Talk:Roe v. Wade/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Biased

The writer of this article appears to lack neutrality and to be critical of abortion, in their choice of language and quotes. 2600:6C5E:537F:9FB4:1C36:4D2:AF78:A15D (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you identify more precisely what wording and quotes go against Wikipedia's neutral point of view and why? Providing reliable sources for changes and balancing quotes would help too. (Tangentially, there's no single writer. Like all Wikipedia articles, this one is collective work.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

Under the Background section, “History of abortion laws in the United States”, referencing James C. Mohr and near citation number 27, there is a spelling error shown below: “competition betwen men with medical degrees and women without one, such as Madame Drunette.” The fix would be straightforward, a grammatical change from “betwen” to “between”. 2600:8801:30A7:DE00:4130:6676:4366:387E (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Already done here --N8_wilson 🔔 01:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Shelley Lynn Thornton

This article has no mention of Shelley Lynn Thornton. It should. Thornton is the baby with whom Roe/McCorvey was pregnant, when Roe sought an abortion and initiated the Roe v. Wade case. Some sources: [1] ... [2] ... [3]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

That was changed to redirect to Norma McCorvey because she didn't appear notable on her own then. Perhaps it's time to revisit that as was brought up in the discussion. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed the redirect solution earlier and found it really odd because I couldn't find any mention of Thornton in the McCorvey article. That creates a sort of non-sequitur for readers who get redirected and don't already know something about Thornton. It's especially confusing now that WP shows article previews and hovering over the Shelley Lynn Thornton link gives a brief intro taken from the Norma McCorvey article. Is there any content in any article on WP pertaining to Thornton? If so, we could at least update that redirect to be more useful and less confusing. --N8_wilson 22:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

We can create an article specific to Shelley Lynn Thornton. I would posit that she is notable now that she has "come out" and publicly revealed her identity. Or, at the very least, we should add a few sentences about Shelley Lynn Thornton in this article ... thereby offering some legitimacy to the re-direct. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I did both. I revived the old article. And I added some info about Thornton into this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think either, without clear consensus, is premature. Let alone both. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The "original" situation was thus. The article Shelley Lynn Thornton was redirected ... to either McCorvey or to Roe v. Wade, I forget which. Either way, the target page redirected to made no mention whatsoever of Shelley Lynn Thornton. I added such notes to the Talk Pages of both of those relevant articles. I saw that there was already an article about Shelley Lynn Thornton ... so I revived it. I think she's notable. And there are many RS's. Whatever I did -- reviving the old article; adding some info about Thornton into this article; or both -- was an improvement to the encyclopedia. Having a redirect for Thornton to a target page that makes no mention of Thornton simply makes no sense. So, I improved the "original" situation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Saying I think she's notable without giving a basis grounded in notability guidelines for people for thinking that won't help. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, she satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. Reasonable minds can differ. And, in my opinion, she's notable (per Wikipedia guidelines) for a separate article. There are plenty of RS's ... a book ... even an article / book / "expose" that "exposed" her. She herself has made public appearances, TV interviews, etc., on the very topic of "being the Roe Baby". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Then you should seek consensus first. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• I just opened another section, but now I am moving my comment here, and adding a detail: I am thinking about removing this section because it does not appear to include reactions to the Roe v. Wade decision and instead is more about Shelley Lynn Thornton's biographical information, political opinions generally, and feelings about her birth mother Norma McCorvey. The same/similar information is currently included at the Norma McCorvey article. I became aware of the section via the pending AfD for the Shelley Lynn Thornton article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

She has offered strong views on the topic, as recently as yesterday. That info can/should be included here. See: Supreme Court abortion ruling live updates: Americans can get abortions in Canada: Trudeau. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The content that is there, however, does not appear to fit within the scope of the section. That she issued a press release in response to Dobbs does not seem to make the content that is outside the scope of the section less WP:UNDUE. I continue to think content that is outside the scope of "Later responses of those involved" should be removed. Beccaynr (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed the entire section, and I think consensus should be obtained about a) whether her 'involvement' is within the scope of the section about the legal case, per WP:NPOV, and b) what should be included, per WP:UNDUE. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022 (2)

Roe v. Wade was overturned today in a sad attach on women's rights. 98.103.176.50 (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That's already in the article. X-Editor (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, IP, the first place you can see this is at the end of the article's introduction. GBFEE (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Except nowhere in the constitution does it say abortion is a right 69.1.3.71 (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion re "lead too long" tag

The lead has been stable without any complaints at four para for a long time. Although guidelines suggest a four para limit they also suggest that that is not carved in stone and may not always necessarily apply. In this case the new ruling certainly deserves the additional para. I have read the lead and can find nothing that needs to be removed. The editor that added the tag will need to let our readers know what wording s/he feels needs to be removed. Sectionworker (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the tag as not applicable. I do think the final paragraph should be shortened at some point, but since this seems to be the article that people are reading, and not Dobbs, I'm content to leave it a bit longer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

The following must be added to the introduction to make it complete:

"In 2022, Roe v. Wade was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, ending federal abortion rights and allowing individual states to regulate their own abortion laws."

This is cited by the Wikipedia article on "Abortion Laws in the United States" reference [16]. Otherwise, this article is merely false information and propaganda. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia up to date on the most current factual information. 108.227.23.21 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is already covered at length in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Per above, note that the whole last paragraph of the lead addresses this beginning with, On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.... It also shows up in the infobox under a bright red heading. Please clarify if there is any specific information that needs to be changed, added, or removed from that paragraph and re-open if appropriate. You may also find the edit request guidelines helpful in making clarifications if needed. --N8_wilson 🔔 23:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

please link norma mccorvey

Please insert the hyperlink to the wikipedia page on Norma McCorvey : Norma McCorvey BBagioli (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Conferred" vs "Granted"

@IrishLas You changed the language of the sentence from "granted" to "conferred", asserting that the word is hard to understand for those without a law degree. In addition, you stated that my reversion of your edit was "condescending". To avoid violating 3RR, it would be best to discuss the change here.

I don't believe anything in my original reversion was in any way "condescending," and I certainly did not intend it to be so. In fact, as I mentioned, the word "conferred" is also used to describe Roe vs. Wade in legal text (e.g. it is used as such in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on its very first page ) in addition to being just a general term in the English language. Partly the reason why I reverted your edit was because of uniformity, since the page for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization uses "confer" aswell. As a non-lawyer myself, I found no issue with "conferred" in either the pages. GuardianH (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are 100% correct! Thank you for comments. You believed correctly. Sheesh, I was the one being condescending, so I'm sorry, very sorry for using that word describing you and/or your actions. Again, I'm truly sorry. TBH, I didn't know the meaning of "conferred" and I'm concidered "pretty smart" by my professor, and my parents as well :p I pretty much lacked tact for sure. I'm so sorry, my excuse is lack of sleep, though an excuse is an excuse and is me being an arse. I'm sorry. So please forgive me. IrishLas (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries GuardianH (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 30 November 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Italian.johnson1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sierrabasden (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Death of LBJ

I used the article Second inauguration of Richard Nixon as the guide for the main reason about adding details about the passing of LBJ. The passing came on the same day as Roe v. Wade and it was big news that day. People need to know that the passing overshadowed the ruling that day.

As for the justices in the majority, the only ones we should have pictures of are Chief Justice Warren Burger and Thurgood Marshall, as they both led the Supreme Court tributes on the passing. People need to know that both the passing and the ruling came on the same day and that the big news was the passing. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that's your own interpretation. You don't have support from WP:SECONDARY sources saying that LBJ's death was bigger news. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Events that lead to reversal

The reversal of Roe v. Wade didn't just fall out of the sky; it was a result of a multi-decade concerted effort by the Christian right to remake the federal judiciary, and was ultimately made possible by Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump. Yet this article mentions absolutely nothing about this. I have added a sentence in the lead about how it was made possible by the ideological shift during the Trump administration, but I believe more is needed in the Dobbs section. While I understand mentioning this could infringe on NPOV, the events that lead to Roe's reversal were indeed unusual and extraordinary, something people on both sides of the issue should be able to agree upon. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

What Roe v Wade DID affirm vs didn't in light of the 2022 ruling

The text should be amended to say that it affirmed her right to privacy regarding a medical procedure. As the court ruled I. 2022, it specifically addressed privacy but did not address or affirm the right to the procedure itself. 73.184.169.140 (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Viability

The article should specifically mention in the first sentence that Roe only applied until viability (20-24 weeks into pregnancy). There is a lot of confusion caused by some politicians implying that codifying Roe would allow abortion until birth. Kdr202310 (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)