Talk:United States abortion protests (2022–present)/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:2022–2023 abortion protests) (bot
m Aidan9382 moved page Talk:2022–2023 abortion protests/Archive 1 to Talk:2022–2023 United States abortion protests/Archive 1: Move subpage left behind during move of parent page
(No difference)

Revision as of 15:30, 16 May 2023

Archive 1

Media

@Another Believer: I was adding File:May 2022 abortion protest at Foley Square 07.jpg as the lead when I edit-conflicted with you. I preferred 07 because the sign specifically addressed SCOTUS/the 5 majority justices. Or do you think it would be too inflammatory to lead the article with that? Legoktm (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference here but perhaps editors would prefer not to use an image with profanity. (?) We're going to have many other images to choose from soon, I assume. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Barricades Erected for Fear of Abortion Industry Violence?

Seems to be concern that the leak will trigger violence. This (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/supreme-court-barricades-roe-wade/) suggests the barriers could be legacy, but won't yet confirm one way or the other. If the expected violence does ensue, well there's plenty of space here for that content. 人族 (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Plans

Boston: https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/boston-protests-on-abortion-rights-planned-tuesday-as-scotus-confirms-leak/2710466/

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added the one about Massachusetts. These protests are going to be big, so get ready to document them. X-Editor (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@X-Editor I am!, but seems other editors aren't so on board. (shrug) ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Man climbs building in San Francisco

But apparently his stunt had nothing to do with the leak...

Not sure if should be included? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Matt Gaetz

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Amsterdam

Plans for a protest in Amsterdam:

https://nltimes.nl/2022/05/05/solidarity-protest-right-abortion-amsterdam-saturday

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Homes of Supreme Court justices

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

History of abortion protests in the US

I think a brief history of abortion protests in the US – perhaps a brief summary of United States anti-abortion movement and United States abortion-rights movement? – would be somewhat due for this article in order to further contextualise the protests. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Spartanburg, South Carolina

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Students in Louisville

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Pick a state, any state!

I've put a lot of time and energy into this entry, but much work remains. I'm hoping some other editors might be willing to lend a hand.

Below, I've included a list of U.S. states (abbreviations). I'm essentially hoping to use this as a checklist, with editors volunteering to flesh out content for specific states. This involves searching about a specific state to make sure all cities with demonstrations are included in the article, then fleshing out the prose to note important details such as event locations, number of attendees, organizers, notable speakers, and impact.

  • AK
  • AL
  • AR
  • AZ
  • CA
  • CO
  • CT
  • DE
  • FL
  • GA
  • HI
  • IA
  • ID
  • IL
  • IN
  • KS
  • KY
  • LA
  • MA
  • MD
  • ME
  • MI
  • MN
  • MO
  • MS
  • MT
  • NC
  • ND
  • NE
  • NH
  • NJ
  • NM
  • NV
  • NY
  • OH
  • OK
  • OR
  • PA
  • RI
  • SC
  • SD
  • TN
  • TX
  • UT
  • VA
  • VT
  • WA
  • WI
  • WV
  • WY

Sure, some states will require more work than others (there's much more to say about CA than ID); even checking off some of the easy ones would be a tremendous help. This strategy has worked for collaborations on similar protest entries, but we'll see how this one goes.

Thanks for any assistance in advance! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 March for Life

March_for_Life_(Washington,_D.C.)#2020–present is not mentioned. Should it be? it was before the leak, but during 2022.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Protests outside the U.S.

There have been protests in Amsterdam and London. Not sure if international locations should be mentioned in the lead, or if this should be taken into account re: page title options? ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

TikTok, Mother's Day

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Better article name?

Several suggested names (at least for starters):

in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

None of these titles are an improvement over the current title. They all introduce WP:NPOV concerns and lack precision. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Several more suggested names (perhaps even better):

iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

How about 2022 abortion rights protests in the United States? If I'm not mistaken, this was the original title and it was moved to the current one. IMO, that was a mistake. The "rights" in the title is more specific and removes much of the ambiguity of the current title. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
That title seems ok. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Jane's Revenge

Should the "Jane's Revenge" group and/or the two arson incidents be described under the geographical areas or as a new section? Sources: two of them linked at the first two citations of this letter. Sources dealing with the threatening letter:

--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Right now, the original source of the story is described as unverified by all of the articles I clicked on above. If it does get verified, there's probably enough material for it's own page. Should definitely get a mention. But only if it's verified. See WP:V. Kire1975 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The letter and the existence of the group is unverified, but the two acts of arson in two different states have been verified as having happened. So maybe it would be better to just mention the arson without the group at this point.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what the best place for this would be, but the rest of the article is about "protests" in the sense of demonstrations/rallies/marches, not individual acts by an individual (or group) which could be framed as "an act of protest". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The arson in Madison, Wisconsin was accompanied with pro-reproductive rights graffiti. That should count as a protest. Several reports[1][2] about the arson in Keizer, Oregon did not describe any graffiti. Maybe that one doesn't really count as a protest.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
That should count as a protest - Why? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Protest graffiti was produced.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
So far, among the "protests" that are the subject of this article, we have largescale university walkouts, hundreds/thousands of people gathering in various cities, large rallies with prominent speakers, conflicts between groups of demonstrators ... and graffiti that a Wikipedia user has classified as "protest graffiti"? Again, I'm not saying there's no place for this material, but I have a hard time seeing it in this article as it is currently set up. Having clicked through several of the sources above (enough to realize you've listed a whole lot of duplicates as though they're separate), I don't see this called "protest graffiti" but something that's happening in reaction to the leaked draft. i.e. if this were "reactions" or the like, then maybe? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Graffiti seems a lot less relevant than arson. Endwise (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Without it being verified, it could be a false flag or literally anything. Putting it here would be blaming it on protesters and potentially libeling thousands of people by association. Verifiability is one of the three Core content policies of Wikipedia. See WP:CCPOL. Not waiting for it threatens the WP:NPOV as well. Kire1975 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Kire1975, The extent of the arson and the content of the graffiti is verified for the incident in Madison, Wisconsin. I haven't seen false flag attack possibilities taken seriously on any other violence related articles. There are no reliable sources suggesting this could have been a false flag attack.
Rhododendrites, earlier at Talk:Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization#Jane's_Revenge, Endwise suggested that the content could go on this article instead of under "Reactions" on that article. Do you think Endwise was wrong?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
NBC 26 mentions repeated claims that the attack may have been a false flag operation Kire1975 (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm saying I don't think it makes sense to add to this article, at least as it's currently set up. 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), but that's a conversation for that talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)\
There are no reliable sources suggesting that his was a legitimate, verified attack. Endwise is not wrong for saying "personally I think it's fine," but that's not a justification to put unverified, potentially libelous material on wikipedia. Kire1975 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It's verifiable that a pro-choice group claimed responsibility, but it has not been verified that their claim is actually true. It would neither be unverified nor potentially libelous to say that the group claimed responsibility for the arson. There are for sure arguments for excluding it, but that it is "unverified, potentially libelous material" is not correct. Endwise (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It's verifiable that a pro-choice group claimed responsibility. How is that verifiable? Kire1975 (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Because that is what reliable sources say. Verifiability means that one can verify that the information comes from a reliable source. The Guardian etc. is a reliable source. Endwise (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian article says it is unable to verify the group’s authenticity. It appears we are at an impasse. Per WP:NOTSILENCE, I will WP:DROPTHESTICK. If you wish to continue this conversation without providing verification, you are free to pursue the options at WP:DRR. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Just quoting from this article in The Guardian: Pro-choice group claims arson attack on Wisconsin anti-abortion office: In a statement reported on Tuesday by the Lincoln Journal Star, which said it was unable to verify the group’s authenticity, Jane’s Revenge said it launched the attack because of the organization’s anti-abortion stance, and demanded that similar institutions across the US disband or face “increasingly extreme tactics”.... The Madison attack came days after the leaking of a supreme court draft ruling that would overturn its 1973 Roe v Wade decision and end almost half a century of constitutional abortion protections. The group is claiming that the attack was an act of protest, essentially. IMO it's fine for us to put a sentence about this saying that a pro-life group incurred an arson attack, and a pro-choice group claimed responsibility, though the authenticity of their claim has not been verified. This was a reasonably large story, a brief sentence about it after the bit about Wisconsin that's already in the article seems fine to me. Endwise (talk) 18:12, 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 its 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 Guardian, Newsweek cites the Rickert article as it's main source. The wispolitics link points to a press release written by a Republican senator. See WP:NEWSORG and Churnalism. This is not a reasonably large story. It's one unverified story syndicated and reblogged many times by people with a Civil POV to push. See WP:CPP. Kire1975 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This matter is currently being discussed on the adminstrator notice board here. Kire1975 (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

From the discussion I gather that the term "protests" for the purposes of this article is defined more narrowly than this incident. This article is about public protests, not secret actions which happen to be in protest. So it is outside of the scope of the article. Were someone to move the article to a new name, this could change, but I am not advocating that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt

i added the assassination attempt because the confessor specifically mentioned that it was in protests over the relevent case.Seeing as this article is about protests as they relate to the phenomena, I think it apt to include such information. both the peaceful and violent forms of protests. Jaygo113 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree that an assassination attempt is "a protest". We don't consider e.g. the Buffalo shooting an "anti-immigration protest" or the shooter a "protester", for example. It's related to the abortion debate, to the recent developments re: Dobbs/Jackson, but it's not one of the protests. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:26, 14 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) 17:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_abortion_protests_(2022–present)/Archive_1&oldid=1155088506"