Draft talk:Pro-abortion rights violence

Page creation

There is a clear rationale for creating this page in the wake of 2022 media discussions around the existence of or potential for violation in reaction to the likely overturning of Roe v. Wade, including commentary from the White House and leaders of both pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion groups. The topic clearly meets notability guidelines and is currently the subject of extensive coverage in the United States, including by mainstream sources (i.e., not just by specifically anti-abortion publications).Revfulop1994 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

See examples of relevant discussion here in mainstream media sources:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/10/democrats-caution-prochoice-protestors-violence/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/abortion-choice-roe-dodds-confrontation/

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted for the following reasons:

- In the context of the 2022 likely overturning of Roe v. Wade, violence at pro-abortion rights demonstrations or by pro-abortion rights groups has become a topic of discussion in a way that it has not been in the past:

• https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/05/will-the-ripples-from-roe-v-wade-reach-australia/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/10/democrats-caution-prochoice-protestors-violence/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/abortion-choice-roe-dodds-/
• https://www.axios.com/2022/05/09/white-house-abortion-rights-protests-supreme-court
• https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/09/politics/abortion-protests-supreme-court-justices/index.html
• https://khn.org/morning-breakout/safety-concerns-for-justices-prompt-senate-action/

Note also:

• Current article is substantially better sourced with mostly mainstream and reliable news sources frequently quoted in other articles relating to abortion.
• Recent examples of incidents in 2022 make this topic currently newsworthy and noteworthy in the context of Wikipedia's guidelines.
• This topic is verifiable through extensive coverage by reliable sources quoted in this article.
• Aspects of this topic have been the subject of academic research (e.g., the role of violence in radical left groups, such as in Germany.)
• Even if there is a discussion to be had about the relative incidence of pro-abortion rights vs. anti-abortion violence, that does not seem to preclude a discussion on their own merits about each topic.Revfulop1994 (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back!

@StAnselm: welcome back in 2022! I just read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-abortion violence and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-abortion rights violence; the rationales for deletion are, how you say? 👨‍🍳💋 Elizium23 (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Tauber out of scope

The sexual assault accounted below seems out of scope, and potentially OR/synthesis trying to an call the assault "pro abortion" because it was committed by a disgraced abortion provider. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• 1978-1980: A woman in the care of abortion provider Ronald Tauber died as a result of a perforated uterus during her abortion procedure; his license was suspended, admitting privileges were revoked, and he was charged with manslaughter. In 1980, after moving from Orlando to Detroit, he raped a 6-year-old girl; he was released on bail and assaulted a 12-year-old girl. Tauber was convicted for sexual assault and sentenced to 12-50 years imprisonment in the case of the rape; charges such as indecent exposure, attempted kidnapping, and manslaughter were dropped or dismissed. Tauber filed a malpractice suit against his psychologist for failing to prevent the sexual assaults, after Tauber's attempted insanity plea failed to prevent his imprisonment. According to Tauber, a civil judgement of $210,000 was awarded to the 6-year-old girl he raped.

Removal of sources

Since this article is in draft space, I would appreciate if sources were restored, and maked with failed verification or reliable source tags as appropriate (rather than left deleted with a citation needed tag). This would help ensure content can be edited to match the source, or help research additional sources. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Went and restored the sources. This is not a comment on the appropriateness of the sources; just an aid towards vetting the content of the draft. –Zfish118^⋉talk

Of course we apply WP:V and WP:RS in draft space... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Poorly sourced content

I am removing following statements for now:

• The attack was supported by a reporter at pro-abortion rights publication Rewire, who called for "more of this." –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• 2021: A purported anti-abortion group called Jane's Revenge threatened continued attacks on anti-abortion establishments if they did not cease operations. Communications from the group were reportedly relayed to an investigative reporter through an anonymous third party. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Addition/Removal of Content Consensus

Concerns about the content cannot be discussed in any rational manner unless the disputed text is visible. Two editors believe the content does not warrant wholesale removal. The contents is, besides, in draft space, so is only slightly more available than if it were solely available in the edit history. Please discuss specific concerns. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The content is in the article history. I've never had someone claim that the text has to be live on the page to be discussed on talk, why would that be the case? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)