are mixes of protestors on both sides (though so far there's far more abortion supporters there). --M asem (t) 18:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Got it.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * And should add that I created a new Public section for them too. --M asem (t) 02:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Does this actually prevent the federal government from intervening?
The article claims that the ruling prevents the federal government from interfering but this doesn't seem to be the case. Isn't it still possible for Congress to amend the constitution and pass new laws that would make abortions legal? RisingTzar (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Amending the constitution requires states' involvement as well, so it wouldn't be a federal action alone. Whether a federal law could be passed is doubtful (but this needs more legal analysis) due to the fact that Alito specifically talking about states' setting regulations. A strict reading (from sources we have) suggest a law affirming or blocking abortion at a federal level would not be possible. --M asem (t) 00:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Forget about amending the constitution. The constitution does not say that abortion is a right, it does not say that abortion is prohibited either. So, a federal law could trump state law, if passed. I'm not pro-choice, but I don't think that prohibition solves that problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM 46.97.170.139 (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

6-3/5-1-3/5-4 discrepancies
Plenty of talk in a few above threads with multiple perspectives about vote count, which seems to create unresolved discrepancies.

Next to Roberts' name in the infobox, there should be a footnote after "(in judgment)" that briefly summarizes in WP:NPOV how he voted and how his vote affected the scoreboard, as his decision is the crux of the entire set of discrepancies.

(Alternatively, the "in judgment" can be removed and the footnote placed after the "concurrence" that is aligned with Roberts' name)

The average layperson reader wants to know the simple support vs oppose score, and who’s on which side among the nine (and doesn't care much to distinguish between majority and concurrence, let alone disambiguate "concurrence in judgment" from a plain "concurrence")

The infobox word choice under "case opinions" (combined with lack of any explanatory notes or piped links for the judicial terms) poorly assumes a high level of nuanced and advanced judicial knowledge likely found among a very small percentage of the reader masses who are swarming the page right now. 76.231.173.249 (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Given that we go into depth in the lede to explain that Roberts only joined on the judgement and not opinion, we cover all the possible ways this vote could be counted as briefly as possible in the lede and infobox. It would be improper to make these infobox changes. --M asem (t) 13:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your excuse does not hold water. Roberts did not join the dissent. The vote to overturn Roe/Casey was not 5-4; only 3 justices dissented. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

6–3 or 5–4?
The article currently states that the justices ruled 6–3. Wasn't it 5–4, according to the first sentence of https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-00042244 (and other sources) or am I misunderstanding something? DanCherek (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe the decision to overturn Roe and Casey is 5-4, but the judgement in favor of Mississippi is 6-3. I agree that this has been a little confusing in sources Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The judgement is 6-3 as Roberts agreed that the Fifth Circuit should be reversed, but he did not join the majority opinion, only 5 were on that. --M asem (t) 15:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Beancounting those who supported overturning Roe the majority opinion it was 5-4. But Roberts concurred in Judgement, so the case was 6-3 on the decision to uphold Mississippi's abortion ban. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have tried to improve language on this to be clear 6-3 judgement, 5-4 opinion --M asem (t) 15:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to correct my statement above. as Roberts wrote that I agree with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare decisis analysis. That line never made any sense. He seems to put an argument for overruling Roe in part, so a clean count is going to be more muddled than most people are reporting. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Roberts said the Court should only consider the case before it and therefore should not say that abortion is not a right. He rejected the viability rule in Roe V. Wade, instead saying that 15 weeks was reasonable time for a women to decide to terminate a pregnancy.
 * Perhaps we could record two decisions. The first was to allow the law. The second was to determine women had no right to an abortion. We should anticipate expert commentary on the case in the days ahead. It may be that their decision on Roe v. Wade is dicta and therefore non-binding.
 * TFD (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As the ruling itself makes 100% clear, Roberts did not join the dissent; the vote to overturn was 5-1-3 Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This article, as currently written, proves that some here simply refuse to admit true facts from original court documents!!!
This sentence, which is currently near the top of the article (4th paragraph), is false: The Court ruled, 6–3, to reverse the lower court rulings; a more narrow 5–4 ruling overturned Roe and Casey.. It's false because a plain reading of the ruling itself makes it 100% clear that Roberts did not joint the dissent!! The ruling specifically states: BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. Roberts did not join the dissent; and saying otherwise is nothing more than deliberate propaganda. No wonder people do not have much respect for Wikipedia. The vote to overturn Roe was 5-1-3. Saying it's 5-4 is WP:OR propaganda bunk. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a "concur in part", either a justice voted for the majority opinion, or did not. Its a binary thing. Roberts did not join the decision so as sources have it, he is one of four that did not join the majority opinion. --M asem (t) 13:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You fundamentally misstate what a notation of 5-4 represents. It denotes and connotes that 5 were in favor and 4 were against. But that's NOT what happened here. Only 3 were against. On the point of overturning Roe/Casey Roberts did NOT joint the majority and did NOT join the dissent. And both Roberts and the notations on the opinion itself make that perfectly clear. Calling this 5-4 is fraudulent! Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The end of the Syllabus is the best place to read a concise summary of the official vote. In particular, CJ Roberts "filed an opinion concurring in the judgment." Concurring opinion briefly explains the legal term, albeit without citing a source. --50.43.100.212 (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

5th paragraph in lede is rife with unsourced assertions
The entire paragraph should be stricken from the article. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. Every statement in the lead appears later in the article and is cited there, as is acceptable per WP:LEADCITE. But, if there are particular sentences you think especially likely to be challenged, we can add citations directly after them as well, as is also proper. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going ahead and adding certain citations to potentially controversial statements. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:LEADCITE notes that The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. In general, this means that editors labeling X as contentious in good faith (particularly so for BLPs) is enough to warrant an inline citation. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Reactions to the decision" section has the corresponding citations. --50.53.209.79 (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022
Please add this sentence to the end of the “Reactions To The Decision” -> “Support” -> “Religious” paragraph:

Haredi Orthodox Jewish Agudath Israel of America welcomed the decision.

Please hyperlink the words “Agudath Israel of America” to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agudath_Israel_of_America & at the end of the sentence please add a citation link to https://agudah.org/agudath-israel-of-america-welcomes-supreme-court-overruling-roe-v-wade/

Thanks, Jeffrey Katz (jeffreyakatz@sbcglobal.net) 2600:1000:B168:50B6:885A:E360:A8B9:9B8F (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a relevant fact to add but a secondary source would be better. I'll try to find one. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, except using a different (secondary) source. Thank you. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Verbs
This is a general question about court cases. It was also brought up, above, I see. When we have such articles, should we be using the present verb "is" or the past verb "was"? Namely: Dobbs v. Jackson IS a Supreme Court case ... OR ... Dobbs v. Jackson WAS a Supreme Court case ... blah, blah, blah. I have seen inconsistency. I assume one argument is that, for 2022 cases, we use "IS" ... and for older cases, we use "WAS". But that is not consistent. And, is someone going to "go back in time" every year and change all of the old cases/articles? My position is that, regardless of the year (whether old or new), ... it still IS (not WAS) a Supreme Court opinion. The fact that a case was decided in 1896, for example, doesn't make it NOT a case today. In other words, the present tense "IS" is still appropriate, even for an old case. In any event, I want to know what our policy is ... as I looked up a few cases (old and new) and see inconsistency. For what it's worth, when Wikipedia has articles about old TV shows, it will say, for example, "The Brady Bunch IS a TV sit-com from 1969." Not WAS. It was a somewhat big "argument" for the TV show Wikipedia pages ... and I think they consistently use present tense "is" for any TV show, old or new. For what it's worth. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The MOS section you're likely looking for is MOS:TENSE. IMO, the case is but the trial was.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I am, here, talking about the written legal opinions.  For example ... see ... Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) ... they both use WAS.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that you say it this way, I think I agree that if we say "case", it will always be "is" (just like Romeo & Juliet "is" a play by Shakespeare). If we use decision, "is" also applies unless the decision was overturned, eg Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision... --M asem (t) 19:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I guess that opens up a Pandora's Box. Also, I disagree.  I would say that "Roe v. Wade IS a US Supreme Court case" ... (not WAS) ... it just happened to be overturned.  But, that fact (the overturning) doesn't make it NOT a Supreme Court opinion.  Also, many cases are "partially" overruled, and partially not.  I don't think we want to do a legal analysis of the legal merits on every case ... to determine the is/was question on verb tense.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The was/is distinct i gave was only for the language "decision", since a fully overturned decision is null and void. A case remains a case as long as it was heard...cases that are dismissed without any legal conclusion should be "was". M asem (t) 22:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "Was" is correct for overturned cases. See Hammer v. Dagenhart, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., Durham v. United States (1971), Nevada v. Hall, Roe v. Wade, etc., etc. "Is" is correct for standing or active cases. See Mitchell v. Helms, Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., etc., etc. Really though, you could use "was" for all of them, since I was a basket-case yesterday, just like I still am today. Joe  (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree "Is"=live cases, active precedent, etc; "Was" = overturned, mooted by new law, etc.Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. Makes some degree of sense. Now ... what about cases that are "reversed in part; affirmed in part"? I believe that happens quite often. In fact, before last week, wasn't Roe one of those very cases ... reversed in part, affirmed in part (by Casey)? What's the correct verb for such cases? Present "is" or past "was"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If part of a case is still active, I would use "is", but it should explain in the lede the partial overturning. M asem (t) 03:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022
According to the Wikipedia article for the court leader John Roberts, he is a member of the Republican Party, so please correct the discrepancy by making the following change:

Thank you.

(P.S. For consistency of information through the whole table, please also make the same correction for all other eight justices, by adding the appropriate letter for any who are also a party member) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.7.14.231 (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Not a discrepancy, it's adding information. Note that other folks disagree with the addition and there is currently ongoing discussion at Talk:John Roberts regarding a similar label in the infobox on the Roberts article.  Cannolis (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Justices are never classified by political party. They are broadly grouped into conservative and liberal ideological focuses, but that's not an official label so we don't include that unless partisan politics are in play (as is here) but we talk about it inline. --M asem (t) 13:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I follow. If partisan politics ARE in play and we all agree on it, then why isn't the party affiliation included? 46.97.170.139 (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Federal judgeships are non-partisan. See, also, WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. --50.39.229.6 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal/academic support
The section for support of the ruling is pretty scant compared to the opposition section and sticks pretty narrowly to the scope of conservative politicians, publications and religious leaders, which could be interpreted as not neutral by implying that support for Dobbs (and by extension opposition to Roe) is primarily politically and religiously motivated. Obviously that does play a part, but both Roe and the concept of substantive due process on which it's founded have also been subject to heavy criticism on the basis of constitutional law, with little or no relation to the abortion debate. If there are any notable statements of support for the ruling on a purely legal basis from experts in that field, I think they should be included. 2600:8801:710E:7E00:A8CD:9BA4:3AF4:F888 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good idea to me. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Given we have established that Alito did not change much of the body, there were several legal analysis calling out the historical fallacies at the time of the leak that we could use, that I was cautioning about including while we only had the draft, but now would be appropriate to include as long as its predicated that 1) the final didn't change much from draft and 2) these were draft-based analysis. --M asem (t) 00:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Some 140 amici curiae briefs were filed, and I have as of yet seen no legal analysis of which if any figured in SCOTUS' decision. (As in "Hey, this is good legal reasoning...! Let's us it!") I'm not even sure if that sort of legal parsing is done. kencf0618 (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling out historical fallacies in Alito's reasoning would go under criticism, not support. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Legal/academic analysis of the opinion would technically be neutral, even if they were harsh on Alito's reasoning. --M asem (t) 12:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The section is called Legal/academic SUPPORT, and the thread started is asking for the inclusion of legal/academic opinions that are favorable towards this ruling, because right now, all the legal and academic opinions cited are critical of the ruling and all supporting opinions are ideological ones.
 * Of course what the OP is asking for is impossible because the fact that opposition to Roe and support of Dobbs is purely ideological isn't a "non neutral implication" as the IP is claiming, but rather an objective fact. What you're suggesting for inclusion is by definition NOT support (but should be included regardless), and the reason why Legal/academic support for Dobbs isn't featured on wikipedia is because no such opinions are provided by reliable sources. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ...which could be interpreted as not neutral by implying that support for Dobbs (and by extension opposition to Roe) is primarily politically and religiously motivated.
 * That's a very good observation, and in no small part this implication exists because this is reality. That being said, you could find reliable sources showing that there is indeed legal and academic support for the ruling, then we could cite them. Good luck finding any. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Attacks on pregnancy centers and other violence
The pre-decision impact section mentions the protests outside the justices' homes, but doesn't mention the firebombing and vandalism attacks on preganancy centers around the country. Here are two references:

1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-attacks-on-crisis-pregnancy-centers-janes-revenge-abortion-roe-v-wade-violence-destroyed-11655653644 2. https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-investigating-attacks-pregnancy-centers-potential-acts-domestic-violent-extremism


 * The Fox news is unusable as a reliable source (related to politics), but the WSJ can be used in the leak section since these all predate the decision. --M asem (t) 18:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Antifa riot in Portland- https://www.foxnews.com/us/rioters-portland-graffiti-supreme-court-abortion-crime ; attack on Colorado pregnancy center- https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-pregnancy-center-supreme-court-abortion-crime-police ; attempted insurrection in Arizona- https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-senate-abortion-protest-hostage
 * I dismiss the first, disqualify the second and reserve my utmost belittling diminishment for the (distant) third, all with prejudice! Seriously though, in a neutrally compiled encyclopedic universe, one of the two wings of American political newsmongering would be tolerated. But this is the real Wikipedia and all the sunlight in the world can't yet disinfect that; good luck, and always remember, sign your posts. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In a neutrally compiled encyclopedic universe, one wing would NOT be tolerated, either both or neither would, on the real wikipedia one side IS tolerated but it is just not the side Fox News is on 50.208.67.245 (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Unsigned user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Please WP:DENY. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User #4697170139, thank you for remaining vigilant. Your order has been delayed, as we have not received certain required supplemental information from you, nor do we see it on file. Please reply at your convenience with any details you might have on why you feel reaction/aftermath content regarding alleged burglary, arson, mischief, vandalism, obstruction, threatening and/or insurrection is inappropriate, problematic or otherwise contrary to the pursuit of teaching and learning what happens after a court overrules two traditionally valued legal cases. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are arguing with an anonymous user who can't even be bothered to sign their posts, spams articles from unreliable sources. Protests to the overruling of Roe v Wade are happening, as they should be, because it's a flagrant violation of women's rights. Unfounded rumours of arson, vandalism and burglary on part of the protesters are spread exclusively by right wing outlets and picked up by anti-abortion and othet far-right talking heads on social media, in order to fearmonger and discretit the protesters.
 * But it gets worse. Wikipedia currently has not one but two articles associated with Jane's Revenge, a fictitious "far left" (lol), "pro-abortion" (double-lol) "terrorist organization" (OMG) which, for all we know, looking at available reliable sources and evidence, is likely to be nothing more than a hoax. A bogeyman to demonize people who support women's reproductive rights, and whip their extremist audiences into a frenzy, as the republican-controlled supreme court proceeds to erase more human rights.
 * Why does wikipedia not strike down this kind of misinformation? 46.97.170.139 (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That user has already received a reminder to sign his or her posts, the maximum sentence warranted under the circumstances. I don't know if Jane's Revenge is on the level or not, but that seems irrelevant here. This is about attacks on pregnancy centers and other violence. It makes little sense to describe these as "unfounded rumours" when we have photographs of the scenes, statements from the police departments investigating them, witness reports from state senators and a declaration of unlawfulness from an attorney general.
 * Whether such events are covered by a right-wing or left-wing source has no bearing on their factuality; when only one wing takes apparent crimes seriously, it merely indicates the other wing is downplaying them. It's entirely possible to simply say what was smashed, spraypainted or set on fire, without assigning blame to any person, group or ideology, pending convictions. Police haven't even charged any suspects yet, as far as I've read.
 * Anyway, your call is still important to us, and misinformation allegations are taken seriously. But you've yet to provide anything from a reliable source even suggesting the things described above are either fabricated, embellished or intended to whip anyone into a frenzy. Without such counterevidence, your complaint may be shelved as frivolous or vexatious. Thank you for your patience and understanding in these difficult times. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)