Talk:Abortion in Vermont

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Abortion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Gender studies Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention United States: Vermont Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Low-importance). Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

	Women in Red: 2019
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project in 2019. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

I'm not getting into the politics of the issue here, but I feel this article is very poor quality. It doesn't tell us much about the subject as very little is specific to Vermont. What is the current status of abortion in Vermont? Who can access it and why? Are there still barriers, issues, problems? I really can't tell from this article. And it certainly is not from a neutral point of view. I'd fix the intro if there was something in the body of the article to put in there, but there isn't.--Murky Falls (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have removed loads of extraneous content. I believe the Abortion_in_Vermont#Context and Abortion_in_Vermont#Terminology sections should also be removed as they include no information specific to Vermont. 129.67.117.45 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The article is somehow both wordy, and not-wordy-enough. It seems that most of the irrelevant topics/topics unrelated to VT, are the most touched upon. The VT-specific topics, however, are briefly detailed, and there is little to no focus on abortion activism in VT. In short, the information is too general and unspecific. Likewise, the sentence-structure/paragraph-structure is unimpressive and does not flow well. When reading a Wikipedia article, it is important to be able to navigate each section and idea easily. However, when reading "Abortion in Vermont," I struggled to understand certain sentences and connect relevant ideas to each other. This article should be heavily edited and revised in order to produce a more accurate, concise, and representative picture of abortion in Vermont.El34aya (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. There is nothing “poor quality” about this article and it’s very unfortunate that some people have targeted it when it’s of better quality than most state-specific articles on abortion and certainly now provides everything that was mentioned. There are no issues with this article and it’s very suspect how a few people seem bent on inventing them. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk page of
  WP:CANVASSING. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Half of the "chapters" don't have any ties to Vermont and about half of the content on this page has zero relevance to the article. My edit was not approved. 213.225.14.108 (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are incorrect. Everything in this article that you deleted in your edits is specific to Vermont, and entirely relevant to the topic of abortion in Vermont. The only parts of the article that aren’t specifically about abortion in Vermont in particular—the Context and Terminology sections—are the parts of the article that you did not delete, in fact. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you agree that the context and terminology sections are not specifically about abortion in Vermont and have deleted them accordingly. 129.67.117.45 (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hey man im josh, why do we need to set out the contested terminology of abortion and provide a (poor) review of reproductive rights/health when both things are better done at Abortion? 129.67.117.45 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You committed vandalism by blanking the page and removing all of the important and relevant information. Stop. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

consensus. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello VictimOfEntropy, Vermont is not mentioned in the citation provided ([1]). Please do not edit war unsourced and challenged content in [2]. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did respond to what you said, which was contrary to your actions. Stop behaving disingenuously and clearly out of spite and denial of the obvious facts. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

WP:ASPERSIONS). Where have you responded to what I said beyond "Restoring previous version of page after destructive and false edits from an IP page-blanking"? 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

On this very page. I said that you removed all of the relevant and important information on this page relating to the topic of the article. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits—or, I should say, deletions done without any discussion whatsoever—are the only disputed ones. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I and the other user are doing is acting to protect this page from being blanked by you with no cause or reason. You could have easily looked up those citations yourself, but instead chose to delete even the well-cited sections of the article without anyone agreeing with you. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to establish consensus before editing. "blanked by you with no cause or reason" - I have provided reasons for the removals. There is also no requirement to seek consensus before editing, see

WP:BOLD. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You have provided no reasons for the majority of the deletions you did, and what you said you would do ran contrary to what you actually did do. You’re throwing around Wikipedia policies while making extreme edits removing whole and cited and relevant and important sections of the article as an IP. Your behavior is destructive and entirely unjustified. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have as many rights with regard to content as registered editors do. Which deletion did I not provide a reason for? And what did I say that ran contrary to what I actually did? Be specific. 129.67.118.6 (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go to sleep. I just hope that someone else will arrive and help, since you’ve clearly been preparing for this push to alter the article to your will for some time. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Hello Stephanie921, your comment is incorrect in several ways:

1. WP:ONUS
   , which you helpfully link, says that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
2. As I pointed out in the above discussion, you would see that removing parts of a page does not constitute blanking it. See
   strike
   your accusations above.
3. "Is meant to stay up"? A page can always be edited (
   WP:BOLD
   ) and I do not see how my initial edits were against consensus. When I first edited the article, I was not even aware that the inclusion/deletion of the content in question had been disputed before.
4. I did not violate
   WP:3RR). Please also strike your accusation of me violating 3RR. 129.67.117.180 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Given that all three of you have edited other pages since my last comment at 14:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC), there does not seem any interest in engaging further on this topic. Given the lack of discussion and other relevant policy-based concerns, I will reinstate the deletions. 129.67.118.248 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

129.67 makes a compelling point here. The "Terminology" and "Context" sections are given

responsibility of editors who wish to retain this content to cite reliable sources that specifically mention the subject: Abortion in Vermont. Woodroar (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Users are taking this discussion, which seems to have been carried out by several sock puppets and anonymous users, is a broad consensus to remove sections from abortion articles. I do not think that there is a consensus to do this. Please start a new discussion if this is still desired. I can see the argument that having generic copy-pasted boilerplate text might not be desirable, but before making such a large change, you need to solicit broader participation from topic area editors or local wikiprojects or RFC/noticeboard participants. Andre🚐 22:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the clinic history is lacking in information. It jumps from 16 clinics in 1992 to 6 in 2014. Are there any sources which describe the decline in clinics during 1992-2014? SkylarClaire1 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Montpelier, Vermont - Women's march! (source Putneypics).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]