This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
My deletion and sourcing edits stemmed from discussion here: Talk:Pro-life_movement#.22Occasionally.22. I'd be glad to discuss it further. In summary, we have to consider the weight of specific instances. If something received no coverage outside of local newspapers and can otherwise be considered "isolated instances" that don't clearly relate to the topic in question (and thus lack secondary source analysis and commentary), then it doesn't belong here. Feel free to delete more which doesn't meet our guidelines, or add sources for ones using questionable sourcing. - Andrew c [talk] 15:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The US info is large enough for its own article and it is a notable topic. Splitting it out has been tried in the past but it was reverted. It goes without saying that a summary should be left behind. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you crazy? --> "Anti-abortion violence is most frequently committed in the United States" Stop lying please! It's ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.14.144.152 ( talk) 02:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It's fine for this article to concentrate on violence from anti-abortion people, and it's even correct to call the perpetrators that, as they are definitely not pro-life. For fairness, though, I do think it would be helpful to at least mention that there have been many attacks on peaceful pro-life people, as well. I don't have time to research this properly, so I will not be creating an entry for that aspect of the violence in the abortion wars, but here is a link to the most recent attacks, which will probably be conveniently treated as non-news by the biased major media outlets. http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9571020086.html Elaine in the middle ( talk) 21:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Elaine in the middle
However, this page lists a total of 17 deaths in the U.S and Canada. 17. I mean that sucks, but that's a pretty pitiful number to vilify pro-life or Christianity. (Just like atheists say Hitler and Stalin being atheist or anti-Christian is individual, not causal.) It's even more ludicrous in light of the fact that abortioners in the U.S alone are responsible for at least 50 million deaths since 1973. That's over 10 times the population of my country, dude. And it doesn't surprise me that it's affected people so badly some of them have tipped over to unforgiveable violence. Pro-life are trying to prevent an atrocity, pro-choice is trying to justify its own, and being the ones with the babies and the legalised choice, all they have to do is sit on their hands. Proportions of this type of violence would be naturally weighted towards the anti-abortioners, all things being equal; not that I know the numbers. I bet nobody would have been horrified during WW2 if anyone had killed 17 nazis, and the nazis didn't kill even half as many people. And they were at war. (Granted they had less time to do it.) It's fine not to mention all that in the article, since it's subjective sociology, but this doesn't mean you ignore factual data that there have been violent pro-choicers as well. If not here, then somewhere.
@ binksternet and roscelese: What bizarre comments. Are you trying to say that violence against pro-lifers is okay, and only violence against pro-abortioners is bad?
The reason that I agree to include at least a note on violence against pro-choice, is that there doesn't even seem to be a page for it on wiki. Reporting a factual statistic relevant to the subject is nowhere near some sort of 'unbalanced' addition. Unbalanced would be: 'Anti-abortioners killed 17 people. Pro-Choicers are murderous bastards.' Here's a couple of sites that just came up googled. Yes, it's pro-life (and who else would you expect to post it?), and I have no idea of the accuracy, but it's just an example. http://www.hli.org/index.php/abortion/230?task=view http://tree-in-the-sea.blogspot.co.nz/2008/05/pro-abortion-violence.html
If you go to all the effort of making this page, you can certainly dedicate a sentence or two for the other. That being said, anti-abortion violence should not be tolerated.
(Just realised that's 'attempted murders' but whatev. Still bad.)
SuperMudz ( talk) 07:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious that the Abortion and violence related to it is the subject of significant controversy. That much is indisputable. Therefore it should be the aim that edits to Wikipedia pages such as this should aim to be as neutral as possible in order to credibly inform the reader. Statements purporting to be facts should be demonstrable as such. Simple references to academic papers purporting to define as 'terrorism' activities such as violence in the context of anti-Abortion protests, while obviously undesirable and to be condemned, fall under the category of 'controversial opinions' rather than incontrovertible facts. References in this context to violence being 'terrorism' therefore should be carefully qualified given that the argument over Abortion is reflected in a wider society that is deeply divided on many grounds on the subject. Wikipedia pages should not attempt to take a position on one side or the other of the argument but simply reflect pure facts and the language used to make statements in disputed areas such as this should be carefully chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajw1971 ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
My point is that stating anti-abortion violence IS 'terrorism' as a plain fact is simply not accurate - either linguistically or logically - since it is not and, while there continues to be controversy over the subject, will not be universally accepted as such. Therefore it behoves anyone who is interested in maintaining Wikipedia as an accurate and unbiased source of information on the subject to accept that the qualification (which you have deleted twice) that anti-abortion violence is described by many academics (as is clearly referenced at item number 6 on the page) is the accurate description of the subject. It takes nothing away from the subject matter but it allows for the reader to decide for themselves whether it is or isn't 'terrorism'. Although I happen to agree that it IS a form of 'terrorism', my personal opinion is neither here nor there: rather that accuracy and lack of bias is more important in order to promote and continue trust in Wikipedia. The entry should be edited (in what is, after all, a very minor way) along the lines of "Anti-abortion violence is described by academics as a form of terrorism..." - it is not Wikipedia doing the describing, it is the academics who are referenced, therefore this should be made clear and by doing so, bias on the page itself is removed. Ajw1971 ( talk) 01:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Possibly I didn't express myself very well in my last reply - my argument is not circular if you read the whole sentence. I am stating that while controversy remains on the subject, reducing the appearance of bias for articles such as this one is important. Simply saying that 'anti-abortion violence is described by academics as terrorism' is a simple and incontrovertible truth and is directly supportable by the very fact that said academics are referenced directly in the links at the bottom of the article. Saying that "anti-abortion violence is terrorism" is to state a direct fact without an absolute proof. It is a case of accurate semantics. Surely accuracy is what is asked for on Wikipedia? Ajw1971 ( talk) 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
So you therefore agree that there is no harm in explicitly saying that academics have proposed that anti-abortion violence is terrorism then, when to say so is clearly truthful and backed up by evidence? As an aside, I would take issue with your suggestion that because an academic writes something it is therefore fact, because, since this is not a scientific proposition but instead tends towards philosophical points of view which cannot be measured in an empirical sense, simply having an academic writing a paper on the subject is not enough to settle the argument - it is simply a contribution TO the argument: for example plenty of academics write plenty of material on religious propositions - or the rebuttal thereof - but it's incontrovertible that religious propositions are not settled subjects in the same manner that, say, the theory of angular momentum is, which can be measured! In any case, a primary aim of a wikipedia article on any subject, and in particular one that is already recognised to be controversial, is to avoid bias or opinion - indeed the official instructions are clear in that regard. The very minor edit I am proposing is explicitly designed to avoid the impression of a subjective opinion being presented as an objective fact while not removing or detracting from in any way the information being presented in the article. It therefore complies precisely with the guidelines presented to editors of Wikipedia articles. Ajw1971 ( talk) 02:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I have added Chuck Colson's 1995 novel Gideon's Torch to the "Literature" section of the "Anti-abortion violence in popular culture" section of the article. Goblinshark17 ( talk) 02:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is about a change to the hyperlink in this sentence 'Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism specifically visited upon people who or places which provide abortion. Incidents include vandalism, arson, and bombings of abortion clinics, such as those committed by Eric Rudolph, and murders or attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, as committed by James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill, Scott Roeder, Michael F. Griffin, and Peter James Knight."
I think that the hyperlink to the WP page "abortion clinic" should read "women's clinic" as in women's clinic because that is the correct name. Women go to a health clinic, some offer abortions. They don't call themselves abortion clinics. You can't find a listing for Ye Ole Abortion Clinic or South Main Abortion Clinic in a directory. But you will find them named South Main Women's Clinic. My edit was reverted by StAnselm with this comment "This is the common, neutral name - changing the piping like that looks POVish." I contend that this is wrong, they are called women's clinics and that by not changing it it looks POVish.
Note: my change added the (that offer abortions) to clarify the edit I made. I add that health clinic (that offer abortions) is also a change I would support. I respectively welcome other comments on this change. Sgerbic ( talk) 15:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the individuals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating an anti-abortion reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this. [1]
References
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nickinajarian1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The article is called "anti-abortion violence" for a reason. Most sources that were provided didn't call it "terrorism". The first source I saw actually only contained a reference to a "Catholic priest declaring abortion to be terrorism". That is in itself a fringe claim. To say that "most academics" consider it as terrorism is not backed up by most academics; just because some Canadian official said so doesn't make it true; neither is citing one study from 1988. For it to be considered terrorism it has to be declared by the US Department of State or the Canadian Government in this case; neither have done so. Remember that terrorism is a common vague accusation. -- 92slim ( talk) 21:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires strict factual citations for all contentious material, particularly when involving living persons. While this article is not strictly a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it still uses in many places inappropriately vague language that cast aspersions on the motives of millions of living activists.
At a minimum, the section called "definitions and characteristics" should include citable statistics regarding its relative frequency. The sentence: "Some[who?] of those opposed to abortion have sometimes[when?] resorted to very public demonstrations of violence in an effort to achieve their objective of curbing abortions..." unfairly suggests that the "some" is a significant percentage of the anti-abortion advocates. This statement must accurate and factually identify the agents; it is meaningless without identify exactly "who" is resorting to violence. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 02:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
inappropriately vague language that cast aspersions on the motives of millions of living activists- see WP:BLPGROUP. If it's a large group of people, WP:BLP is pretty weak justification (otherwise any statement about "people" would be subject). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Zfish118 was originally reverted by Roscelese, then posted these talk page messages and immediately restored the edits. As he/she made a number of significant changes I've restored the old version until a discussion takes place ( WP:BRD). But here are the tags Zfish118 added for discussion purposes: — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Anti-abortion violence is considered to be a form of terrorism by the US Department of Justice and is most frequently[quantify] committed in the United States,[citation needed] though it has also occurred in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. G. Davidson Smith of Canadian Security Intelligence Service defined anti-abortion violence as "single issue terrorism"."
"Some[who?] of those opposed to abortion have sometimes[when?] resorted to very public demonstrations of violence in an effort to achieve their objective of curbing abortions. Those who engage in or support such actions[quantify] defend the use of force—as justifiable homicide or defense of others—in the interest of protecting the life of the fetus.";
"Anti-abortion violence is recognized as a form of Christian terrorism. Some[who?] supporters of such violence embrace this designation."
"The Army of God, an underground terrorist organization active in the United States, has been responsible for a substantial amount of anti-abortion violence. In addition to numerous property crimes, the group has committed acts of kidnapping, attempted murder, and murder.[quantify]"
Yes, I'm not sure what the problem is since most of these tags asked questions that were already answered in the article. Zfish118, can you suggest, on the talk page, ways to reword parts you deem unsatisfactory? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous issues with the "characteristics" section, which, being an introductory section, should be of the highest quality. I will outline specific issues below:
Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism specifically visited upon people who or places which provide abortion.{usually with the intent of disrupting abortion service, or intimidating other providers into shutting down, with an objective of curbing abortion} Incidents include vandalism, arson, and bombings of
abortion clinics, such as those committed by
Eric Rudolph {what did he do and when}, and murders or
attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, as committed by
James Kopp,
Paul Jennings Hill,
Scott Roeder,
Michael F. Griffin, and
Peter James Knight {what did they do and when}.
{Need discussion of scope, such as number of incidents (number of murders/arson/vandalism over what time periods in what geographic area), number of clinics nationwide/worldwide, number of protests, number of groups/individuals who commit violence relative to number of anti-abortion organizations/activists that do not. Such information is vitally important to understanding the issue, and is not documented anywhere in the article. If the data does not exist, a source describing why would be important to include.} Some of those opposed to abortion have sometimes resorted to very public demonstrations of violence in an effort to achieve their objective of curbing abortions.'{Redundant/vague; merge with first sentence} Those who engage in or support such actions {use as defense} David C. Nice, of the University of Georgia, describes support for anti-abortion violence as a political weapon against women's rights, one that is associated with tolerance for violence toward women. [2]{No issue, perhaps summarize Nice's research areas} Anti-abortion violence is recognized as a form of Christian terrorism.{Explicitly name who, or at least some, that identify such violence as terrorism} [3] Some supporters of such violence embrace this designation.{Explicitly name the group, Armed for Life, as embracing this. Weasely to say "some" when exactly one group is cited.} [4] |
-- Zfish118 ( talk) 20:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial enough without attempting to include a list of every depiction in "popular" media. These depictions are not necessarily factual, and do not necessarily contribute to the core topic of the article, actual violence committed by a small number of radical anti-abortion activists. Hence, I split the list of "Depictions in popular media" into a separate standalone list/article. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 03:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This section does not present any actual incidents of Pro-Abortion violence, and the sources provided are hardly reliable, NPOV sources. As it stands, it only presents the vague beliefs of an anti-abortion group, with sourcing to explicitly biased sources. As it currently stands, I don't think the section merits inclusion, and it would need less biased more reliable sources along with actual incidents. Prochoiceviolence.com and "The Anti-Choice Project" are NOT reliable sources for the serious claims being made. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 05:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose the following wording, to be added to the response section:
|
--
Zfish118 (
talk)
00:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn: I will not pursue this content. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
This sentence was not directly attributable to any source in the "anti-abortion reactions" section: "While still rejecting anti-abortion violence, a few anti-abortion leaders have tempered their condemnation of anti-abortion violence by suggesting that the harm created by crimes against property is small in comparison to the harm of abortion." -- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Nor was the intensifier "violent" in the source for the statement here:"[Benham] defended his organization's use of inflammatory, violent rhetoric, saying:" [1] -- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This article, in particular the "Reactions/Anti-abortion reactions", has many issues regarding the attribution of views to persons, most of whom are still living ( wp:blp). Many primary sources written by the individuals are used, and critical commentary had been added to the article without attribution to an outside source. I have removed some of the more egregious examples, but I would still appreciate additional comments on problematic content. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
This has got to stop; whole sale reversions are not helpful. This article has several serious issues regarding accurately reflecting what sources say, without innuendo. The last reversion, removed several well sourced statements that reflected the underlying source. In particular, the US Justice Department said:
Current domestic terrorism threats include animal rights extremists, eco-terrorists, anarchists, antigovernment extremists such as “sovereign citizens” and unauthorized militias, Black separatists, White supremacists, anti-abortion extremists, and other unaffiliated disaffected Americans, including “lone wolfs.” Domestic terrorism cases often involve firearms, arson or explosive offenses, crimes relating to fraud, and threats and hoaxes.
This source cannot be used to says that the Justice Department considers all anti-abortion violence "a form of terrorism". It says something very specific, and really, only addresses anti-abortion violence in passing. Several other edits discussed in detail above were included. Please address specific issues individually.-- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
References
@ Zfish118: I understand that you're motivated by the desire to give a favorable portrayal to a living person, but that's not an excuse for giving an inaccurate representation of someone's writings. It is simply not the case that Scheidler's document focuses on violence being bad or contrary to "pro-life". It focuses, rather, on how 1) it's not an effective strategy, because it makes "pro-lifers" look hypocritical without resulting in long-term change, 2) it's not as significant as reliable sources claim, because people are just lighting abortion clinics on fire accidentally or attacking clinics for totally non-political reasons, but 3) anti-abortion violence isn't really that bad. You're cherrypicking the sole cover-his-butt sentence in the entire thing, and it's just not accurate. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this article contain a list of media depictions on anti-abortion violence, or should this list be spun off into a second article? -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead of this article is now transcluded to the Planned Parenthood article.
Are these references all incorporated in to this article?
References
Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is the politically charged title "Anti-abortion violence" necessary? The definition provided ("violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion") does not even suggest an ideological motive, and does not seem to adhere to naming conventions about violence committed against other groups:
A title like "Violence against abortion providers" would seem far more consistent with the page definition. In addition, there's numerous examples of violence in this article where motive is not clear from the source provided. Changing the article title to something more ambiguous (without motive defined) would better justify including examples like these:
The pattern in these in that the assailant was not identified and / or did not indicate motive.
TL;DR: Please change the title, or remove the examples in this article where an anti-abortion motive is not clear.
2601:84:C701:6F35:E18A:168A:6F65:ECF5 ( talk) 03:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
There are several unreferenced incidents in the US Murders section. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
What is the consensus? Should the incident be included? -- Zfish118 ( talk) 04:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Roscelese: Any thoughts? -- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
If its going to be included, then it should clearly state that the incident remains under investigation. -- Zfish118 ⋉ talk 03:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Two concerns: This most recent incident has murders and attempted murders attached to it. I edited to create a second listing under Attempted Murder headline that was deleted. Dr. Britton's, Officer Sanderson's and the receptionists' murders are listed under Attempted also for the people who were injured. I think it should go back in. Also I do not know the editting used for the refs on the Colorado shooting in the list so I could not correct it, but the others in the list are grouped separately. I could use an explanation of the editing used before changing it.( 173.62.187.160 ( talk) 05:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC))
Here is a link to a list of bombings, some of which are not listed. I will pick away at adding them, but if anyone else wants to, have it. History of violence abortion section
I believe that the section on NZ ought to be removed. There was no attack, and certainly no violence. It appears that the man concerned did try to dig into a clinic, and did have an incendiary device. But it may have been for lighting in the tunnel - he stated he didn't intend to burn the place down. Royalcourtier ( talk) 08:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I would disagree that there was "no violence" - dismantling the sprinkler system in a busy hospital full of people and then using an accelerant (in this case kerosene) in hopes of starting a fire is a serious attempt at ending human life. However, even if one was to ignore the 1999 incident, there is still the arson attack of 1976 in which the Auckland Medical Aid Centre was burnt down (and another fire was started the same evening in the Aucland offices of Sisters Overseas Service, which helped New Zealanders travel to Australia to access legal abortion services). I am amending the NZ section to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.29.188 ( talk) 03:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@ NeoRetro: I'm not sure this is really in the scope of the article - neither Borst's murder nor the sister's. As much as a political disagreement over abortion is abortion-related, it wouldn't seem to be about preventing abortion by committing violence. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The following are existing sources already within the article that classify anti-abortion terrorism as, Christian terrorism when applicable. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 15:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Numerous organizations have also recognized Anti-abortion extremism as a form of Christian terrorism:
This is a list of violent acts, some of which qualify as terrorism, some of which were motivated in part by an individuals religious beliefs; some of whom were mentally competent, some of whom were not. It does not matter if any denomination endorses the individuals beliefs! Not all incidents were religiously motivated; that does not mean that the category does not apply. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 16:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Proposal: "To remove the Category:Anti-abortion violence from the Category:Christian terrorism an to disperse, on a case by case basis, those articles where it is reasonable to conclude the the act of violence noted was both an act of anti-abortion violence and an act of Christian terrorism." Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Withdraw proposal. From the above comments, the article is getting obscured with the category. Will open a new discussion at WP:CFD. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
In the lead, who did the 1982-87 study mentioned? Thanks! -- Zfish118⋉ talk 14:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-abortion violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-abortion violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-abortion violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nrlc.org/news_and_views/Oct09/nv102309.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
My deletion and sourcing edits stemmed from discussion here: Talk:Pro-life_movement#.22Occasionally.22. I'd be glad to discuss it further. In summary, we have to consider the weight of specific instances. If something received no coverage outside of local newspapers and can otherwise be considered "isolated instances" that don't clearly relate to the topic in question (and thus lack secondary source analysis and commentary), then it doesn't belong here. Feel free to delete more which doesn't meet our guidelines, or add sources for ones using questionable sourcing. - Andrew c [talk] 15:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The US info is large enough for its own article and it is a notable topic. Splitting it out has been tried in the past but it was reverted. It goes without saying that a summary should be left behind. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you crazy? --> "Anti-abortion violence is most frequently committed in the United States" Stop lying please! It's ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.14.144.152 ( talk) 02:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It's fine for this article to concentrate on violence from anti-abortion people, and it's even correct to call the perpetrators that, as they are definitely not pro-life. For fairness, though, I do think it would be helpful to at least mention that there have been many attacks on peaceful pro-life people, as well. I don't have time to research this properly, so I will not be creating an entry for that aspect of the violence in the abortion wars, but here is a link to the most recent attacks, which will probably be conveniently treated as non-news by the biased major media outlets. http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9571020086.html Elaine in the middle ( talk) 21:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Elaine in the middle
However, this page lists a total of 17 deaths in the U.S and Canada. 17. I mean that sucks, but that's a pretty pitiful number to vilify pro-life or Christianity. (Just like atheists say Hitler and Stalin being atheist or anti-Christian is individual, not causal.) It's even more ludicrous in light of the fact that abortioners in the U.S alone are responsible for at least 50 million deaths since 1973. That's over 10 times the population of my country, dude. And it doesn't surprise me that it's affected people so badly some of them have tipped over to unforgiveable violence. Pro-life are trying to prevent an atrocity, pro-choice is trying to justify its own, and being the ones with the babies and the legalised choice, all they have to do is sit on their hands. Proportions of this type of violence would be naturally weighted towards the anti-abortioners, all things being equal; not that I know the numbers. I bet nobody would have been horrified during WW2 if anyone had killed 17 nazis, and the nazis didn't kill even half as many people. And they were at war. (Granted they had less time to do it.) It's fine not to mention all that in the article, since it's subjective sociology, but this doesn't mean you ignore factual data that there have been violent pro-choicers as well. If not here, then somewhere.
@ binksternet and roscelese: What bizarre comments. Are you trying to say that violence against pro-lifers is okay, and only violence against pro-abortioners is bad?
The reason that I agree to include at least a note on violence against pro-choice, is that there doesn't even seem to be a page for it on wiki. Reporting a factual statistic relevant to the subject is nowhere near some sort of 'unbalanced' addition. Unbalanced would be: 'Anti-abortioners killed 17 people. Pro-Choicers are murderous bastards.' Here's a couple of sites that just came up googled. Yes, it's pro-life (and who else would you expect to post it?), and I have no idea of the accuracy, but it's just an example. http://www.hli.org/index.php/abortion/230?task=view http://tree-in-the-sea.blogspot.co.nz/2008/05/pro-abortion-violence.html
If you go to all the effort of making this page, you can certainly dedicate a sentence or two for the other. That being said, anti-abortion violence should not be tolerated.
(Just realised that's 'attempted murders' but whatev. Still bad.)
SuperMudz ( talk) 07:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious that the Abortion and violence related to it is the subject of significant controversy. That much is indisputable. Therefore it should be the aim that edits to Wikipedia pages such as this should aim to be as neutral as possible in order to credibly inform the reader. Statements purporting to be facts should be demonstrable as such. Simple references to academic papers purporting to define as 'terrorism' activities such as violence in the context of anti-Abortion protests, while obviously undesirable and to be condemned, fall under the category of 'controversial opinions' rather than incontrovertible facts. References in this context to violence being 'terrorism' therefore should be carefully qualified given that the argument over Abortion is reflected in a wider society that is deeply divided on many grounds on the subject. Wikipedia pages should not attempt to take a position on one side or the other of the argument but simply reflect pure facts and the language used to make statements in disputed areas such as this should be carefully chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajw1971 ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
My point is that stating anti-abortion violence IS 'terrorism' as a plain fact is simply not accurate - either linguistically or logically - since it is not and, while there continues to be controversy over the subject, will not be universally accepted as such. Therefore it behoves anyone who is interested in maintaining Wikipedia as an accurate and unbiased source of information on the subject to accept that the qualification (which you have deleted twice) that anti-abortion violence is described by many academics (as is clearly referenced at item number 6 on the page) is the accurate description of the subject. It takes nothing away from the subject matter but it allows for the reader to decide for themselves whether it is or isn't 'terrorism'. Although I happen to agree that it IS a form of 'terrorism', my personal opinion is neither here nor there: rather that accuracy and lack of bias is more important in order to promote and continue trust in Wikipedia. The entry should be edited (in what is, after all, a very minor way) along the lines of "Anti-abortion violence is described by academics as a form of terrorism..." - it is not Wikipedia doing the describing, it is the academics who are referenced, therefore this should be made clear and by doing so, bias on the page itself is removed. Ajw1971 ( talk) 01:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Possibly I didn't express myself very well in my last reply - my argument is not circular if you read the whole sentence. I am stating that while controversy remains on the subject, reducing the appearance of bias for articles such as this one is important. Simply saying that 'anti-abortion violence is described by academics as terrorism' is a simple and incontrovertible truth and is directly supportable by the very fact that said academics are referenced directly in the links at the bottom of the article. Saying that "anti-abortion violence is terrorism" is to state a direct fact without an absolute proof. It is a case of accurate semantics. Surely accuracy is what is asked for on Wikipedia? Ajw1971 ( talk) 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
So you therefore agree that there is no harm in explicitly saying that academics have proposed that anti-abortion violence is terrorism then, when to say so is clearly truthful and backed up by evidence? As an aside, I would take issue with your suggestion that because an academic writes something it is therefore fact, because, since this is not a scientific proposition but instead tends towards philosophical points of view which cannot be measured in an empirical sense, simply having an academic writing a paper on the subject is not enough to settle the argument - it is simply a contribution TO the argument: for example plenty of academics write plenty of material on religious propositions - or the rebuttal thereof - but it's incontrovertible that religious propositions are not settled subjects in the same manner that, say, the theory of angular momentum is, which can be measured! In any case, a primary aim of a wikipedia article on any subject, and in particular one that is already recognised to be controversial, is to avoid bias or opinion - indeed the official instructions are clear in that regard. The very minor edit I am proposing is explicitly designed to avoid the impression of a subjective opinion being presented as an objective fact while not removing or detracting from in any way the information being presented in the article. It therefore complies precisely with the guidelines presented to editors of Wikipedia articles. Ajw1971 ( talk) 02:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I have added Chuck Colson's 1995 novel Gideon's Torch to the "Literature" section of the "Anti-abortion violence in popular culture" section of the article. Goblinshark17 ( talk) 02:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is about a change to the hyperlink in this sentence 'Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism specifically visited upon people who or places which provide abortion. Incidents include vandalism, arson, and bombings of abortion clinics, such as those committed by Eric Rudolph, and murders or attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, as committed by James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill, Scott Roeder, Michael F. Griffin, and Peter James Knight."
I think that the hyperlink to the WP page "abortion clinic" should read "women's clinic" as in women's clinic because that is the correct name. Women go to a health clinic, some offer abortions. They don't call themselves abortion clinics. You can't find a listing for Ye Ole Abortion Clinic or South Main Abortion Clinic in a directory. But you will find them named South Main Women's Clinic. My edit was reverted by StAnselm with this comment "This is the common, neutral name - changing the piping like that looks POVish." I contend that this is wrong, they are called women's clinics and that by not changing it it looks POVish.
Note: my change added the (that offer abortions) to clarify the edit I made. I add that health clinic (that offer abortions) is also a change I would support. I respectively welcome other comments on this change. Sgerbic ( talk) 15:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the individuals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating an anti-abortion reason for the attack. The site turned out to in fact not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this. [1]
References
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nickinajarian1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The article is called "anti-abortion violence" for a reason. Most sources that were provided didn't call it "terrorism". The first source I saw actually only contained a reference to a "Catholic priest declaring abortion to be terrorism". That is in itself a fringe claim. To say that "most academics" consider it as terrorism is not backed up by most academics; just because some Canadian official said so doesn't make it true; neither is citing one study from 1988. For it to be considered terrorism it has to be declared by the US Department of State or the Canadian Government in this case; neither have done so. Remember that terrorism is a common vague accusation. -- 92slim ( talk) 21:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires strict factual citations for all contentious material, particularly when involving living persons. While this article is not strictly a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it still uses in many places inappropriately vague language that cast aspersions on the motives of millions of living activists.
At a minimum, the section called "definitions and characteristics" should include citable statistics regarding its relative frequency. The sentence: "Some[who?] of those opposed to abortion have sometimes[when?] resorted to very public demonstrations of violence in an effort to achieve their objective of curbing abortions..." unfairly suggests that the "some" is a significant percentage of the anti-abortion advocates. This statement must accurate and factually identify the agents; it is meaningless without identify exactly "who" is resorting to violence. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 02:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
inappropriately vague language that cast aspersions on the motives of millions of living activists- see WP:BLPGROUP. If it's a large group of people, WP:BLP is pretty weak justification (otherwise any statement about "people" would be subject). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Zfish118 was originally reverted by Roscelese, then posted these talk page messages and immediately restored the edits. As he/she made a number of significant changes I've restored the old version until a discussion takes place ( WP:BRD). But here are the tags Zfish118 added for discussion purposes: — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Anti-abortion violence is considered to be a form of terrorism by the US Department of Justice and is most frequently[quantify] committed in the United States,[citation needed] though it has also occurred in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. G. Davidson Smith of Canadian Security Intelligence Service defined anti-abortion violence as "single issue terrorism"."
"Some[who?] of those opposed to abortion have sometimes[when?] resorted to very public demonstrations of violence in an effort to achieve their objective of curbing abortions. Those who engage in or support such actions[quantify] defend the use of force—as justifiable homicide or defense of others—in the interest of protecting the life of the fetus.";
"Anti-abortion violence is recognized as a form of Christian terrorism. Some[who?] supporters of such violence embrace this designation."
"The Army of God, an underground terrorist organization active in the United States, has been responsible for a substantial amount of anti-abortion violence. In addition to numerous property crimes, the group has committed acts of kidnapping, attempted murder, and murder.[quantify]"
Yes, I'm not sure what the problem is since most of these tags asked questions that were already answered in the article. Zfish118, can you suggest, on the talk page, ways to reword parts you deem unsatisfactory? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous issues with the "characteristics" section, which, being an introductory section, should be of the highest quality. I will outline specific issues below:
Anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism specifically visited upon people who or places which provide abortion.{usually with the intent of disrupting abortion service, or intimidating other providers into shutting down, with an objective of curbing abortion} Incidents include vandalism, arson, and bombings of
abortion clinics, such as those committed by
Eric Rudolph {what did he do and when}, and murders or
attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, as committed by
James Kopp,
Paul Jennings Hill,
Scott Roeder,
Michael F. Griffin, and
Peter James Knight {what did they do and when}.
{Need discussion of scope, such as number of incidents (number of murders/arson/vandalism over what time periods in what geographic area), number of clinics nationwide/worldwide, number of protests, number of groups/individuals who commit violence relative to number of anti-abortion organizations/activists that do not. Such information is vitally important to understanding the issue, and is not documented anywhere in the article. If the data does not exist, a source describing why would be important to include.} Some of those opposed to abortion have sometimes resorted to very public demonstrations of violence in an effort to achieve their objective of curbing abortions.'{Redundant/vague; merge with first sentence} Those who engage in or support such actions {use as defense} David C. Nice, of the University of Georgia, describes support for anti-abortion violence as a political weapon against women's rights, one that is associated with tolerance for violence toward women. [2]{No issue, perhaps summarize Nice's research areas} Anti-abortion violence is recognized as a form of Christian terrorism.{Explicitly name who, or at least some, that identify such violence as terrorism} [3] Some supporters of such violence embrace this designation.{Explicitly name the group, Armed for Life, as embracing this. Weasely to say "some" when exactly one group is cited.} [4] |
-- Zfish118 ( talk) 20:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial enough without attempting to include a list of every depiction in "popular" media. These depictions are not necessarily factual, and do not necessarily contribute to the core topic of the article, actual violence committed by a small number of radical anti-abortion activists. Hence, I split the list of "Depictions in popular media" into a separate standalone list/article. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 03:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This section does not present any actual incidents of Pro-Abortion violence, and the sources provided are hardly reliable, NPOV sources. As it stands, it only presents the vague beliefs of an anti-abortion group, with sourcing to explicitly biased sources. As it currently stands, I don't think the section merits inclusion, and it would need less biased more reliable sources along with actual incidents. Prochoiceviolence.com and "The Anti-Choice Project" are NOT reliable sources for the serious claims being made. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 05:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose the following wording, to be added to the response section:
|
--
Zfish118 (
talk)
00:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn: I will not pursue this content. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
This sentence was not directly attributable to any source in the "anti-abortion reactions" section: "While still rejecting anti-abortion violence, a few anti-abortion leaders have tempered their condemnation of anti-abortion violence by suggesting that the harm created by crimes against property is small in comparison to the harm of abortion." -- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Nor was the intensifier "violent" in the source for the statement here:"[Benham] defended his organization's use of inflammatory, violent rhetoric, saying:" [1] -- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This article, in particular the "Reactions/Anti-abortion reactions", has many issues regarding the attribution of views to persons, most of whom are still living ( wp:blp). Many primary sources written by the individuals are used, and critical commentary had been added to the article without attribution to an outside source. I have removed some of the more egregious examples, but I would still appreciate additional comments on problematic content. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
This has got to stop; whole sale reversions are not helpful. This article has several serious issues regarding accurately reflecting what sources say, without innuendo. The last reversion, removed several well sourced statements that reflected the underlying source. In particular, the US Justice Department said:
Current domestic terrorism threats include animal rights extremists, eco-terrorists, anarchists, antigovernment extremists such as “sovereign citizens” and unauthorized militias, Black separatists, White supremacists, anti-abortion extremists, and other unaffiliated disaffected Americans, including “lone wolfs.” Domestic terrorism cases often involve firearms, arson or explosive offenses, crimes relating to fraud, and threats and hoaxes.
This source cannot be used to says that the Justice Department considers all anti-abortion violence "a form of terrorism". It says something very specific, and really, only addresses anti-abortion violence in passing. Several other edits discussed in detail above were included. Please address specific issues individually.-- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
References
@ Zfish118: I understand that you're motivated by the desire to give a favorable portrayal to a living person, but that's not an excuse for giving an inaccurate representation of someone's writings. It is simply not the case that Scheidler's document focuses on violence being bad or contrary to "pro-life". It focuses, rather, on how 1) it's not an effective strategy, because it makes "pro-lifers" look hypocritical without resulting in long-term change, 2) it's not as significant as reliable sources claim, because people are just lighting abortion clinics on fire accidentally or attacking clinics for totally non-political reasons, but 3) anti-abortion violence isn't really that bad. You're cherrypicking the sole cover-his-butt sentence in the entire thing, and it's just not accurate. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this article contain a list of media depictions on anti-abortion violence, or should this list be spun off into a second article? -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead of this article is now transcluded to the Planned Parenthood article.
Are these references all incorporated in to this article?
References
Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is the politically charged title "Anti-abortion violence" necessary? The definition provided ("violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion") does not even suggest an ideological motive, and does not seem to adhere to naming conventions about violence committed against other groups:
A title like "Violence against abortion providers" would seem far more consistent with the page definition. In addition, there's numerous examples of violence in this article where motive is not clear from the source provided. Changing the article title to something more ambiguous (without motive defined) would better justify including examples like these:
The pattern in these in that the assailant was not identified and / or did not indicate motive.
TL;DR: Please change the title, or remove the examples in this article where an anti-abortion motive is not clear.
2601:84:C701:6F35:E18A:168A:6F65:ECF5 ( talk) 03:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
There are several unreferenced incidents in the US Murders section. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
What is the consensus? Should the incident be included? -- Zfish118 ( talk) 04:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Roscelese: Any thoughts? -- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
If its going to be included, then it should clearly state that the incident remains under investigation. -- Zfish118 ⋉ talk 03:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Two concerns: This most recent incident has murders and attempted murders attached to it. I edited to create a second listing under Attempted Murder headline that was deleted. Dr. Britton's, Officer Sanderson's and the receptionists' murders are listed under Attempted also for the people who were injured. I think it should go back in. Also I do not know the editting used for the refs on the Colorado shooting in the list so I could not correct it, but the others in the list are grouped separately. I could use an explanation of the editing used before changing it.( 173.62.187.160 ( talk) 05:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC))
Here is a link to a list of bombings, some of which are not listed. I will pick away at adding them, but if anyone else wants to, have it. History of violence abortion section
I believe that the section on NZ ought to be removed. There was no attack, and certainly no violence. It appears that the man concerned did try to dig into a clinic, and did have an incendiary device. But it may have been for lighting in the tunnel - he stated he didn't intend to burn the place down. Royalcourtier ( talk) 08:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I would disagree that there was "no violence" - dismantling the sprinkler system in a busy hospital full of people and then using an accelerant (in this case kerosene) in hopes of starting a fire is a serious attempt at ending human life. However, even if one was to ignore the 1999 incident, there is still the arson attack of 1976 in which the Auckland Medical Aid Centre was burnt down (and another fire was started the same evening in the Aucland offices of Sisters Overseas Service, which helped New Zealanders travel to Australia to access legal abortion services). I am amending the NZ section to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.29.188 ( talk) 03:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@ NeoRetro: I'm not sure this is really in the scope of the article - neither Borst's murder nor the sister's. As much as a political disagreement over abortion is abortion-related, it wouldn't seem to be about preventing abortion by committing violence. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The following are existing sources already within the article that classify anti-abortion terrorism as, Christian terrorism when applicable. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 15:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Numerous organizations have also recognized Anti-abortion extremism as a form of Christian terrorism:
This is a list of violent acts, some of which qualify as terrorism, some of which were motivated in part by an individuals religious beliefs; some of whom were mentally competent, some of whom were not. It does not matter if any denomination endorses the individuals beliefs! Not all incidents were religiously motivated; that does not mean that the category does not apply. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 16:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Proposal: "To remove the Category:Anti-abortion violence from the Category:Christian terrorism an to disperse, on a case by case basis, those articles where it is reasonable to conclude the the act of violence noted was both an act of anti-abortion violence and an act of Christian terrorism." Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Withdraw proposal. From the above comments, the article is getting obscured with the category. Will open a new discussion at WP:CFD. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
In the lead, who did the 1982-87 study mentioned? Thanks! -- Zfish118⋉ talk 14:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-abortion violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-abortion violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-abortion violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nrlc.org/news_and_views/Oct09/nv102309.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)