text:
United States anti-abortion movement

The United States anti-abortion movement is a movement in the United States that opposes induced abortion and advocates for the protection of fetal life. Advocates support legal prohibition or restriction on ethical, moral, or religious grounds, arguing that human life begins at conception and that the human zygote, embryo or fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. The anti-abortion movement includes a variety of organizations, with no single centralized decision-making body. There are diverse arguments and rationales for the anti-abortion stance. Some allow for some permissible abortions, including therapeutic abortions, in exceptional circumstances such as incest, rape, severe fetal defects, or when the woman's health is at risk.

Before the Supreme Court 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, anti-abortion views predominated and found expression in state laws which prohibited or restricted abortions in a variety of ways. (See Abortion in the United States.) The anti-abortion movement became politically active and dedicated to the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision, which struck down most state laws restricting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. In the United States, the movement is associated with several Christian religious groups, especially the Catholic Church and Evangelical churches, and is frequently, but not exclusively, allied with the Republican Party. The movement is also supported by secular organizations (such as Secular Pro-Life) and non-mainstream anti-abortion feminists. The movement has campaigned to reverse Roe v. Wade and to promote legislative changes or constitutional amendments, such as the Human Life Amendment, that prohibit or at least broadly restrict abortion.

On the other side of the abortion debate in the United States is the abortion-rights movement (also called the pro-choice movement), which argues that pregnant women should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

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

History
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, a movement to liberalize abortion laws gained momentum due in part to the second-wave feminist movement and to a number of high-profile therapeutic abortion cases, such as that of Sherri Finkbine. In 1965, a Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut set a precedent for an expansive right to privacy in the area of reproductive healthcare. In the late 1960s, in response to nationwide abortion-rights efforts, a number of organizations were formed to mobilize opinion against the legalization of abortion. Most of these were led by Catholic institutions and communities; most evangelical Christian groups did not see abortion as a clear-cut or priority issue at the time. The first major U.S. organization in the modern anti-abortion movement, the National Right to Life Committee, was formed out of the United States Catholic Conference in 1967.

The description "pro-life" was adopted by the right-to-life (anti-abortion) movement in the United States following the Supreme Court 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, which held that a woman may terminate her pregnancy prior to the viability of the fetus outside of the womb and may also terminate her pregnancy "subsequent to viability ... for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." The term pro-life was adopted instead of anti-abortion to highlight their proponents' belief that abortion is the taking of a human life, rather than an issue concerning the restriction of women's reproductive rights, as the pro-choice movement would say. The first organized action was initiated by U.S. Catholic bishops who recommended in 1973 that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to ban abortion.

Roe v. Wade was considered a major setback by anti-abortion campaigners. The case and the overturning of most anti-abortion laws spurred the growth of a largely religious-based anti-abortion political and social movement, even as Americans were becoming, in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly pro-choice. The first major anti-abortion success since Roe's case came in 1976 with the passing of the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the use of certain federal funds for abortions. In Harris v. McRae, anti-abortion advocates won a 1980 challenge to the Hyde Amendment. That same year, anti-abortion politicians gained control of the Republican Party's platform committee, adding anti-abortion planks to the Republican position, and calling for a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, banning abortion. Four anti-abortion U.S. Presidents – Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump – have been elected.

Lisa Miller of The Washington Post wrote about the younger, more feminine face of the anti-abortion movement with the rise of leaders such as Lila Rose of Live Action, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life, Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America, and Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life, all "youngish Christian working mothers with children at home" who seek to combat the image of the anti-abortion movement as made up of "old white men" who cannot relate to the experience of pregnant women.

The anti-abortion movement has been successful in recent years in promoting new laws against abortion within the states. The Guttmacher Institute said eighty laws restricting abortion were passed in the first six months of 2011, "more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005—and more than triple the 23 enacted in 2010".

In 2019, six U.S. states (Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Ohio) enacted fetal heartbeat abortion bills. These heartbeat bills generally restrict abortion to the time period in pregnancy before a fetal heartbeat can be detected (which can be as early as six weeks of gestation or as late as twelve weeks). The bills face legal challenges, with their supporters stating they hope the legislation will allow the United States Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v Wade. Other abortion-related laws passed in several US states during this time period, which were upheld by the judicial system, include laws requiring an ultrasound before an abortion and laws that mandate fetal burial or cremation after an abortion.

In June 2022, by its 6–3 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court upheld Mississippi's abortion law at issue in the case. In a 5–4 ruling, the court found there is no constitutional right to abortion and overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ending a constitutionally protected nationwide right to abortion and allowing states to make their own separate abortion laws.

Overview
The anti-abortion movement includes a variety of organizations, with no single centralized decision-making body. There are diverse arguments and rationales for the anti-abortion stance.

Many socially conservative organizations are involved in the anti-abortion movement. Some groups focus solely on promoting the anti-abortion cause, such as American Life League, the Susan B. Anthony List, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and Live Action, among many others. Other groups support not only the anti-abortion cause but the broader family values cause, such as Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, and Concerned Women for America, among many others.

Abortion opponents generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. The contemporary anti-abortion movement is typically, but not exclusively, influenced by conservative Christian beliefs and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a person. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong and is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others, as such benefits are coming at the expense of the life of what they believe to be a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly expire within a short time after birth, such as anencephalic fetuses.

Some abortion opponents also oppose certain forms of birth control, particularly hormonal contraception such as emergency contraception (ECPs), and copper IUDs which may prevent the implantation of a zygote. Because they believe that the term pregnancy should be defined so as to begin at fertilization, they refer to these contraceptives as abortifacients because they cause the fertilized egg to be flushed out during menses. The Catholic Church endorses this view. There are, however, anti-abortion physicians who concur with the view that hormonal contraception does not block implantation.

Attachment to an anti-abortion position is often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life (see also culture of life). Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among anti-abortion advocates; these groups say that their position is based on human rights and biology, rather than religion. Some holding the anti-abortion position also hold a complementarian view of gender roles, though there is also a self-described feminist element inside the movement.

Views in opposition to abortion
The variety in opinion on the issue of abortion is reflected in the diverse views of religious groups. For example, the Catholic Church considers all procured abortions morally evil, while traditional Jewish teaching sanctions abortion if necessary to safeguard the life and well-being of the pregnant woman.

Christian groups

The only coordinated opposition to abortion in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s before the Roe v. Wade decision was from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and its Family Life Bureau. Mobilization of a wide-scale anti-abortion movement began immediately after 1973 with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

Before 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention officially advocated for loosening of abortion restrictions. During the 1971 and 1974 Southern Baptist Conventions, Southern Baptists were called upon "to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother." W. Barry Garrett wrote in the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court abortion decision." By 1980, conservative Protestant leaders became vocal in their opposition to legalized abortion, and by the early 1990s Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition of America became a significant anti-abortion organization. In 2005, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said that making abortion illegal is more important than any other issue.

Much of the anti-abortion movement in the United States and around the world finds support in the Roman Catholic Church, the Christian right, the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of England, the Anglican Church in North America, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). However, the anti-abortion teachings of these denominations vary considerably. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church consider abortion to be immoral in all cases, but may in some cases permit an act which indirectly and without intent results in the death of the fetus in a case where the mother's life is threatened. In Pope John Paul II's Letter to Families, he simply stated the Roman Catholic Church's view on abortion and euthanasia: "Laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law."

The National Association of Evangelicals has adopted a number of resolutions stating its opposition to abortion, but "recognizes that there might be situations in which terminating a pregnancy is warranted – such as protecting the life of a mother or in cases of rape or incest." The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is that "elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God" but that abortion may be justified where the pregnancy endangers life of the mother, or where the pregnancy is the outcome of rape or incest. The Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality (TUMAS) was formed in 1987 to further the anti-abortion ministry in The United Methodist Church. The Southern Baptist Convention believes that abortion is allowable only in cases where there is a direct threat to the life of the woman.

Among Mainline Protestant denominations, the Episcopal Church recognizes a right of a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy, but opposes "abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection or any reason of mere convenience." The United Church of Christ supports abortion rights, viewing it as a matter of reproductive health and justice. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) adopts the view that abortion is a personal choice, but acknowledges "diverse conclusions and actions" within the church on the issue. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's position is that abortion prior to the point of viability "should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding" but that "abortion after the point of fetal viability should be prohibited except when the life of a mother is threatened or when fetal abnormalities pose a fatal threat to a newborn."

Consistent life ethic
Supporters of the consistent life ethic also oppose abortions as one of the acts that end human life. In 1979, Juli Loesch linked anti-abortion and anti-nuclear weapons arguments to form the group Pro Lifers for Survival. In 1987 this group defined an ethic of the sanctity of all life, and formed the group Seamless Garment Network. This group was against abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, militarism, poverty and racism. Beginning in 1983, American Catholic Cardinal Joseph Bernardin argued that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all related, and all wrong. He said that "to be truly 'pro-life,' you have to take all of those issues into account." Paul M. Perl studied 1996 voter statistics and found that the consistent life ethic is difficult for religious leaders to promote because it combines the generally conservative anti-abortion stance with a liberal social attitude.

Abolitionist groups
Abortion abolitionism is an absolutist position, often opposed to mainstream anti-abortion positions, which is largely incrementalist. Abortion abolitionism advocates for a complete ban on abortion of all kinds, including exceptional cases (such as for rape, incest, or preventing the likely death of the woman). Those who adhere to this view often differentiate themselves from the label "pro-life", saying that if abortion is murder then it is unjustifiable in all cases, and that the "pro-life" position is reformist.

Anti-abortion campaigners have made comparisons between abortion and slavery since the 1970s following the Roe v. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Many abortion abolitionists are conservative Christians and say that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution entitles embryos and fetuses to equal protection from murder, which they believe abortion to be. In calling themselves "abolitionists", those in this movement intend to compare the rights of embryos and fetuses to the rights of chattel slaves, and say that their humanity is not counted as fully human by their contemporaries. Some abortion rights campaigners have criticized this comparison, saying that abortion abolitionists co-opt the imagery of the civil rights movement. Abolitionists say that that the historic abolitionist position on slavery was once also seen as radical and unpopular.

Groups calling themselves abolitionist include the Mid-Atlantic Reformation Society, the Oklahoma-based organization Abolitionists Rising, End Abortion Now in Arizona, and Operation Save America, which have gained political support following overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Some abolitionist groups filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the overturning of the decision. state legislators in almost 20 U.S. states had introduced abortion abolitionist bills, with some bills advocating capital punishment for anyone involved in an abortion. There are abolitionist campaign groups in 21 states, and abolition of abortion is included in the platform of the Republican Party of Texas.

Legal and political aspects
The Republican Party platform officially advocates an anti-abortion position, which developed alongside the modern pro-life movement. Before Roe v. Wade, the majority of Republicans were not anti-abortion, including most of the party's leadership, which typically cited abortion rights as included within an ideology of limited government and personal freedom. At the 1976 Republican National Convention, the party adopted an anti-abortion amendment as part of their platform, for strategic reasons. The party's leadership hoped to appeal to Catholics, a demographic which had traditionally voted Democratic, a party at the time containing fairly liberal economic views with mixed opinions on social ones, but who might be put off by growing cultural liberalism and who made up the core of the anti-abortion movement. Over time, the anti-abortion plank of the Republican platform became one rallying point for a growing conservative religious coalition in the party, which drove out many pro-choice Republicans and led to a long-term shift in the party's public image and identity.

However, there are some pro-choice Republicans. The Republican group The Wish List supports pro-choice Republican women just as EMILY's List supports pro-choice Democratic women. The Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) is dedicated to "increasing the percentage of anti-abortion women in Congress and high public office," and seeks to eliminate abortion in the U.S. The Democrats for Life of America are a group of anti-abortion Democrats on the political left who advocate for an anti-abortion plank in the Democratic Party's platform and for anti-abortion Democratic candidates. Former vice-presidential candidate Sargent Shriver, the late Robert Casey, a former two-term governor of Pennsylvania, and former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich), a former leader of the bipartisan anti-abortion caucus in the United States House of Representatives, have been among the most well-known anti-abortion Democrats. However, following his vote in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the SBA List reported that her organization was revoking an anti-abortion award it had been planning to give to Stupak, and anti-abortion organizations accused Stupak of having betrayed the anti-abortion movement.

The New York Times reported in 2011 that the anti-abortion movement in the United States had been undergoing a disagreement over tactics. Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, the movement had usually focused on chipping away at Roe through incremental restrictions such as laws requiring parental consent or women to see sonograms, restricting late-term abortions, etc., with the goal of limiting abortions and changing "hearts and minds" until there is a majority on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. However, some activists were calling for "an all-out legal assault on Roe. v. Wade", seeking the enactment of laws defining legal personhood as beginning at fertilization or prohibiting abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable at six to eight weeks in the hope that court challenges to such laws would lead the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Such activists believed that then-Justice Anthony Kennedy, who nearly decided to overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, was open to rethinking Roe. Others feared that such a legal challenge would result in the solidification of the 1973 decision in Roe. Evangelical Christian groups tended to be in the former camp and Catholic groups in the latter.

Among those who believe that abortion is murder, some believe it may be appropriate to punish it with death. While attempts to criminalize abortion generally focus on the doctor, Texas state Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R) introduced a bill in 2017 and 2019 that may enable the death penalty in Texas for women who have abortions, and the Ohio legislature considered a similar bill in 2018.

Within the movement
Studies indicate that activists within the American anti-abortion movement are predominantly white and religious. Scholars continue to dispute the primary factors that cause individuals to become anti-abortion activists. While some have suggested that a particular moral stance or worldview leads to activism, others have suggested that activism leads individuals to develop particular moral positions and worldviews.

A 1981 survey of dues paying members of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) by sociologist Donald O. Granberg found that survey respondents held conservative views on sex, sex education, and contraception. Additionally, Granberg's survey provided basic demographic characteristics of his sample: 98% of survey respondents were white, 63% were female, 58% had a college degree, and 70% were Catholic. Granberg concluded that conservative personal morality was the primary mechanism for explaining an individual's involvement in the anti-abortion movement.

A 2002 study by Carol J.C. Maxwell drawing on decades of survey and interview data of direct-action activists within the anti-abortion movement found that 99% of the sample was white, 60% was female, 51% had a college degree, and 29% were Catholic. Like Granberg's 1981 study, Maxwell concluded that anti-abortion and abortion-rights activists held two different worldviews which in turn are formed by two different moral centers.

In 2008, sociologist Ziad Munson studied the characteristics of both activists and non-activists who considered themselves anti-abortion. The anti-abortion activists of Munson's sample were 93% white, 57% female, 66% Catholic, and 71% had a college degree. Of non-activists who considered themselves anti-abortion, Munson found that 83% were white, 52% were female, 45% were Catholic, and 76% had a college degree. In Munson's analysis personal moralities and worldviews are formed as a consequence of participation in anti-abortion activism. Munson's analysis differs from previous scholarly work in its assertion that beliefs result from activism rather than causing activism. For Munson, life course factors make an individual more or less likely to become an activist.

Popular opinion
A 2019 Gallup poll found that men and women in the United States generally hold similar abortion views: "19% of both men and women say abortion should be totally illegal; 31% of women and 26% of men want abortion to be totally legal." In addition, 53% of men and 48% of women favored abortion being legal, but only under certain circumstances.

Gallup polling in 2019 found that 25% of Americans believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances; 13%, under most circumstances; 39%, under only a few circumstances; and 21%, under no circumstances. A 2020 poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research similarly found that 37% of Americans believed abortion should be legal under only a few circumstances. This answer was provided by 45% of Catholics and 67% of white evangelical Protestants.

In the Gallup poll, when respondents were first asked about the legality of abortion, 49% described themselves as "pro-life" and 46% as "pro-choice". However, among people who were not asked about legality first, 43% described themselves as "pro-life" and 52% as "pro-choice". Gallup's 2019 polling also found that 50% of Americans believe abortion to be morally wrong, while 42% believe it to be morally acceptable, and 6% believe that it depends on the situation. When asked whether the Supreme Court should reverse their 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, 60% opined that the Court should not, while only 33% said that it should. Polling in 2020 revealed that 32% of Americans are either very or somewhat satisfied about abortion policies as they currently stand, while 24% report being dissatisfied and desire stricter policies and another 22% also express dissatisfaction but desire less strict policies.

According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 15% of Americans with no religious identity are anti-abortion and slight majorities of Catholics, Protestants, Southerners, seniors and nonwhites reported as anti-abortion. A 2019 Gallup poll found that Mormons, the Southern Baptist Convention, and Jehovah's Witnesses have the highest majorities who believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while atheists, agnostics, and Jews have the highest majorities who think the reverse.

Controversies over terminology
Anti-abortion advocates tend to use terms such as "unborn baby", "unborn child", or "pre-born child", and see the medical terms "embryo", "zygote", and "fetus" as dehumanizing. Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of terms labeled as political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light. "Pro-choice" implies that the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life". In part due to this viewpoint, the Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion".

In a 2009 Gallup Poll, a majority of U.S. adults (51%) called themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion—for the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1995—while 42% identified themselves as "pro-choice", although pro-choice groups noted that acceptance of the "pro-life" label did not in all cases indicate opposition to legalized abortion, and that another recent poll had indicated that an equal number were pro-choice.

A March 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll concluded that Americans are "closely divided between those who call themselves pro-life" and those who consider themselves as "pro-choice". In a February 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll of "Likely U.S. Voters", fifty percent view themselves as "pro-choice" and forty percent "say they are pro-life". In a July 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll of "Likely U.S. Voters", 46 percent view themselves as "pro-choice" and 43 percent "say they are pro-life".

Demonstrations and protests

 * Mass demonstrations: every year, American anti-abortion advocates hold a March for Life in Washington, D.C., on January 22, the anniversary date of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States. The event typically draws tens of thousands of attendees and, since 2003, frequently features notable politicians as speakers. Similar events take place on a smaller scale in other U.S. cities, such as the Walk for Life in San Francisco, California.
 * The life chain: The "Life Chain" is a public demonstration technique that involves standing in a row on sidewalks holding signs bearing anti-abortion messages. Messages include "Abortion Kills Children", "Abortion stops a beating heart" or "Abortion Hurts Women". Participants, as an official policy, do not yell or chant slogans and do not block pedestrians or roadways. Many Right to Life chapters hold Life Chain events yearly and the annual worldwide 40 Days for Life campaigns also use this technique.
 * The rescue: A "rescue operation" involves anti-abortion activists blocking the entrances to an abortion clinic in order to prevent anyone from entering. The stated goal of this practice is to force the clinic to shut down for the day. Often, the protesters are removed by law enforcement. Some clinics were protested so heavily in this fashion that they closed down permanently. "The rescue" was first attempted by Operation Rescue. Ever since President Bill Clinton signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act into law, the rescue has become prohibitively expensive, and has rarely been attempted.
 * The truth display: Involves publicly displaying large pictures of aborted fetuses. Some anti-abortion groups believe that showing the graphic results of abortion is an effective way to dissuade and prevent others from choosing abortion. The Pro-Life Action League has used this form of activism in its Face the Truth displays. Members of one group, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, are known for setting up truth displays on university campuses. This group has faced legal battles over the use of such graphic imagery, and they have generated debate regarding the protection of such displays, by freedom of speech. "Truth displays" are controversial, even within the anti-abortion movement.
 * Picketing: The majority of the facilities that perform abortions in the United States experience some form of protest from anti-abortion demonstrators every year, of which the most common form is picketing. In 2007, 11,113 instances of picketing were either reported to, or obtained by, the National Abortion Federation.

Counseling

 * Sidewalk counseling: "Sidewalk counseling" is a form of anti-abortion advocacy which is conducted outside of abortion clinics. Activists seek to communicate with those entering the building, or with passersby in general, in an effort to persuade them not to have an abortion or to reconsider their position on the morality of abortion. They do so by trying to engage in conversation, displaying signs, distributing literature, or giving directions to a nearby crisis pregnancy center.
 * The "Chicago Method" is an approach to sidewalk counseling that involves giving those about to enter an abortion facility copies of lawsuits filed against the facility or its physicians. The name comes from the fact that it was first used by Pro-Life Action League in Chicago. The intent of the Chicago Method is to turn the woman away from a facility that the protesters deem "unsafe", thus giving her time to reconsider her choice to abort.
 * Crisis pregnancy centers: "Crisis pregnancy centers" are non-profit organizations, mainly in the United States, established to persuade pregnant women against having an abortion. These centers are typically run by anti-abortion Christians according to a conservative Christian philosophy, and they often disseminate false medical information, usually but not exclusively about the supposed health risks and mental health risks of abortion.   The centers usually provide peer counseling against abortion, and sometimes also offer adoption referrals or baby supplies. Most are not licensed and do not provide medical services, though some offer sonograms, claiming that women who see such sonograms decide not to have an abortion. Legal and legislative action regarding CPCs has generally attempted to curb false or deceptive advertising undertaken in pursuit of the anti-abortion cause. Several thousand CPCs exist in the United States, often operating in affiliation with one of three umbrella organizations (Care Net, Heartbeat International, and Birthright International), with hundreds in other countries. By 2006, U.S. CPCs had received more than $60 million of federal funding, including some funding earmarked for abstinence-only programs, as well as state funding from many states.

Specialty license plates
In the United States, some states issue specialty license plates that have an anti-abortion theme. Choose Life, an advocacy group founded in 1997, was successful in securing an anti-abortion automobile tag in Florida. Subsequently, the organization has been actively helping groups in other states pursue "Choose Life" license plates.

Abortion health risk claims
Some anti-abortion organizations and individuals disseminate false medical information and unsupported pseudoscientific claims about alleged physical and mental health risks of abortion. Many right-to-life organizations claim that abortion damages future fertility, or causes breast cancer, which is contradicted by the medical professional organizations. Some states, such as Alaska, Mississippi, West Virginia, Texas, and Kansas, have passed laws requiring abortion providers to warn patients of a link between abortion and breast cancer, and to issue other scientifically unsupported warnings.

Some right-to-life advocacy groups allege a link between abortion and subsequent mental-health problems. Some U.S. state legislatures have mandated that patients be told that abortion increases their risk of depression and suicide, despite the fact that such risks are not supported by the bulk of the scientific literature,   and are contradicted by mainstream organizations of mental-health professionals such as the American Psychological Association.

Violence
Violent incidents directed against abortion providers have included arson and bombings of abortion clinics, and murders or attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, especially the doctors that provide abortions. Acts of violence against abortion providers and facilities in North America have largely subsided following a peak in the mid-1990s which included the murders of Drs. David Gunn, John Britton, and Barnett Slepian and the attempted murder of Dr. George Tiller. Tiller was later murdered in his church in 2009.

As of 1995, nearly all anti-abortion leaders said that they condemned the use of violence in the movement, describing it as an aberration and saying that no one in their organizations was associated with acts of violence. A small extremist element of the movement in the US supports, raises money for, and attempts to justify anti-abortion violence, including murders of abortion workers, which this fringe element calls "justifiable homicides". An example of such an organization is the Army of God.

title: United States anti-abortion movement


text:
Talk:United States anti-abortion movement

CompassCare and Jane's Revenge
Since my edit was reverted under the rationale that the image did not match with the content of the section, I'm discussing this here. I actually took the picture of the police on sight of the Eggerstville, NY-based pro-life and anti-abortion medical center CompassCare, on the day an arson attack from a pro-choice group took place there. I added the photo because I thought the section discussed all abortion-related violence, including against anti-abortion groups and individuals, by the fact that one of the paragraphs is about the murder of Jim Pouillon. Additionally, there's no "pro-choice violence" article that's similar to anti-abortion violence, and Jane's Revenge, who did the CompassCare attack plus another Wisconsin pro-life center weeks ago, has been getting both local and national coverage recently. Unfortunately, some of the articles have been from right-wing propaganda outlets fear-mongering about the "radical left" (TheBlaze, National Review, Washington Times, Fox News, NYPost). However, reputable local outlets like WIVB, WBAL, WKBW, and the Buffalo News have discussed the incident, and Jane's Revenge has also been covered for their activities by the Guardian, ABP Live, Socialist Alternative, MyNorthwest, WSAW, PBS Wisconsin, Christian Post, and San Diego Union Tribune. With that mind, if there's an article or section about violence and threats by abortion activists that I could add the image to, I'd appreciate the info. As a libertarian-identifying pro-abortion individual, I definitely know only an anti-abortion violence article exists because there's far more reliable evidence for those incidents, but that does not mean pro-abortion violence does not happen. 👨x🐱 ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 01:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 * My comment would be that this picture would be WP:UNDUE representation of this violence, since, as the Guardian source says: "An attack on an anti-abortion office is a relative rarity compared with attacks on abortion clinics and providers. In 2019, the Guardian reported on an “alarming escalation” in picketing, vandalism and trespassing by anti-abortion activists at medical facilities. Arson, bombings, murders and acid attacks were among more than 300 acts of extreme violence recorded by the Rand Corporation between 1973 and 2003, and in one of the most heinous incidents, in 2009, Dr George Tiller, a Kansas abortion provider, was shot dead in a church in Wichita." So, we'd need some large number of pictures of anti-abortion violence or some other way to not skew the reader's perception in a direction opposite the facts/data. --- Avatar317 (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "An attack on an anti-abortion office is a relative rarity" Rare, but still occurring. Perhaps not notable enough for a solo article on the topic, but we could mention it with the other escalating threats associated with the ridiculous debate about abortions in the United States. Leave it to Americans to resort to lethal violence over a medical issue. Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Avatar317. Unless there's extensive coverage by reliable secondary sources, it doesn't belong in the article, per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * FALSEBALANCE would be if we discussed the pro-abortion violence at the same length as the other violence, or half as much. It could just be a paragraph, where it would acknowledge that pro-abortion violence is definitely rare in comparison to anti-abortion violence, ya know. 👨x🐱 ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 23:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Right now the section on violence has 6 sentences about violence by anti-abortion extremists and 1 sentence about violence directed against an anti-abortion protester. That ratio of 1 to 6 is already far, far higher than the ratio of pro-abortion-rights violence to anti-abortion violence. NightHeron (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) For now, this seems to be two isolated small events, and as such, I would say that they don't deserve mention, because in relation to 300+ events: "Arson, bombings, murders and acid attacks were among more than 300 acts of extreme violence recorded by the Rand Corporation between 1973 and 2003" these two are less than 1%.
 * 2) If this type of activity continues or increases (say 10x), then I would support sub-headers in the "Violence" section of "Violence against abortion providers" and "Violence against abortion opponents", with one sentence talking about the violence against opponents, but including the Rand Corp 300+ statement to put it in perspective. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Republican party headquarters in Raleigh, NC vandalized yesterday. Arizona State House vandalized two days ago.  Someone was arrested for attempting to assassinate a US Supreme Court Justice. This, plus the two mentioned above, seem to have been within a month.  Yeah, it's not 300 - but that's 300 over 40 years. 2600:6C5E:167F:F8D5:BD8C:E81C:25E3:8449 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

False balance
Under "controversies over terminology" The anti-abortion movement's usage of "pro-life" is presented as a "both sides" issue, when that's objectively not the case. The pro-choice movement is in favor of a woman's right to choose, while the anti-abortion movement is opposed to it on religious grounds. On the other hand, the "pro-life" label is deceptive because it refers specifically to being anti-abortion, but not opposition to the death sentence, oppositon to war, or pro-environmentalism, all of which would be more accurately called pro-life, than how the term is used in reality. On the other hand, there's nothing anti-life in abortion rights. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources that say this? In any case, the anti-abortion movement is not against all choices, only the choice to end a pregnancy. The terminology issue was discussed in an RfC in 2018, and a consensus of editors agreed that reliable sources say that both terms pro-choice and pro-life are political spin terms that do not neutrally reflect what the controversy is about. NightHeron (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources for what? I'm specifically talking about trimming content from an already existing section, that already has citations. This article is specifically about the anti-abortion movement and their usage of political labels, so a tacked on tangent about how "both sides do it" is false balance. Also, that was in 2018. The dobbs ruling and subsequent abortion bans, along with their horrendous consequences require us to reevaluate how we view the anti-abortion movement (or should it now be called "pro forced birth movement"?). even if this ever was a two-sided issue, that is no longer the case. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources for considering "pro-choice" to be a neutral description rather than a political spin term.
 * BTW, many abortion rights advocates dislike the term "pro-choice" for several reasons: (1) they're not in favor of choice on other big issues, such as whether or not to obey masking and vaccination mandates during a pandemic; (2) they're not opposed to 3rd-trimester restrictions on the choice to have an abortion (that is, requiring a medical need for it); (3) it avoids mentioning the issue of abortion and in that way accepts the stigmatization of that word; (4) it avoids the word rights; (5) it has a self-indulgent connotation that reflects the priorities of privileged people rather than a pragmatic priority related to women's basic right to health, which is (or should be) the central concern, especially for the poor and people of color.
 * On the question of trimming the section, I agree with you that it should be trimmed. I'd favor removing the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, which are out-of-date and in the wrong place (they'd belong, if anywhere, in the "popular opinion" section, but I think they can be dropped). NightHeron (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * None of those matter because this article is about the Anti-abortion movement, and not anything else. Maybe other parts can be trimmed, but references to the pro-choice movement are undue in this article. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

most commonly vs also
Per BRD, I changed the (also called) to (most commonly called). This was because anti abortion movements are most commonly called pro life. A quick ngrams or google trends search shows this is true. Pro life is about 2x most common than anti abortion. Yet, my edit was reverted by @NightHeron. If they could explain why as "was better before" is not a very good explanation, that would be great. PalauanReich (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 * @NightHeron has reverted my edit again, violating policy. PalauanReich (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC):

 * I knew that the longstanding 1RR policy on abortion-related articles was removed by ArbCom in September 2020 (see ), but I was not aware that 1RR had recently been put back. I apologize for the 2nd RR. NightHeron (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 * If you could explain why you are ignoring the WP:BRD cycle and instead trying to edit-war in an unsourced claim, that would be even better than great. A claim of "more commonly called" begs a "by whom?" response. A Google ngram check doesn't even find the existence of the term "right-to-life movement", despite your claims of commonness. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @NatGertler How am I ignoring BRD. I am talking about pro life. If you actually checked pro life vs anti abortion, you would clearly see what I mean. I would say NightHeron is edit warring by ignoring the big notice at the top that says "only 1 revert". PalauanReich (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * " To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit[...]" sayeth WP:BRD. And your claim about what you truly mean does not match with the edit you did, which included the right-to-life phrase. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The "pro-life" term is commonly used only by adherents of the anti-abortion movement, and it's a political spin term. This has been discussed many times on Wikipedia, for example, when both the title of this article was changed from "pro-life movements" to "anti-abortion movements" and when the title of the article on the other side was changed from "pro-choice movements" to "abortion rights movements". The purpose in both cases was to comply with WP:NPOV and remove political spin terminology from the title.

WP:BRD requires you to get a consensus on the talk-page before restoring a disputed edit. NightHeron (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 * The article titles are appropriately NPOV but since we mention the 'political spin' names anyway I see no reason why we can't acknowledge that at least one of them is more common than the name we use. I suggest The United States anti-abortion movement (most commonly called the pro-life movement; also the right-to-life movement). And analogous changes at United States abortion-rights movement. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 * First, because it hasn't been shown that that's the more common name, although of course it's the common name among anti-abortion activists. Second, because it slyly suggests that the name in the article title isn't really the right one. NightHeron (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ngrams shows it. I suspect nearly everyone familiar with U.S. politics would agree it is more common, regardless of their own views on the issue. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 00:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have a usable source for "more commonly" (using Ngrams or Ghits is a form of OR), much less "most commonly". And the relative commonality of the term is not of such import that we need put it in the first sentence of the article without a source. "Also" serves the purpose of letting the reader know "here's other terms that may have landed you on this page; they mean the same thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Come on now, you linked Ngrams above to show that "right-to-life movement" is not common, and now suddenly it's OR. Ngrams is linked at WP:TITLE, and it's mentioned as possible evidence for a proposed move at WP:RSPM. How else would we determine the most common name? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 00:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OR is a restriction on article content, not on discussions. We use them in discussions of titles to use because it's a decision we have to make and it's one of the best tools to use... but that's not the same as making the claim in Wikipedia voice that something is the most common, which would require non-OR sourcing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is WP:SKYISBLUE territory, in my opinion. Anybody who pays attention to U.S. politics can see that the most common terms are "pro-choice" and "pro-life". There is probably no source saying this because it's patently obvious. For the same reason, we also don't have a source explaining that "anti-abortion" and "pro-life" are actually the same thing. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 13:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's that obvious to all, then we don't need to say it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

From WP:TITLE: "the ideal article title precisely (my bolding) identifies the subject;" - The current choice of terms is more ACCURATE, despite the branding of what the groups want to call themselves: The term "pro-life" is a marketing device and does not reflect the sole focus of the movement, which is opposition to abortion; see consistent life ethic, these people are a SUBSET of the anti-abortion folks. Likewise, "pro-choice" isn't support for pluralistic elections systems contrasting communist states. And you'd need sources other than your own web survey to say which terms are most common, per WP:OR.--- Avatar317 (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Nobody is debating the article title here... We're debating how to describe another name for the movement which is already given in the content of the article. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * [Repeat my last sentence] you'd need sources other than your own web survey to say which terms are most common, per WP:OR. --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Major League Baseball draft

The Major League Baseball draft (officially the Rule 4 draft; also known as the First Year Player Draft) is the primary mechanism by which Major League Baseball (MLB) assigns amateur baseball players from high schools, colleges, and other amateur baseball clubs to its teams. The draft order is determined by a lottery system, starting in 2023, where teams that did not make the postseason in the previous year participate in a state-lottery style process to determine the first six picks. The team with the worst record has the best odds of receiving the first pick. Prior to 2023, the draft order was based on the previous season's standings, with the worst team selecting first.

The first amateur draft was held in 1965. Unlike most sports drafts, the MLB draft is held mid-season, taking place in July since 2021. Another distinguishing feature of the draft compared to those of other North American major professional sports leagues is its sheer size: currently, the draft lasts for 20 rounds, in addition to compensatory picks introduced in 2021. Until 2019, it lasted up to 40 rounds. In contrast, the NFL Draft lasts seven rounds (260 selections), the NHL Entry Draft lasts seven rounds (224 selections), the MLS SuperDraft lasts three rounds (87 selections), and the NBA draft is only two rounds (60 selections).

On March 26, 2020, MLB and the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) reached a deal that included the option to shorten that year's draft to five rounds, and halve the 2021 draft to 20 rounds. On March 10, 2022, after agreeing on a new collective bargaining agreement, it was decided that the first-round order would be based on a lottery participated by 18 non-postseason teams to determine the first six picks, starting with the 2023 draft. and secondly on the results of playoff teams. The remaining first-round picks and subsequent rounds are determined by the previous season's win-loss records for the first 18 selections in each round, followed by playoff finishes.

Before the draft
Major League Baseball has used a draft to assign minor league players to teams since 1921. In 1936, the National Football League held the first amateur draft in professional sports. A decade later, the National Basketball Association instituted a similar method of player distribution. However, the player draft was controversial. Congressman Emanuel Celler questioned the legality of drafts during a series of hearings on the business practice of professional sports leagues in the 1950s. Successful clubs saw the draft as anti-competitive. Yankees executive Johnny Johnson equated it with communism. At the same time, Pulitzer Prize-winning sports columnist Arthur Daley compared the system to a "slave market."

Prior to the implementation of the first-year player draft, amateurs were free to sign with any Major League team that offered them a contract. As a result, wealthier teams such as the New York Yankees and St. Louis Cardinals were able to stockpile young talent, while poorer clubs were left to sign less desirable prospects.

In 1947, Major League Baseball implemented the bonus rule, a restriction aimed at reducing player salaries, as well as keeping wealthier teams from monopolizing the player market. In its most restrictive form, it forbade any team which gave an amateur a signing bonus of more than $4,000 from assigning that player to a minor league affiliate for two seasons. If the player was removed from the major league roster, he became a free agent. The controversial rule was repealed twice, only to be re-instituted.

The bonus rule was largely ineffective. There were accusations that teams were signing players to smaller bonuses, only to supplement them with under-the-table payments. In one famous incident, the Kansas City Athletics signed Clete Boyer, kept him on their roster for two years, then traded him to the Yankees just as he became eligible to be sent to the minor leagues. Other clubs accused the Yankees of using the Athletics as a de facto farm team, and the A's later admitted to signing Boyer on their behalf. Finally, it was the bidding war for Rick Reichardt, who signed with the Los Angeles Angels for the then outrageous bonus of $200,000, (about $1.8 million today) that led to the implementation of the draft.

Major League clubs voted on the draft during the 1964 Winter Meetings. Four teams—the New York Yankees, St. Louis Cardinals, Los Angeles Dodgers, and New York Mets—attempted to defeat the proposal, but they failed to convince a majority of teams, and in the end only the Cardinals voted against it.

The draft
MLB player transactions are governed by The Official Professional Baseball Rules Book, within which, Rule 4 governs the "First-Year Player Draft". Due to its place in the rules book, MLB's amateur draft is sometimes referred to as the "Rule 4 draft"; there is also a distinctly different Rule 5 draft.

Major League Baseball's first amateur draft was held on June 8–9, 1965, in New York City. Teams chose players in reverse order of the previous season's standings, with picks alternating between the National and American Leagues. With the first pick, the Kansas City Athletics took Rick Monday, an outfielder from Arizona State University.

Originally, three separate drafts were held each year. The June draft, which was by far the largest, involved new high school graduates, as well as college seniors who had just finished their seasons. Another draft was held in January, which typically involved high school players who graduated in the winter, junior college players, and players who had dropped out of four-year colleges. Junior college players were required to wait until their current season was completed before they could sign. Finally, there was a draft in August for players who participated in amateur summer leagues. The August draft was eliminated after only two years, while the January draft lasted until 1986.

Influence of the draftee's age
Early on, the majority of players drafted came directly from high school. Between 1967 and 1971, only seven college players were chosen in the first round of the June draft. However, the college players who were drafted outperformed their high school counterparts by what statistician Bill James called "a laughably huge margin." By 1978, a majority of draftees had played college baseball, and by 2002, the number rose above sixty percent. While the number of high school players drafted has dropped, those picked have been more successful than their predecessors. In a study of drafts from 1984 to 1999, Baseball Prospectus writer Rany Jazayerli concluded that, by the 1990s, the gap in production between the two groups had nearly disappeared. In October 2011, Jazayerli presented another research study which included an analysis of those players drafted since 1965, but instead of breaking them into college or high school draftees, he segregated them by their age on draft day. In the study published in Baseball Prospectus, which included a follow-up article of the financial benefits, Jazayerli concluded that the very young players return more value than expected by their draft slots. In Jazayerli's study he looked at the statistics and broke draftees into five distinctive groups based on their age and being drafted in the early rounds. Jazayerli's defined a “very young” player as those who are younger than 17 years and 296 days on draft day. Since the inception of the draft, the youngest player ever drafted in an early round is Alfredo Escalera. Escalera was drafted by the Kansas City Royals in the eighth round of the 2012 draft at 17 years and 114 days. Jazayerli's study does not clearly demonstrate the influence of the player's age when drafted in a late round.

Economic impact
Initially, the draft succeeded in reducing the value of signing bonuses. In 1964, a year before the first draft, University of Wisconsin outfielder Rick Reichardt was given a record bonus of $200,000 ($1,798,722 today) by the Los Angeles Angels. Without competition from other clubs, the Athletics were able to sign Rick Monday for a bonus of only $104,000. It would take until 1979 when USC pitcher Bill Bordley received a bonus higher than Reichardt's.

Player salaries continued to escalate through the 1980s. In 1986, Bo Jackson became the first draftee to sign a total contract (signing bonus and salary) worth over $1 million ($0 today). Jackson, a Heisman Trophy-winning football player for Auburn University, was also the first overall choice in the National Football League draft, and was offered a $7 million ($0 today) contract to play football for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

High school players possessed additional leverage, as they had the option of attending college and re-entering the draft the next year. Agent Scott Boras routinely exploited this advantage to increase the contracts of his clients. In 1990, Boras client Todd Van Poppel signed a $1.2 million ($0 today) contract with Oakland Athletics, after committing to play for the University of Texas. The following year, Boras negotiated a $1.55 million ($0 today) contract for Yankees first round pick Brien Taylor, who had said he would attend junior college if he did not receive a contract equal to Van Poppel's. By June 2009, a figure as high as $15 million was floated for collegian pitcher Stephen Strasburg.

Increasingly, teams drafted based on whether or not a player was likely to sign for a particular amount of money, rather than on his talent. This became known as a "signability pick". Before the 1992 draft, team owners unilaterally decided to extend the period of time a team retained negotiating rights to a player from one year to five. In effect, the rule prohibited a high school draftee from attending college and re-entering the draft after his junior or senior seasons. The Major League Baseball Players Association filed a legal challenge, but Major League Baseball argued that, since the Players Association did not represent amateur players, it was not necessary for the union to agree to the change. An arbitrator ultimately decided that any change to draft articles must be negotiated with the Players Association.

Media exposure
The first-year player draft has historically had far less media exposure than its counterparts in the other leagues for three primary reasons: The 2007 draft was the first to be televised live, on June 7, 2007. The draft coverage took place at Disney's Wide World of Sports Complex at Walt Disney World near Orlando, Florida. Since the 2009 draft, the first round of the draft has been broadcast annually on MLB Network live and in prime time from its studios in Secaucus, New Jersey, with ESPN simulcasting the first round since 2020. Since the 2021 draft, the event takes place during All-Star Weekend.
 * High school and college baseball, the primary sources of MLB draftees, are not nearly as popular as college football, college basketball, and, in Canada and certain parts of the U.S., college and junior hockey. Consequently, most prospective top draft picks were unknown to the casual sports observer at the time of their draft. However, this is slowly changing: NCAA baseball has enjoyed a spike in popularity in the 2000s and top collegiate baseball players have enjoyed greater media exposure, though still far below that of their basketball and football counterparts.
 * Unlike top draft picks in the NHL, NBA, and NFL, all of whom are expected to make immediate impacts, top MLB draftees are nearly always assigned to the minor leagues for several years to hone their skills, usually at low levels (Rookie or Class A) initially. Due to this, fans cannot see the newly drafted players perform immediately, causing them to forget or lose interest in them. The entire 2007 first round (64 players) totaled one inning of major league playing time as of the end of the 2008 season; as of the 2009 season, the vast majority of 2008 first-rounders were still assigned to minor league organizations. In contrast, every first-round pick in the 2008 NFL draft had played in the league by the end of the 2008 season.
 * While many NHL, NBA, and NFL draftees will eventually reach their respective leagues, the vast majority of players selected in the first-year player draft will never play in a single MLB game, including many first-rounders. For example, only 31 of 52 first-round draft picks in the 1997 draft eventually made a big-league appearance, and only 19 of those 31 appeared in more than 100 games as of 2021. In 1997's sixth round, only five of the 30 players selected eventually made a big league appearance, all of which pitchers, and only two of those five (Tim Hudson and Matt Wise) pitched more than 40 innings in the majors. Further illustrating the unpredictability of the draft's middle and later rounds, none of the 30 players selected in the 18th round ever reached the major leagues, but the 19th round eventually produced an all-star and World Series MVP, David Eckstein. Even stranger, Hall of Famer Mike Piazza was selected in the 62nd round, 1390th overall, of the 1988 draft.

Eligibility
To be drafted, a player must fit the following criteria:
 * Be a resident of, or have attended an educational institution in, the United States, Canada, or a U.S. territory such as Puerto Rico. Players from other countries are not subject to the draft, and can be signed by any team unless they have attended an educational institution in the aforementioned areas.
 * Has never signed a major or minor league contract.
 * High school players are eligible only after graduation, and if they have not attended college.
 * Players at four-year colleges and universities are eligible three years after first enrolling in such an institution, or after their 21st birthdays (whichever occurs first).
 * Junior and community college players are eligible to be drafted at any time.

Draft order
From the 2023 draft, as part of the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the general draft order in the first round will be based on a lottery participated by 18 teams which did not make the postseason in the past season to determine the first six picks in the draft, with the three worst clubs having an equal chance of winning the top overall pick, and secondly by the finishes of playoff clubs, i.e., Wild Card Game losers down to the World Series winner. Additionally, within each playoff group, teams will be sorted by revenue-sharing status and then reverse order of winning percentage. In each subsequent round, the first 18 selections are still determined by the preceding season's standings and the remaining picks are also based on the postseason clubs' results. Revenue-sharing recipient teams are limited to receiving lottery picks in two consecutive drafts and non-recipients can get one of the top six selections in a single draft year only. Also, a lottery-ineligible, non-postseason club can only select 10th overall or lower. The 2022 CBA ratified the draft's reduction to 20 rounds.

The order was the reverse order of the previous year's standings, until 2022. If two teams finished with identical records, the previous year's standings of the two teams was the tiebreaker, with the team having a worse record receiving the higher pick.

Negotiating rights
Prior to 2007, a team retained the rights to sign a selected player until one week prior to the next draft, or until the player enters, or returns to, a four-year college on a full-time basis. This was known as the "draft and follow" procedure.

Since 2012, the deadline for signing a drafted player is July 15. A selected player who enters a junior college cannot be signed until the conclusion of the school's baseball season. A player who is drafted and does not sign with the club that selected him may be drafted again at a future year's draft, so long as the player is eligible for that year's draft. A club may not select a player again in a subsequent year, unless the player has consented to the re-selection.

A player who is eligible to be selected and is passed over by every club becomes a free agent and may sign with any club, up until one week before the next draft, or until the player enters, or returns to, a four-year college full-time or enters, or returns to, a junior college. In the one-week period before any draft, which is called the "closed period", the general rule is that no club may sign a new player.

The 2022 CBA reinstated the draft-and-follow option for players drafted after the 10th round who opt to attend junior college and are eligible to sign with their drafting clubs before the following draft.

Compensatory picks
Currently, teams can earn compensatory picks in the draft based on departing free agents who reject a Qualifying Offer from their respective team. A qualifying offer is defined as a one-year contract worth the average value of the top 120 player contracts for that year (in 2015, the value of the qualifying offer was $15.8 million). The 2013 draft saw major changes to the compensation rules. This was implemented as part of the previous CBA between MLB and its players' union, which took effect with the 2012 season.

Pre-2013 rules
Before the 2013 draft, free agents were ranked by the Elias Sports Bureau based on their previous two years of playing, and against players of similar positions. Players were categorized as either Type A or Type B, or fell into the category of all other players. Below is a description of each free agent class and the compensation the free agent's former team received when the player signed with a different team.

 * A Type A free agent was ranked in the top 20 percent of players at his position. A team that signed a Type A player gave its top draft pick to the club that the player left; that club also received a supplemental pick in the "sandwich" round between the first and second rounds.
 * A Type B free agent was ranked below the top 20 percent but in the top 40 percent of players at his position. A team that lost a Type B player received a supplemental pick, but the signing team did not lose a pick.
 * All other players carried no compensation at all. There had previously been a third class of "Type C" players, but that was eliminated in the 2007 CBA.

To earn a compensatory pick, a free agent must have been either signed before the arbitration deadline in early December, or offered arbitration by their former team but still signed with another team.

Compensatory picks that one team gave another via this method were the highest available pick that team had, with the exception of picks in the top half of the first round. These picks were protected from being used as compensation. If a team that picked in the top half of the first draft signed a Type A free agent, they would give up their second-round pick. If a team owed two other teams draft picks via Type A free agents, the team whose departing player had a higher score got the higher-ranked pick. A team could not lose picks it earned via compensation. The post-2012 rules for this aspect of the draft are similar, except that the "Type A" and "Type B" designations no longer exist (see below).

The order of the supplemental round between the first and second rounds, a feature that remains in place in 2013 and beyond, is determined by inverse order of the previous year's standings. Under pre-2013 rules, Type A picks were made first, and then the order reset for all the Type B compensation picks.

In a feature that did not change with the old CBA in 2012, teams can also earn compensation for unsigned picks from the previous year's draft. If a team doesn't sign a first or second round pick, they will get to pick at the same slot plus one the following year. For example, if the team with the No. 5 pick does not sign that player, they would have the No. 6 pick the following year. The regular draft order would continue around those picks. For compensation for not signing a third round pick, teams would get a pick in a supplemental round between the third and fourth rounds. If a team fails to sign a player with one of these compensated picks, there is no compensation the following year.

Current rules
For the 2012 draft, the previous "Type A" and "Type B" designations remained in place, but the CBA included special provisions that modified the statuses of 11 players who were Type A free agents under the 2007 CBA. Six of these were "Modified Type A"—meaning that the signing team did not forfeit a draft pick, but the player's former team received a compensatory pick in the same position it would have earned under regular Type A rules. The remaining five were "Modified Type B", with compensation identical to that for other Type B free agents.

Since the 2013 draft, free agents are no longer classified by "type". Instead, a team is only able to receive compensation if it makes its former player an offer at least equal to the average of the 125 richest contracts. However, if a player is traded during the final season of his contract, his new team will be ineligible to receive any compensation.

Starting with the 2023 draft, the 2022 CBA provides for the awarding of compensatory draft picks under the following:

 * Clubs that receive revenue sharing will receive a third-round pick if the player signs for more than $35 million total or $18 million in average annual value, a compensation round B pick if the player signs for more than $55 million or $23 million in average annual value, a compensation round A pick if the player signs for more than $100 million or $30 million in average annual value, or a third-round pick and compensation round A pick if the player signs for more than $150 million or $40 million in average annual value.
 * Clubs that do not receive revenue sharing but also not go over the competitive balance tax (CBT) will receive a third-round pick if the player signs for more than $55 million or $23 million in average annual value, a compensation round B pick if the player signs for more than $100 million or $30 million in average annual value, or a compensation round A pick if the player signs for more than $150 million or $40 million in average annual value.
 * Clubs that go over the CBT will receive a third-round pick if the player signs for more than $100 million or $30 million in average annual value or a compensation round B pick if the player signs for more than $150 million or $40 million in average annual value.

Other changes from 2012
The previous CBA introduced other significant changes to the draft.

Bonus pool
From the 2012 draft on, each team is allocated a "bonus pool" from which it can offer initial contracts to its drafted players. Each team's pool is based on its draft position and number of picks, plus the amount spent in the previous year's draft. For the 2012 draft, these pools ranged from $4.5 million to $11.5 million. If a team goes over its threshold by 5 percent or less, it must pay a "luxury tax" of 75% on the amount over the threshold. Teams that go 5 to 10 percent over must pay a 100% tax on the excess, and will lose their next first-round pick. A team that goes 15 percent over can lose its next two first-round picks, in addition to the "luxury tax". These excess picks will go to smaller-revenue teams via a yet-to-be-reported formula. Uniquely, these compensatory picks can be traded—marking the first time MLB has allowed trading of draft picks. However, all previous rules against trading of regular picks, or picks awarded as free agent compensation, remain in force.

New signing rules
Teams can no longer offer major league contracts to their draft choices—only minor league contracts are available. The only exception is for drafted players who have scholarships in other sports. Also, the date for signing new picks has moved from mid-August to mid-July. However, the deadline was moved to early August in 2021 to compensate for the new date of the MLB Draft.

title: Major League Baseball draft


text:
Empress Hotel

Empress Hotel may refer to:

 * Empress Hotel, Fitzroy North, Melbourne
 * Empress Hotel (Toronto), destroyed by fire
 * The Empress (hotel), Victoria, British Columbia
 * The Empress Hotel (New Jersey), in Asbury Park

title: Empress Hotel


text:
User talk:Terra-rent

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Advertisement
Please stop adding links. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your company. AdamRock 20:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * In other news, The Romanian Wikipedia would probably like it if you could help contribute to their work. They probably won't want your advertisement links, though. AdamRock 20:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing.   Regarding  -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Terra-rent


text:
Talk:Hurricane (Bob Dylan song)

NPOV dispute
For a discussion of this NPOV dispute, see Talk:Rubin Carter. Blackcats 19:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC) Why? Is this according to Wiki guidelines? This article should be about the song, not about the factsa of the case. Quite a different topic. Gray62 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The case Rubin Carter may be unclear and disputed, however, Hurricane (song) expresses the views of Bob Dylan on the matter (and one therforem may disagree). The reproduction of such a view is no more than simple fact and I personally don't think there is a case for discussion here. ScroipT 12:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

What have y'all done to that article? Imho it is in worse shape than at the time I stopped working on it. Some important information about Dylan's work on the song is gone, and instead some info about the Carter case was inserted, that doesn't belong HERE. Someone here seems to be interested to spread his opinion about Carter, and this led to statements here that directly contradict the infos at the main article (for instance, #3 or #9 contender?). In this state, this article isn't NPOV! I also doubt the wisdom of descussing this article at the Rubin Carter Discussion, this is only messing up the discussion. I for one certainly won't do that, but will state my objections here, where they belong! Gray62 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"The strength and majesty of our judicial system is founded on the exposition of the truth through a process of submission of evidence and argument to a body of neutral citizens, and not through a process of imagery conjured by Maddison Avenue public relations and a collection of uninformed celebrities". Hon. Judge Larner, 1975.

I was told once that Dylan stopped performing the song and withdrew his public support after changing his mind about Carter; in the words of the teller "after he found out that Carter was not such a nice guy". Is there any truth to that? I've looked for some source or reference to that effect to no avail. Anazgnos 21:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that none of the "celebrities" who initialy supported Carter showed up at the trial, and had all withdrawn their support speaks volumes. And when the movie Hurricane was released, Dylan's fans were screaming out for him to perform it, he never did.

The "not such a nice guy" comment rings a bell, it may be from Behind The Shades by Heylin, but I can't check because I don't have it in my possesion at the moment. Hope this helps. Lion King 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather shocking, the quote from Dylan's biographer. If someone has "antagistic rhetoric" this, normally, should not mean he deserves being framed for murder! 2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:14D6:7808:832B:1608 (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hurricane45.jpg
Image:Hurricane45.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

n-word
if a white guy used the n-word in a song these days, even if it was trying to prove an anti-racism type of point like in this song, he'd be killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.167.253 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The racial revenge theory coming into play? Educated Guest (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Ya, a couple of riots happened when Axl Rose used it in One in a Million! 157.190.228.23 (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He says "shit" and "son of a bitch" too! Dylan invented gangsta rap!!!! --71.205.219.29 (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't Dylan sing it anymore?
Why doesn't Dylan sing this song anymore? Is it perhaps because he believes he was conned by Carter?? I think some explaination for him not singing it in over 20 years should be given, especially given its popularity! 157.190.228.23 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no explanation that can be given, other than he never has, in over 20 years. It may well be very popular with his fans, but maybe he now realises that it is so grossly inaccurate, that he can't possibly perform it? Just a thought. Educated Guest (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Rubin actually sued Dylan for some stupid reason, can somebody please confirm this? If this is true, then i think it´s pretty obvious why Dylan does not play the song anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codona (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Song length
The article says the song runs for 8 minutes and 33 seconds, but the version I downloaded is almost 10 minutes (9:50). How many different versions are there? Paper Luigi T • C 10:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Spotify says that it's 8:32 for me: https://open.spotify.com/track/1lqMLr9Wj7SM2F9AikGcxN Tylercrompton (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

YouTube
Very odd. This is about the only well-known song whch seems to be completely unavailable on YouTube. Even uploads of the whole Desire album have this track deleted. Why? Has something happened? Can this be added to the article, whatever it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.151.51 (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Unattributed speaker
"Dylan had written topical ballads such as "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" and Bob wasn't sure that he could write a song [about Carter].... He was just filled with all these feelings about Hurricane. He couldn't make the first step. I think the first step was putting the song in a total storytelling mode. I don't remember whose idea it was to do that. But really, the beginning of the song is like stage directions, like what you would read in a script: 'Pistol shots ring out in a barroom night.... Here comes the story of the Hurricane.' Boom! Titles. You know, Bob loves movies, and he can write these movies that take place in eight to ten minutes, yet seem as full or fuller than regular movies"

This is not attributed to any speaker, as far as I can tell. It's sourced to a book by Clinton Heylin, but is the author publishing formal sentences with "You know,..." in them, or quoting someone else? Joe Suggs (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of the N word
Shouldn't this be discussed in more depth within the article? Was there no response to the use of the slur? - Bossanoven (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The use in the song was not as a slur from Dylan's point of view, but rather a word placed into the mouths of the black community by Dylan. The entire point of the song is to combat racism after all and I don't feel that one word is at all notable, especially when the date that this song was written is taken into context. 136.167.136.9 (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane (Bob Dylan song). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024010131/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/698/698.F2d.430.81-5924.html to http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/698/698.F2d.430.81-5924.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane (Bob Dylan song)


text:
User talk:MullerHolk

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks
Hi NoizHed, thanks for your help on Talk:hypercomputation. I wasn't really looking forward to writing up a complete proof for Exa; complete proofs of anything relating to Turing machines are awful :). -- pde 05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:MullerHolk


text:
Legacy (The Temptations album)

Legacy is a 2004 album by The Temptations for the Motown label, introducing new Temptations G.C. Cameron and Joe Herndon. The album was the group's final release on Motown; they left the label shortly after its release. "Somethin' Special" was a Top 40 hit on the Urban Adult Contemporary Charts peaking at #25. The cover photograph was taken by Aaron Rapoport.

Track listing

 * 1) "Still Temptin'" (Balewa Muhammad, Frank Oliphant, Steve Harvey, Thomas Olivera) – 4:35
 * 2) "Round Here" (Muhammad, Bobby Watson, Clifton Lighty, Oliphant, Harvey) – 4:00
 * 3) "Stay Together" (Andrew Ramsey, Eric Benét, Shannon Sanders) – 4:29
 * 4) "Somethin' Special" (Brian Winsley, Dinky Bingham, Joel Kipnis, LaMenga Kafi) – 4:46
 * 5) "Fifty Fifty Love" (Carlton Grant, Dave Evans, Steve Lindsey) – 3:43
 * 6) "Love To The Music" (Daniel Weatherspoon) – 4:48
 * 7) "You Are Necessary In My Life (The Wedding Song)" (Benjamin Wright, Otis Williams) – 6:36
 * 8) "Mr. Fix It" (Muhammad, Oliphant, Mary Brown, Harvey) – 4:47
 * 9) "All The Wrong People" (Muhammad, Watson, Oliphant, Brown, Harvey) – 4:46
 * 10) "Baby It's Me" (Grant, Evans, Lindsey) – 5:18
 * 11) "Why Can't We Be Lovin' Friends" (Ali-Ollie Woodson, Williams) – 5:54 with Danesha Simon
 * 12) "Never Let You Down" (Arlene Britt, Johnny Britt) – 3:49

Personnel
The Temptations
 * G.C. Cameron – tenor/baritone vocals
 * Terry Weeks – second tenor vocals
 * Otis Williams – baritone vocals
 * Ron Tyson – first tenor/falsetto vocals
 * Joe Herndon – bass vocals

title: Legacy (The Temptations album)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Antipov

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Woohookitty 09:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC) ''RESULT replaced with DELETE, in line with Woohookitty's apparent intention. Bovlb 14:54:12, 2005-09-07 (UTC)''

Anton Antipov
 strong delete Vanity promotion. Abs: 6 pack and other data like that belongs to a modeling portfolio, not wikipedia.

 * delete abakharev 00:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * delete, there are copyright issues with the image too. --Ghirlandajo 10:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. -Irpen 02:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete vanity, promotion, not notable DEng 23:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most of the article was a copyright violation from here, changed from the first person to the third. Bovlb 06:30:58, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, the mostbeautifulman.com artcile was directly stolen from something *I* wrote for here, all they did was change the third person to first .. and badly at that.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Barlotto

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Barlotto


text:
User talk:Himitsu~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

BTW, I noticed you uploaded Image:Gaza chants clip.ogg. Did you make this recording yourself?--Pharos 19:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I recorded it myself but I didn't chant it and stuff. Himitsu 19:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I was just asking because sometimes new Wikipedians are prone to upload copyrighted stuff. Thanks for your work on this; we get far too few sound contributions.--Pharos 19:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Himitsu. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Himitsu~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Himitsu~enwiki


text:
User talk:ExtraBold

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:ExtraBold


text:
List of cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina

This is a list of cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina, a province of 🇷🇸 Serbia.

List of urban settlements in Vojvodina
List of all urban settlements (cities and towns) in Vojvodina with population figures from recent censuses:

South Bačka District:

West Bačka District:

North Bačka District:

North Banat District:

Central Banat District:

South Banat District:

Syrmia District:

City of Novi Sad – Novi Sad Municipality
Hamlets and suburbs:
 * Bangladeš (Бангладеш)
 * Kamenjar (Камењар)
 * Lipov Gaj (Липов Гај)
 * Nemanovci (Немановци)
 * Pejićevi Salaši (Пејићеви Салаши)

Bač Municipality
Hamlets and suburbs:
 * Labudnjača (Лабудњача)
 * Mali Bač (Мали Бач)
 * Živa (Жива)

Bečej Municipality
Hamlets:
 * Drljan (Дрљан)
 * Novo Selo (Ново Село)
 * Poljanice (Пољанице)

Beočin Municipality
Hamlets:
 * Koruška (Корушка)

Srbobran Municipality
Hamlets:
 * Doline (Долине)
 * Kipovo (Кипово)

City of Sombor
Hamlets and suburbs:
 * Bilić (Билић)
 * Bukovački Salaši (Буковачки Салаши)
 * Kruševlje (Крушевље)
 * Lugumerci (Лугумерци)
 * Rančevo (Ранчево)
 * Žarkovac (Жарковац)

Apatin Municipality
Hamlets:
 * Staro Selo (Старо Село)
 * Veliki Salaš (Велики Салаш)

City of Subotica
Hamlets:
 * Madaraš (Мадараш)

Kikinda municipality
Hamlets:
 * Bikač (Бикач)
 * Vincaid (Винцаид)

City of Zrenjanin
Hamlets:
 * Zlatica (Златица)

Alibunar Municipality
Hamlets:
 * Novi Vladimirovac
 * Devojački Bunar

Bela Crkva Municipality
Hamlets:
 * Stara Palanka

City of Sremska Mitrovica
Hamlets:
 * Vranjaš
 * Venac

Former settlements
Former settlements in Vojvodina that were abandoned or resettled:

Former settlements in Vojvodina that were merged with other places: