Talk:United States pro-choice movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Abortion-rights movement)
Jump to: navigation, search


move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved: this discussion has run 40 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)



Pro-choiceAbortion-rights movement — Relisted. Ongoing discussion. --rgpk (comment) 15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC) or maybe just Abortion rights. Regardless of the ongoing debate at pro-lifeanti-abortion (one article should not be held hostage to the bad name of another), the name "pro-choice" violates several naming conventions: (a) it is not a noun, (b) in is not international in scope (it is only COMMONNAME for the U.S.), (c) it is ambiguous (there are movements for choice in many other areas), (d) it is not NPOV: 'abortion rights' cuts to the quick as to what it's about. (However, the phrase abortion rights alone would cover only the legal status of abortion, not the movement to support the right to abortion.) Other titles, such as support for legalized abortion, etc., are also worth considering. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support nominator made some excellent points, only those of us who are pro-choice call ourselves this, it should be renamed to take a more neutral and precise title. WMO 23:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I presume that the phrase 'pro-choice' would remain in the lede of the article as an alternate name. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggest closing without prejudice to the proposal or the editor who made the nomination. As both editors above know - both being involved in the matter - there is presently a contentious move request for Pro-life that is still open and attracting debate. There have been several alternate proposals advanced in that discussion that aren't getting any traction due to the size of the debate, and some of those move proposals would affect both that page and this one. I'd suggest waiting for the other move request to close (it won't close with any consensus to move at this point) and then opening a general request on the other proposals, not only on one of them. Having this move request open will only get in the way of a more general debate. Gavia immer (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It may very well move with consensus. Consensus is not a vote, but considers the quality of the arguments and whether a move is supported by wiki policies in general. Also, one of the repeated arguments (though one that an admin would probably ignore as irrelevant) is that this article is not up for renaming. If that RfM closes w/o a move, we might want to close this early and open a joint request, preferably with a better proposal for 'pro-life'. However, even if it does succeed, we will probably want to reopen it as 'anti-abortion' is also an unencyclopedic title.
We could also close both prematurely and open a joint RfM in their place.
Another possibility would be to merge both into abortion debate. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think a centralized discussion would be best. I think it's important to avoid bias, and to be consistent. It would not be neutral if we created a situation out of a popular vote where we don't allow one movement to use their own terms, but we permit another to. -Andrew c [talk] 01:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
But RfMs are not popular votes. WP is not a democracy. If one article is at an encyclopedic title and the other is not, that would only put pressure on the nonconforming article. Regardless, one article at a bad name is better than two.
We could suggest at talk:pro-life that the RfMs be combined. But if the wording of the destinations is modified, it will be much more difficult to do them together. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
If you think there is a problem with both article titles, and especially if you think there is the same problem with both article titles, then they would almost certainly be best discussed together. This can't be done while the previous request at Talk:Pro-life is still open, nor can it be done if that separate request closes and another separate request is open and halfway through discussion here. It is really best to wait and discuss the whole issue as one piece. Gavia immer (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we leave it open to see if there are any good suggestions for improvement; when the other RfM closes, if it is still not at an encyclopedic title, why don't we plan on closing this early in order to combine the two, using the best title proposed here as the basis. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support -- Seems like a logical renaming of the article. I had suggested something similar(except "Pro-Abortion Rights') on the "Pro-life" talk page. This is a much better suggestion, and seems like more neutral wording. Dave Dial (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support -- Nominator's reasons make sense. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and move the pro-life (and more egregious title) as well (this title is just vague, the other title is misleading) 184.144.161.207 (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Skeptical — while this suggestion is definitely better thought-out, it would stir the pot even more with respect to the "pro-life" title; what I'd hate to see is to have this one at the accurate title and the other one left where it is. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • A move towards accuracy for one is a move towards accuracy for all, provided the other article doesn't get moved to "Super-Moral Awesome Squad". Whether or not the other is moved is not really germane to this discussion- if we can make this article more neutral, we should (and that goes for the other as well). The complaints from either side that the moves must BOTH happen, or NEITHER can, are very telling, and not at all representative of any reasonable interpretation of WP:NPOV. Oh, also, Total Support. --King Öomie 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - I am not a fan of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life". However, I'm not sure about the suggested target: "Abortion-rights" could refer to the rights of the mother or the rights of the unborn child. Incidentally has anyone considered merging the two articles into one, given that they're basically two sides of the same coin? Forgive me if this is a ridiculous suggestion, I've not really followed the history of these articles in detail. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone actually use 'abortion rights' to refer to the fetus? (Fetuses don't have abortions.)
Yes, merger into abortion debate is another possibility. — kwami (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the OP's 4 points all fail. Point a) if it isn't a noun, the solution is not to rename the whole thing, but perhaps go "pro-choice movement". b) there is no evidence presented outside of the sheer claim (which I guess we should believe without evidence) that the name is not international. www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org www.prochoicemajority.org.uk prochoicevic.com/ et. al. and if we are to go by interwiki links, it seems like some variation on Pro-choice is used in non-English languages. The point is, the term IS known internationally, and we'd need more specific evidence or statistical analysis to show that it is used less often. But I am not buying any claim that it is not international in scope based on NO evidence. c) name one other "pro-choice movement" and that alone is not reason enough to change. we have Catholic Church which is clearly ambiguous. It seems really dense to claim that someone would be confused and have no idea what the article title is referring to based on ambiguity of title. We have John Lennon and John Lennon (captain). We don't disambiguate the most common title. We don't even have a disambiguation hatnote in the article, so I am really clueless what articles the OP thinks someone might confuse this one with. finally d) this is not a valid reason to change an article name. Boston Massacre, Jack the Ripper, etc are given as examples of cases where we should go with the common name over neutrality. I think this is the case. It is offensive to think we need to change what organizations call themselves because it offends some users. That's like saying we can't call certain sects "Christian" because it offends our definition of Christianity. Or that the Palestine Liberation Organization should be renamed because we don't think they are fighting for real liberation. There are clearly cases where we allow self identity in light of some objections, and I think this is the case with pro-choice. But perhaps that is the most subjective aspect of the above. I would still like to see specific evidence of common name, disambigutation, and international worldview violations.-Andrew c [talk] 16:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a proposal to change what organizations call themselves. If they use "Pro-Choice" in their name, so be it. But this article is about a movement which has many names, not a single organization. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Undecided. The proposal raises some interesting issues, however I share Andrew c's view that most of those issues are not typically important in deciding article names. The one issue that I think would sway my opinion one way or the other is whether or not "Pro-choice" is the most common term world-wide or only in the US/Europe. Is there any evidence that "Pro-choice" is not the most commonly used term in other parts of the world? Kaldari (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think those googgle ngrams speak by themselves: [edit: see below]. walk victor falk talk 00:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
(I fixed the link for the 3rd) — kwami (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Strangely, the Google trends graph and Google Ngram graph disagree on this. Interesting that books and news sources tend to go with "abortion rights", while the general public uses "pro choice". Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Readers don't Google the phrase 'abortion rights' because its meaning is self-explanatory, which is an additional reason to use it. I see no scholarly vs general public issue here. Kauffner (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks kwami, I messed and mixed all the links together. I think they should be all right as of now. Like this: pro choice,abortion rights movement, British pro choice,abortion rights movement, American abortion rights, British abortion right. walk victor falk talk 00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
According to this graph "pro choice" and "abortion rights movement" are currently in equal use in published English. Strangely, if you limit it to American English, "abortion rights movement" is clearly dominate, which would seem to contradict the original argument that it is an Americanism (as does the Google trends graph). Kaldari (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There are no large scale abortion rights movements outside the US, naturally enough since abortion is legal in most Western countries. You don't have to campaign for what you already have. walk victor falk talk 00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Good point. In that case I would say the international issue is largely irrelevant then. Kaldari (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Plenty of western countries have contentious debate on abortion, such as Ireland and Poland. But we're not just Western WP either: we're supposed to have global coverage. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot Poland. Sorry for using "Western" when meaning to say "English-speaking countries". I blame the British. Remember Orléans. As to the (english-speaking) third world, as far as I know, there are no strong movements, whether for or against. For instance, in India abortion is encouraged by the government, and it doesn't seem to be a big issue (the fact that girls are aborted much more frequently however is). walk victor falk talk 04:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak opposition - Because of other ongoing debate and not sure if there's some hidden agenda. On the other hand I think "abortion rights movement" terminology that's now the last sentence should be in lead right now. Nothing wrong with saying it's all about abortion and of course "pro-choice" will still link to this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per proposer. Lionel (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the article name presupposes that abortion is a right. If you don't want to have the articles named "pro-choice movement" and "pro-life movement", which are overwhelmingly the more common names, then "support for legalized abortion" and "opposition to legalized abortion" make far more sense as neutral names. --B (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Have you heard of Roe v. Wade? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
      • As has been pointed out so precious many times during the other discussion, Wikipedia is not just about America. There are plenty of parts of the world where abortion is not considered a legal "right", nor does, according to Gallup, around half of our country think it should be a right. --B (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Roe v. Wade is not written in stone; in fact, it's hanging by a thread with a 5-4 pro-choice majority on the Supreme Court. Dred Scott anyone? That abortion is a right is very much in dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • B, it doesn't presuppose that at all: it's a movement for the right to an abortion. That is, support of legalized abortion. (And M, it could be called this with or without RvW.) That said, your suggested paraphrases are also good names. — kwami (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Hmm ... that is not how I interpret the phrase. When you refer to "abortion rights", I don't think you're hoping it's a right - you're saying it is. --B (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
If it's a right, you don't need a movement for it. How about the human-rights movement? The movement exists because people don't have those rights, but activists feel that they should. Or the animal-rights movement. — kwami (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't follow B's reasoning. I can see the name presupposing that abortion can be CONSIDERED a right (contemplatively), but who can argue that? "It's not possible for that to be a right under any circumstances"... no. It's not like a hypothetical "Theft Rights Movement" would mean that theft is presently a right. The movement WANTS it to be. --King Öomie 03:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

  • Oppose because the title presumes that abortion is a right. The U.S. Supreme Court may (currently) say so, but that doesn't mean that the world recognizes it as a right. Millions, perhaps billions, would beg to differ that it's a right. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • According to the map in the article, the only countries where there is no right to abortion is Chile, Uruguay, Dominica, and Nicaragua. That to me is an overwhelming global consensus that there should be some rights, the question is just whether more or less. Anyway, as has been argued above, there would still be such a thing a movement for abortion rights even if no country granted them, just like there was a movement for human rights in the XVIIIth century. walk victor falk talk 04:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Explain how it presumes it's a right. Just because I want something that I can call "my house" does not mean that I already have a house. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, and particularly reject any arugments on the lines that "the title presumes abortion is a right" - of course it doesn't, an "X rights movement" is clearly understandable as meaning a movement which believes that there should be (or are) X rights; it doesn't imply that the person using the phrase believes there are such rights, any more than someone using the phrase "pictures of unicorns" believes that there are unicorns. (Though that said, I'd be willing to consider alternative titles as long as they're equally clear.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Twenty years ago, I would have opposed, as "Choice" was understood (even among those who opposed the use of the term) to refer in the US exclusively to the issue of abortion. However, in American politics, while it is still not used nearly as much as the abortion-related meaning, the term school choice has gained sufficient currency to warrant a look at this issue. Those who argue that term "pro-choice" is illogical (since there are many choices we make besides whether or not to have abortions) are missing the point: Here on Wikipedia, what is important is usage. And I think "school choice" has gained enough usage that the abortion rights movement cannot lay sole claim to the use of "choice". HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support unreservedly per all the above. – ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't understand the some of the argument and supports above. They argue that one line or reasoning is incorrect, that the name "abortion rights" doesn't necessarily presuppose that abortion in fact IS a right. But just because one argument that some fellow Wikipedian's bring up is weak, does not mean that negating it is a good enough reason to move the article. It doesn't mean the proposed title is the BEST title, nor does it mean the proposed title is MOST in line with Wikipedia naming conventions. I think the discussion has gotten a bit off topic, and would suggest that even if B and NYyankees51's arguments fail or are weak, does not mean that by itself is a good enough reason to support the name change. I'd defer to my counterarguments above (attempting to) refute the 4 points raised in the original proposal. Also, HuskyHuskie, do you feel that this article needs a hatnote that says something like "pro-choice may also refer to school choice" for disambiguation purposes? I'm not convinced the school choice movement has adopted the "pro-choice" language, and would argue that "pro-choice" is NOT vague and there is simply no need for disambiguation or alternative names. -Andrew c [talk] 19:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There are many wordings that would be accurate; however, "abortion rights" is the one I hear most frequently. If you can demonstrate that another wording is more common, fine, but you haven't done that. Also, besides "pro-choice" being ambiguous when taken out of context, it is regional. WP:WORLDVIEW. — kwami (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Not to use the word "abortion" in the article title is euphemistic. Someone who uses the word "pro-choice" is self-identifying as a supporter of this movement. As several editors have already noted, the suggested title means only that abortion is, or should be, a right from the POV of people involved in this movement, not that Wiki is taking a stand on the issue one way or the other. Kauffner (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I disagree with the nominator's comment about not holding one article hostage to another. I think naming one article according to the inaccurate propaganda term it has chosen to describe itself and the other article with neutral language is an extremely poor choice. The discussion should be closed and the two articles nominated together. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for symmetry with Pro-life; although I think both should have "movement" appended to their titles. Pro-choice is an adjective as far as I know, and thus is not a suitable article title. –CWenger (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support . "Pro choice" is just a euphemism that avoids mentioning what the "choice" in question is. ("Pro-life" is equally silly.) Barsoomian (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • comment the arguments that make use of the policy Wikipedia:Article titles should be used. There seems to be no subsidiary guidelines that apply. Therefore arguments about euphemism, whether or not something is a right, or "I like it" will be of lesser importance. Commonality overrides neutrality. A relevant part is the use of a descriptive phrase. The proposed title is more neutral than the existing one. By common name, we have books using proposed title more, but newspapers and general web hits greatly prefer pro-choice, and as a search term slightly prefer pro-choice. Pro-life remained unchanged, but no consensus to combine the discussion of the moves ensued. A hat note can accommodate school choice, as pro-choice would remain as redirect or article title. Wikipedia requests for pro-choice exceed the alternative by about 500 to 1. [1] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
"Pro-choice" is an actual article whereas "abortion rights" is just a redirect. So of course "pro-choice" currently gets more traffic. Web hits mean nothing when the numbers are very high like this. Google doesn't actually count millions of pages before it posts results. Besides, partisans are the ones motivated to put up Web sites. The term "abortion rights" is self-explanatory, so there is less need to look it up. I think the ngram is pretty convincing, so I will give it again here. Kauffner (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to "Comment": I and others said "euphemisms" were undesirable--if you want a hook in WP:Article titles, these go against "precision" and being "unambiguous" in the first section of that policy. "Pro-choice" is imprecise and ambiguous. Barsoomian (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Or "pro-choice" could mean "professional choice, what professionals use" or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Comments

Would the closing admin please explain a bit more the decision? It is helpful to understand the reasoning behind controversial moves where there isn't a clear consensus. What arguments were most persuasive, how did you weigh comments, how did you arrive at a clear consensus vs. no consensus? Having been open 40 days is not a good enough reason to take a side on the matter. And the closing admin appears to have also participated in the debate and taken a position, so there are questions of an impartial judge (or lack there of). But of course, I 'voted' as well, so I'm not speaking in my capacity as an admin.-Andrew c [talk] 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The close was 12 days after the last vote.
Much of the opposition was based on wanting to move pro-life as well. Maybe he didn't buy that as a valid objection for not doing anything here? In any case, the fact that this has been moved means that it's name is no longer a possible objection at that article (in case it was ever given any credence there). — kwami (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
See WP:NOTAVOTE. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The close should've been executed by an uninvolved editor. Lionel (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It was. I've reviewed the article and talk-page history back to 2004, and "Anthony Appleyard" had never edited either. Unless you suspect sockpuppetry? The only other thing was a comment on the discussion before closing it, well after the debate had ceased.
Looking through the discussion, there are only three reasons for opposition: the first, where Andrew c said that my arguments were not adequate to justify the move, but which no other opposer supported; the objection that the title presupposes that abortion is a right, which is demonstrably false; and the argument that the two articles should be considered together, which is a bureaucratic point and not a vote against the name itself. So there was only one 'oppose' argument of any substance, that of Andrew. Not hard to see why Anthony would conclude there was consensus. — kwami (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Consensus was not clear enough to make such a drastic move, especially considering the implications it has on the pro-life article. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this move should probably be reviewed. Maybe re-open the discussion and request comment from more users? - Haymaker (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI this uninvolved editor is the same editor who has re-opened the discussion to move Pro-life to Anti-abortion movement. Seems involved to me. Lionel (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hardly. A lot of people have said they should be moved or discussed together. "Involvement" does not come after the fact, but before. That was the logical next step, since the name here was used as an argument there. Acting on the logical consequence of a move does not make the admin "involved", though of course he cannot close the second RfM, because in that case he is involved. — kwami (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move, again

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 43 days, no messages in the last 27 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)



Abortion-rights movementPro-choice – As I've been saying I would, here is a nomination of both of these pages together. Hopefully it will avoid the problems with previous nominations, which is that not everyone involved was aware there were two page moves to vote on and that, since the outcomes were independent, people felt free to vote "NPOV title" for one and "Common usage" for the other as suited their biases. Note that the move proposal is to have the titles be parallel, whichever they ultimately are; there are arguments for either, but having one page be a neutral name while the other is a propagandic name is a POV nightmare. (The current format of the proposal, which appears to be suggesting a move for both pages, is only intended to centralize discussion.) Please format comments to indicate the titles you prefer, rather than "support" or "oppose" which is unclear. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 13:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this the intended place for centralized discussion? PeRshGo (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure... Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Propose Abortion-rights movementPro-choice movement and Pro-lifePro-life movement or Right-to-life movement. Abortion-rights and anti-abortion would be more straightforward but even more biased than the current situation by having one side called the "rights" movement and the other called the "anti" movement. Pro-choice and pro-life/right-to-life are widely used and though they may be biased as they were invented by the respective movements, I think it is the fairest option. –CWenger (^@) 17:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind on Right-to-life movement, that makes more sense as an alternative if this page stays at Abortion-rights movement. –CWenger (^@) 17:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support CWenger I Agree with CWenger's assesment for the reasons presented and that both groups have self-identified with Pro-choice and Pro-life. PeRshGo (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't follow this, we need to have a centralized discussion place. For my part, I would like to move "Pro-life" to "Anti-abortion movement". I'm a "pro-lifer", and I don't consider "anti-abortion" to be a biased or prejudicial term at all, nor do any of the pro-lifers I know consider it so. Sure, the movement leaders chose the term "pro-life" many years ago, but when you listen to the speeches of pro-lifers, you'll see that the arguements on our side are not couched in euphemisms--we're opposed to abortion and we say so. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOTAGAIN, I mean seriously this has already been discussed twice in the last month or so, its not that big a deal. Bring it up in 6 months. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you even read the argument? I don't care what they are called; this is intended to resolve problems with previous nominations (at which I consistently expressed a desire for the articles to be nominated together). Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
No possible argument can persuade me at this time. That Pro Life might be in the "wrong place" isn't that big a deal. It has been nominated for being moved twice in 3 months with extensive discussion already and closing both times as no consensus. Discussing it again - especially only a couple of days after the previous request was closed - isn't appropriate. Drop the stick and move on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Two points, I don't see how the past discussion here could be closed as "move" yet the one at pro-life closed as "no consensus". This is a serious issue, as it concerns an involved admin doing the closing of both. While perhaps we don't need to revisit the whole move discussion over, we should consider whether the past closures were appropriate on two levels (concerning the admin involvement, and concerning whether the outcome was proper). My second point of concern is now we have a situation where we have two articles covering opposing sides in a political/social debate, whose naming conventions lack parity in multiple ways: Pro-Life and Abortion-rights movement. One is an adjective, one is a noun phrase. One is a term of self identity, one is a media applied 'pseudo-neutral' term. Why do allow the pro-lifers to be called what they want to be called, but the pro-choicers don't get the same advantage. Or alternatively, why do we have more neutral title for abortion-rights people, but a POV title for the anti-abortion people? This lack of parity which has been the de facto situation for month is quite unacceptable, and I think waiting another 6 months is outright ludicrous. I don't support the admin's closure as move here. I think there was no consensus, and would urge moving back to the original titles ASAP. From where we go from there, I don't care too much, as long as both articles are discussed together, and the end result has more parity than what we have now. -Andrew c [talk] 00:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That's life I guess, and the other move discussion has been reopened. At least one of the articles is now at a neutral name, there's no need to worry about it too much. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's an idea. Both Pro-Life and Abortion-rights movement actually cover quite a lot of the same ground and both are pretty poor articles (c-class). The Abortion debate article is better than both of them (but still only B-class). Why not have it as the sole article with re-directs from all the various terms. Use anything usable from the two defunct articles to beef up that article (plus all the energy that's gone into this pointless naming debate) and who knows it could be a Featured Article. I know, I know...it's ridiculous. Why should we be focusing on creating an excellent encyclopedia article when we could be spending weeks venting our POVs? DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I LOVE the idea. But it'll never happen. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this is an improvement over the status quo, but would still prefer Pro-choice movement / Pro-life movement. –CWenger (^@) 23:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Uhhh, so this problem was already solved, and somehow Pro-life and Pro-choice have become diluted with material that belongs in Abortion debateUnscintillating (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • One !vote for explicitness. I see no virtue in the implication that only one kind of choice matters. —Tamfang (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Pro-choice" This is a usage of partisans. It is an adjective and thus not appropriate as the article title. It is also a WP:Euphemism. "Abortion rights" is far more common in serious writing, according to this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
So to clarify, would you support the titles being "abortion-rights movement" and "anti-abortion movement"? Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I would support that, Roscelese. Let's keep out the POV euphemisms. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Pro-life movement" and "Pro-choice movement" per CWenger.Griswaldo (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The admin who closed the last discussion here participated in it. Then, that admin opened a new discussion at pro-life, and participated in that, and decided to also closed that one. Thus leaving us with a situation with clear disparity in titles. Pro-life vs. abortion-rights movement. I don't feel that admins actions in either case were appropriate. And having two articles for months on end with such disparity in troublesome. I have been bold, and restored the situation we had for many years, where we allow both movement's term of choice to be in the title. The long standing article names "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not appropriate because Wikipedia's naming conventions say we must use a noun as the title. Thus, the addition of "movement" to both those terms. I do have a stake in both these articles, and I did in essence wheel war, and ignore consensus (except I'd argue that there was never consensus to move this article in the first place, especially given the pro-life discussion was closed as "no consensus"). It was a bold move. I'd gladly undo it (or otherwise promise to not fight any further over it). Everyone is welcome to discuss title changes, but it seems the previous processes have failed to produce parity of any sort. Please consider discussing name changes in a central location where both articles can be discussed in conjunction. -Andrew c [talk] 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons it was moved away from that name in the first place. — kwami (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you specify what you're opposing? I tried so hard in the move rationale to explain that "support" or "oppose" were not useful votes because it would not be clear what was being supported and what opposed - what titles do you prefer? Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I oppose the move. What we have now is the closest thing there is to an NPOV title, and it's what responsible journalism uses. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
A move of "Pro-life" to "Anti-abortion movement" is also being proposed. This is why straight "support"/"oppose" votes are unclear! (Unless you support keeping both where they are? And if you do, could you explain why?) Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Only the first move was proposed at the top of this section, so that's what votes refer to. I support the 2nd move. I would also support a merger into Abortion debate, which was also proposed in the discussion. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Both are proposed at the top of this section; the coding formats it so that the second proposed move is after the move rationale, apparently, but both have been proposed from the beginning. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Pro-life for the same reason I stated on the move discussion at that page. Lionel (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I assume that you also want to move Abortion-rights movement back to Pro-choice, but it would be less confusing if you would say so. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 09:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, since you asked, I think pro-abortion movement best reflects the topic.Lionel (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
So you're a troll. Why should we consider your opinion then? — kwami (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggesting "pro-abortion movement" makes you a troll? –CWenger (^@) 14:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It's obviously not going to be the article title, given that it satisfies none of the criteria in WP:TITLE or that other users have brought up here (use in reliable sources, neutrality, accuracy, self-identification, etc.), so there's no apparent motive for suggesting it other than to jab at other users. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't seem enough to break WP:CIVIL and call someone a troll. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, especially considering they made it clear they were expressing a personal opinion and not necessarily advocating it. –CWenger (^@) 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll let kwami explain why zie used the word "troll" if zie chooses to do so. I'm just explaining why I don't think that comment was made in good faith. There's no reason to bring one's own personal politics into the discussion. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

are you OK with the way things are, and why?

I don't want to get into a specific move request, or set up another vote, but instead get a feel on what everyone feels about both topics. Right now, we have one article at pro-life and another at abortion-rights movement. In my opinion, this situation lacks parity, but that is just my opinion, apparently. What do you think? If you think this situation is best explain why? If you disagree, briefly explain why, and suggest what 2 titles you think would work best. -Andrew c [talk] 02:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • No, this is not acceptable. Go for neutrality, sure, go for common-name, sure, but don't use the neutral name for one and the propaganda name for the other. Hopefully the new move discussion will correct the problems that got us here? :/ Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am fine with the current situation (Abortion-rights movement and Pro-life movement). I would prefer Pro-choice movement and Pro-life movement but I can live with this. Both are positive titles and widely used. I would strongly oppose renaming Pro-life movement to anything else. –CWenger (^@) 02:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I prefer neutrality and the elimination of euphemisms; as such, I would prefer seeing abortion rights movement and anti-abortion movement. This is the most professional, neutral, encyclopedic way to handle the matter. No kowtowing to propagandists, with parallel structure in both titles. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The only thing I might like better--because I think it would come closest to guaranteeing NPOV on this issue--would be DeCausa's suggestion that these be merged into one article, Abortion debate. I doubt it will ever happen, but logically, it makes sense. The current situation is akin to creating two articles, Pro-Atkins diet and Con-Atkins diet, instead of one article, Atkins diet, where both sides arguments are presented together. Really, DeCausa's suggestion would not only render this article naming issue moot, but would also get both sides editing furiously, forcing (a la Federalist No. 10) the compromise of neutrality. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That is a more practical solution for a smaller topic like the Adkins diet. But certainly the pro-choice and pro-life movements are discussed enough in reliable sources to be independent articles. Would you suggest only a foreign policy article instead of interventionism and isolationism? –CWenger (^@) 03:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if it stopped endless pointless debates whilst leaving two poor articles languishing because everyone is more interested in "winning the argument" for their Real World POV. DeCausa (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Better one article at a factual name and the other at a euphemism than both at a euphemism. Better still to move "pro-life" to a factual name as well. Or to merge the articles with Abortion debate. But for that to happen s.o. needs to propose the merger. — kwami (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes its fine, and the name isn't really that big a deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree, too. "Abortion debate" article should include a discussion of the use of "pro-x" vs "anti-y" language in the debate itself. BTW, the section "The debate" in the article "Pro-life movement" should not be brought forward unless it is considerably cleaned-up and made more neutral. Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlange (talkcontribs) 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't follow all the different debates on this topic, but put me down as a firm opponent of the propaganda terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in these two article titles, jointly and severally.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment As for "propaganda" terms, every movement tends to describe it in best possible light, and Wikipedia tends to favor the self-identified term over our personal opinions on the matter. For an example, see the Temperance movement.
    • I didn't write the above but that seems right. Pro-life and pro-choice, obviously with the descriptors "anti-abortion" which is clearly what they are and "abortion rights" which is not necessarily pro-abortion. One can be against abortion, while not wanting the state to interfere, preferring voluntary solutions to the problem. (Many libertarians take that position.) But calling one "abortion rights" and the other "pro-choice" clearly is biased; just as calling one "pro-choice" and the other "anti-abortion" clearly would be. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with your idea that the titles should have parallel structure, I couldn't disagree more with your argument about self-identification. First of all, the terms are Amerocentric, which is something we're supposed to be avoiding. But the fact that one can be in favor of abortion rights without being "pro-abortion" is a meaningless point. Suppose I believe that people should be able to walk around in public with their genitals completely uncovered, and start a movement to have such displays legalized. Some call my nascent movement the "public genital rights movement", but I say NO! I'm not saying that I'm pro-public displays of genitals-no, no no! I simply want the government to not interfere, and to allow people to make their own choice. I'm calling my movement the "Pro-choice" movement. The same could be done to support any number of causes, with proponents arguing that they do not favor a particular behaviour or policy, but merely support the right of others to choose it.
The "pro-life" tag is almost as deceptive. Millions of Americans favor limiting abortion rights and choose (!) to call themselves "pro-life" while at the same time calling for expansive use of the death penalty [Note to anti-abortion activists, I am not questioning the moral reasoning of such a position; unlike some people, I do not consider an anti-abortion position and a pro-death penalty position to be morally imcompatible], a position which, at the very least, does not equate with the absolute preservation of life. Hell, a person could call themselves "pro-life" simply because they favor universal health care, and want to do everything to preserve life.
It is simply a fact that the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are not neutral ways to label these movements. And since non-Americans may not know these terms, and since pretty much everyone who knows what "abortion" is will realize what "anti-abortion movement" and "abortion rights movement" means, I believe that's what we should use. Self-identification can only go so far; an article detailing Kim Jong-il's office would not be titled Dear Leader, though we would allow such a thing to redirect us to the correct article. Pro-life should redirect to Anti-abortion movement and Pro-choice should redirect to Abortion-rights movement. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you are right. Wikipedia should not ignore what groups call themselves but when the identifier ALSO can be used to describe a number of other views, it does lose meaning. (Libertarians say they are pro-choice on everything after all.) Plus you get into confusing areas when a pro-life person vs. euthanasia for adults might support, for example, early term abortion. Encyclopedias should err for clarity. So shouldn't this discussion of changing title be at the Pro-life movement article? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You're probably right, but someone over there has a note saying to come over here. We should probably merge the two articles. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note about Pro-Life Movement Also keep in mind that Anti-abortion Movement is not even entirely accurate because Pro-Life is also very commonly associated with opposition to euthanasia, and stem cell research. Neither of which fall under the heading of "abortion." PeRshGo (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
PeRshGo brings up an interesting point here; actually, two points. My take on the whole stem-cell issue is that is essentially one and the same as the anti-abortion take. The anti-abortion movement is opposed to the destruction of any zygotes/embryos/fetuses, all of which we see as innocent human beings. The stem-cell debate isn't over the actual conduct of stem-cell research, it's about the killing of unborn people to acquire said stem cells for use in such research. I know no one on our side who opposes stem-cell research that can be conducted without killing the unborn. But PeRshGo's euthanasia point is indeed, a bit of a quandary here. I can only speak for myself; I am a "pro-lifer" in the anti-abortion sense, but I favor allowing doctors to euthanize patients who ask for it, as well as capital punishment. I think I'm comfortable with, and believe that most people are comfortable with, associating the phrase "pro-life" only with the anti-abortion movement. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Add another voice for Strong Change and Weak "Anti-abortion/Pro-abortion rights". One of the first things I ever wrote on my User page was a rant about this very subject, so I'm glad to see it being discussed. First off the bat, there must be parallel treatment of the two camps. The current status quo is not acceptable, and, from what I'm seeing here, 100% of us, regardless of real-life POV, agree that it has to be changed. Huzzah for consensus! So the discussion really is a question of the self-identifying terms (pro-life, pro-choice) versus the (frankly) more accurate, precise terms (anti-abortion, pro-abortion rights). I think the euthanasia issue with the pro-life movement, which PeRshGo raised just above, is a good point, but is minor enough that we could reconcile it regardless of the naming scheme we ultimately pick.

I am very, very hesitant to use a titling structure that goes against WP:COMMONNAMES, and, in all honesty, pro-life and pro-choice are by far the most common names assigned to the two movements. They are strongly recognizable (arguably dominant) not only in America, as HuskyHuskie argued above, but in Canada, Ireland, Australia, and Great Britain, which would seem to cover the major constituents of the English Wikipedia. However, WP:COMMONNAMES is only one part of the Article Title policy, which mandates that the five main considerations be "recognizability", "naturalness", "precision", "conciseness", and "consistency." "Pro-life/pro-choice" certainly has recognizability and concision going for it, but at an enormous cost for precision and (as many an edit war has shown) consistency. I don't think that cost is worth it. As a self-identified pro-lifer and movement anti-abortionist, let's go with the neutral, precise terms. I think we have a majority for that already, but that's not quite a consensus. I'll try to stay tuned to catch the next official Move proposal and vote for it, but I've had a very hard time committing time to the project for the last few years. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is premature then, the discussion on Talk:Pro-life movement still hasn't been closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - This whole discussion was brought in bad faith, about a month after consensus was reached not to move the "pro-life movement" article. The renaming of the "pro-choice" article seems to have been done partly in bad faith as many of the editors on that article said that it was their hope that that name change would force this one. We have conclusively proven that the term "pro-life" is used far, far more than "anti-abortion", and that the term is not merely an American term. Furthermore, it is my belief, one that is nearly impossible to argue against, that the term "anti-abortion rights" casts the movement in a negative light - by being an "anti" group and by opposing "rights". Sure, you can make up examples were it is good to be against thing, and where it is good to oppose rights, but generally, it is considered more attractive to be for something, not against something; and generally, it is seen as positive to defend rights, not to attack rights. So, because there is no parity in the terms, and because we have proven that the current term is both neutral and far more used, the title of the article should not be changed. For the record, I think that the "abortion rights" article should be moved back to "pro-choice" per WP naming conventions, but I do not think so a move is necessary for us to decide not to move the pro-life article.LedRush (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pro-life movement and Pro-choice movement. These are the common names and avoid the negative "anti". —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger of Pro-Life and Abortion-rights movement articles into into Abortion debate article

There's a discussion on this at this thread at Talk:Pro-Life, with the aim of resolving the interminable naming disputes but also improving the quality of the article (neither Pro-Life nor Abortion-rights movement are very good articles. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've created User:Eraserhead1/Abortion-rights movement and User:Eraserhead1/Pro-life_movement because it would be useful to see what the unique content in both these articles actually is = and by userfying people can do what they like to them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I urge anyone with an interest in the future of this article, as well as other abortion-related articles, to come read the (currently brief) discussion here. This new approach, which has been suggested by User:DeCausa,[2] offers hope of settling these conflicts over the article names. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There's only one permanent solution

This shit and this are why this is the only way out of this mess. There'll be peace in the Mideast first, if we don't agree to DeCausa's proposal. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for either option. I see a strong consensus that the article titles should be parallel, consistent with the earlier discussion, but unfortunately there is just no consensus whatsoever on the question which of those two sets is to be used. Nor is the argument for either side so extraordinarily strong or so extraordinarily weak as to justify finding a consensus with the editors basically equally divided between the two proffered options. The unfortunate fact is that we are locked into the status quo, which most agree to be undesirable, because there is simply no agreement on what action should be taken to end it. The alternative would be for the closing admin to basically choose one over the other by fiat (or perhaps by a coin flip), something I'm quite unwilling to do (not to mention that it is also beyond the closer's authority). In these circumstances, I suggest that the most practical approach would be to pursue a compromise solution that everyone can agree to. T. Canens (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


Abortion-rights movementPro-choice

(Background: The last discussion closed with no consensus in favor of any title, but with a strong consensus in favor of parallel titles. Thus, please indicate under the appropriate heading which set of parallel titles you prefer. Discussion should take place under the discussion heading.) Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion-rights movement and Anti-abortion movement

  1. Support. While not perfect, of the parallel structure options, this offers the least loaded terms. "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" have the following problems: a) each of these names carries an implicit indictment of the other side, b) each of these names would be unintelligible to someone not versed in the abortion debate, and c) they are merely the propaganda tools of these interest groups; I'd rather Wikipedia not be harnessed for either side's purpose. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support, clearly "choice" is ambiguous, also clearly, "pro-life" is wrong, since several "pro-lifers" support the death penalty, clearly not a pro-life stance. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support. The name "Pro-life" does not of itself specify that the life mentioned is the life of a fetus; it could be taken to mean "against capital punishment" or about animals' lives, if the reader did not know before what organization "Pro-life" was for. The word "abortion" in these article' titles makes the meanings clear. The "rights" and "anti-" in the names reflect the POV of the movements described, not necessarily Wikipedia's POV. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    I'll give you $100 if you can find someone who comes to the pro-life article looking for information on vegetarianism. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support, clearest and least propagandist arrangement. I'd also support merging both articles into one (e.g. Abortion debate). Though I wouldn't object to separate articles (or a single combined one) specifically about the history and usage of the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" themselves. --Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  5. Support. Clear and non-POV, moving away from perpetuating what is effectively a slur coined by the anti-abortion movement ("pro-life" implying that people who support abortion are "pro-death", which is clearly ludicrous). "Pro-life" may be common, but it is not NPOV and it is a term which is primarily used by its supporters, not its opponents (as is "pro-choice"). Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are highly ambiguous. The above is obviously the best choice to my mind. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support Titles should be parallel, avoid both WP:EUPHEMISM and usages that identify the user as a partisan. Kauffner (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  7. Support Wikipedia should be encyclopedic concerning these articles. Like some media sources have recently decided, we should refer to each group as either "anti-abortion right supporters", or "abortion right supporters". That is the clear and concise choice to name the articles in a neutral manner. To have the articles named "pro-life" and "pro-choice", it implies the opposing views are "anti-choice" and/or "anti-life". (10:10, June 23, 2011)signed Dave Dial (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  8. Support Encyclopedic vs. propagandistic. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Pro-choice movement and Pro-life movement

  1. Support: Parallel names are preferable for obvious reasons. Abortion-rights movement and anti-abortion movement accomplishes this, but with one side being given a very positive name (the "rights" side) and the other negative (the "anti-" side). The other alternative is pro-choice movement and pro-life movement. Although these names are biased, being selected by the respective movements, they are widely used and I believe fall under WP:POVTITLE. I oppose moving Pro-life movement to anything else. –CWenger (^@) 05:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support When is this going to stop? Parallel names are preferable, per CWegner, and WP:UCN is also preferable. This option satisfies both.Griswaldo (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support Yes, when are we going to stop doing this? Pro-life movement has almost zero chance of being moved, so we might as well move pro-choice back to paralleling it. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support. Clearly the most common and recognizable terms. Powers T 15:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  5. Support per all of the above. It is clearly better, if possible, for political campaigns to be described for what they favour rather than what they oppose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support While I don't personally particularly like these names, I still think WP:UCN is the most important principle to abide by when choosing article names. I would wish that the media and people in general would start using the less slogan-y names suggested above, but fact is that Pro-choice and Pro-life are clearly the most commonly used names by reliable sources. But whatever happens here, I would be strongly opposed to keeping the status quo. The main concern here must be to get back to parallel titles quickly.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  7. Support Obviously pro-life is a common name used regularly by reliable sources and also groups use it to self-identify. Pro-life is fully within the policies WP:POVTITLE and WP:UCN. Similar with pro-choice. – Lionel (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep as is: Abortion-rights movement and Pro-life movement

  1. Support I'd be inclined to say that we should keep these pages here - it still seems far too soon for any changes to be discussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    E-head, the issue that it may be too soon to discuss this is a legitimate point, but it's not the issue here. (Ask User:Roscelese why this is being done now, if you're curious.) Are you saying to keep it the way it is because you think it's too soon for a change, or is this your real preference? If so, why? HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    I'm saying it because I think its too soon. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Too soon after what???? --Kotniski (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Too soon after this and this. We can't keep doing this every two months. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    Well isn't that the point? Come to a rational decision one way or the other (rather than stay with two unmatching titles) so we can stop continually debating it?--Kotniski (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    The easy way to do that is to not debate it. How given the above discussion is an admin supposed to close it. Currently both sides look like "no consensus" with each other, so they'll have to vote count to pick which set of names to go for - more likely the close will be avoided for several weeks/months like last time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    The previous two discussions clearly established that clear consensus to move cannot be attained. When clear consensus cannot be found,t he status quo must remain. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
    The consensus above looks to say that the two articles should have parallel titles. Given they currently don't have parallel titles that's a big sticking point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support Way too soon to bring this up again. Pro-life move discussions have consistently closed No Consensus, and Abortion-rights was just closed Move a couple weeks ago! Lionel (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Which makes this seem like an ideal time to discuss it and finally sort it out one way or the other. "No consensus" is hardly a satisfactory or conclusive result, and it can hardly be satisfactory to retain two non-parallel titles as we have now. If you support retaining the status quo, please say why you think one article title should have the "pro-X" form and the other the descriptive form. If there's no rational justification for such inconsistency, we need to resolve it one way or the other.--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Swap around: Pro-choice movement and Anti-abortion movement

Other

Discussion

  • "Pro-life" is not a position taken to be vegans, so I don't see how "pro" life this is, since most keep eating animals. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I could not disagree more with CWenger's stance (not unique to him, I realize) that it is "negative" to label the pro-life side as "anti-". As someone who believes that abortion is murder, I'm quite proud to be "anti-"abortion. I was also a fervent "anti-communist" when I was younger, and I'd like to think that 200 years ago I would have been anti-slavery. This notion that "anti-" is negative is a crock of dogs**t; there's nothing better than to be "anti" something evil. I don't personally know one pro-lifer who feels slighted by being called "anti-abortion". HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I hasten to add that I do not consider "pro-choicers" to be evil. Most of my close friends disagree with me on this topic, but they do so civilly, simply because they proceed from a different set of assumptions than I have. They honestly don't see an embryo as a person, so logically, from their perspective, its indefensible to tell a woman she can't have an abortion. I respect that thinking, and I love these people, whom I simply believe to be misguided into supporting a practice that I regard as evil. But please don't say I'm attacking the pro-abortion rights crowd or any individuals, because I'm not. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
CWenger, your point about the abolitionists is a good one. I actually about it even before I made the post (though I had not considered the temperance movement), but felt that it didn't affect the point I was making. I really wonder if someone with expert historical knowledge could weigh in. What, for example, were the anti-abolitionists called, or the anti-temperance movement? Did they also have two "pro" sides? (I can see the anti-abolitionists and anti-temperance movements both describing themselves as "pro-choice" --Don't call me 'pro-slavery', I'm not "pro"-slavery, I just think that everyone should get to choose for themselves whether or not to own a slave.) But seriously, your historical point may be the strongest argument I've seen for keeping "prolife" and "prochoice". It might be easier for me to stomach if both articles included in their first two sentences some acknowledgement of the propagandic nature of their chosen names. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I take no stand on which set of titles to use. However, I'd like to forestall arguments that argue against "anti-abortion movement" because the "pro-life" label also encompasses, some say, opposition to stem cell research, IVF, to this, to that and the other. The article as it stands and as it stood does not cover these other debates; it is about the opposition to abortion. This is the common understanding of the term and the only position shared by all people calling themselves "pro-life." Let's not make decisions based on what title would be appropriate if a complete rewrite were to take place, since that rewrite is unlikely ever to happen. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I am in complete shock that pro-life has been proposed for move again. And this proposal is one of the most manipulative tactics I've ever seen. Under the guise of "parallel" names and "no consensus last time" pro-life has been dragged into yet another move discussion. Pro-life has been the subject of move discussion for the entire year. When it wasn't being
    AlokaPhoto2006a.jpg
    discussed it was being surreptitiously moved or merged. Instead of improving the encyclopedia, dozens of editors have been occupied arguing ad nauseum over pro-life for half a year! This is abusive, unproductive and outrageous. Editors are fatigued. I hold responsible one editor in particular for this travesty: Anthony Appleyard. This admin pushed through the renaming of pro-choice, and then attempted to push through the renaming of pro-life. When he failed in renaming pro-life he opened this discussion based on his close which renamed pro-choice, claiming the titles need to be "parallel." Any other editor would be at ANI for gaming the system. After 6 months of this, it's obvious the objective is to continuously discuss pro-life until the pro-abortion cadre achieves the result they want. If you are so concerned about "parallel" titles, Anthony, why not just move abortion rights back to pro-choice? If you recall you moved that article in spite of that discussion leaning no consensus and over objections to your close raised at the time. I bet one gently used sonogram machine that you find no objections and you will avoid wasting another month of our time. Be bold, Anthony, be bold. Lionel (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Here is the problem. Pro-choice was moved "successfully" with LESS "consensus" and support than there was for moving Pro-life (which another admin closed as "no consensus"). Apparently no one has noticed this or is as bothered at this than I am. No admin (well, besides me... which lead to my first ever block, though that is a different story) has the will to question or even go against Anthony, even though there have been tons of questionable admin actions on his part after he has become quite involved in these discussions (though we can give him credit for undoing some of them). I argue that there NEVER, EVER was clear consensus to move this article in the first place, and that the rogue admin actions should be reverted. However, his actions have now created a situation where the article names lack parity. So it gives the illusion that we allow one side to use their own term of self-identity, but we impose a more "neutral" term on the other side (and thus creating a sense or urgency to correct this wrong). And we are in this situation, not because of the will of the people, and because of consensus, but because an involved admin made a questionable closure and move, where there was less than 60% support, where on the other article, an uninvolved admin made a different closure as "no consensus" with over 70% support. The whole situation is a bit ridiculous now. If Anthony doesn't take Lionel's plea to be BOLD and self-revert, I think an uninvolved admin needs to step in, examine the original move, and objectively decide if my take on the situation is correct (and that the article should never have been moved in the first place). Step back to square one, so there isn't a sense of urgency of trying to get the article naming parity back. And then re-examine the situation if needed (and in a centralized discussion format, with proper announcements and notifications). -Andrew c [talk] 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Well put, Andrew. And I did notice the questionable close of pro-choice and registered my concerns. I noticed your reverting of abortion-rights and I applaud you for your courage. Notice that the third admin, Sarek, also has had some issues as of late. I was going to use the "R" word myself, but thought better of it. But you're dead on: these actions are best described as rogue. Btw, did I mention that that ultrasound prints color scans of your baby and plugs into USA and Euro outlets? Lionel (talk)
      • Alternatively pro-life should probably have been moved. I didn't complain about it at the time, because I thought a merge was by far the best option and that it wasn't therefore worth fighting for. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Point of process. This is a very peculiar move request, because it involves two articles with multiple naming options. My question is, if we get to a point where we have 12 people supporting #1, 8 people supporting #2, and 3 people supporting #3, what happens to the articles? If we close it as "no consensus" and don't change anything, then the option with the least supporters wins. No point getting into statistical analysis yet, because my numbers are hypothetical. But it could be like only 5% of voters get their way, because consensus doesn't equal majority rule (and the two decent options which restore parity split the vote). -Andrew c [talk] 20:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I had wondered about that myself. To do this correctly we really need second and third options, where first option counts for 3 points, second option 2, third option 1. We don't want to turn this into too much of a simple vote-counting process but it might be appropriate here because both sides obviously have strong points (at least in my opinion). –CWenger (^@) 20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah this is the point I came here to make. The only real way to go is to vote count between the top two options (which look like the ones which are going to get the most votes/support) - are the "pro life/pro choice" guys happy for "abortion-rights/anti-abortion" to win (and vice versa) on that basis? If not then I think we need mediation to look at this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I would suggest people stop speculating about how the discussion will be closed, and concentrate on providing substantial arguments for their preferred options – maybe then something resembling consensus will be reached. Let's remember that there are other possibilities apart from simply renaming the existing articles or leaving them as they are - we could merge them, or maybe split out information relating specifically to those who use the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" (bear in mind that the abortion debate takes place all over the world, and those two terms are not used everywhere).--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Unless there is a large change in people's views just allowing this discussion to run its course isn't likely to be particularly productive. If an admin wasn't willing to move pro-life before they aren't going to solve this one in any reasonable way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
            • As its still 6-6, I've requested mediation, I hope this will help :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
              • at 6-6 with 2 other opinions (keep as is), it should end as no consensus, and remain as is, if it were closed normally. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
                • No, that would be exactly the wrong way to go about it. "Keep as is" has the fewest votes in favor. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is no consensus for option 1, nor for option 2. And an admin would be cautious about closing this controversially. Remember the firestorm that erupted when Anthony Appleyard closed and moved pro-choice -> abortion-rights without consensus. There was also a controversial move of pro-life by, hmmm, what was his name, it's on the tip of my tongue, almost got it, oh yea: Anthony Appleyard. That move also created a firestorm of discontent throughout Wikipedia and ended up at ANI. In the end Anthony Appleyard had to undo the move. I think an admin would want to avoid the scrutiny, recrimination, accusations of bias, perceived loss of impartiality, that accompanied Anthony Appleyard's rash decisions. I would hope that the closing admin would learn from the mistakes made by Anthony Appleyard. – Lionel (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

  • In those cases, someone badgered me to make the move, and criticised me for not making the move :: I was caught between two sides. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
So hopeully mediation will lead to a good answer we can all live with. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • it's an excellent, well-thought-out, thoroughly rational solution. Pesky (talkstalk!) 06:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Bulletpoints or paragraph?

I sorted the motivations for abortion into bulletpoints, but somebody reverted me [3]. Do you prefer bulletpoints or a normal paragraph? Pass a Method talk 11:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:EMBED says that in articles, prose is usually preferred over lists.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

The name of this article is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-22/Abortion-rights movement. Any interested user is welcome to participate. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

New title

I know there was discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-22/Abortion-rights movement, but at some point I couldn't keep reading everything, so if this was already addressed I apologize. Although I mostly support the new name, I have two issues. First, wouldn't it be more accurate to say "support/opposition for/to legal abortion"? Currently it isn't really accurate in most cases because it is already legal. Second, as per WP:COMMONALITY, shouldn't we avoid legalized/legalised/legalization/legalisation? –CWenger (^@) 22:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I share CWenger's concerns. In addition, "legalisation of abortion" sounds somewhat like "legalisation of marihuana", i.e. the legalisation of something that continues to be deemed socially unacceptable or as not conforming to established social norms.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, valid concerns. However, if memory serves, there were objections as well to CWenger's suggested title. I think just about every angle was covered, and this, of course, will make no one happy. But maybe (just maybe) we can move on now. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Certainly not everybody is going to agree on titles for contentious pages like these, and as I said I mostly support this solution. I am just requesting that my points be addressed briefly. I find it a little unusual as to how this matter was concluded. I don't understand why there was not a clear final proposal and then a discussion on that. Or perhaps even a normal move request with the rationale being a link to the mediation page. –CWenger (^@) 23:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the title should say "legal", not "legalisation", and argued as much in the mediation case. As Cs32en notes, this title implies that the natural state of affairs is for abortion to be illegal. It also frames the debate in terms which are intrinsically nonsensical in any jurisdiction where abortion has never been illegal. (And, come on, British spelling? You've got to be kidding me.) But, my fundamental position on the debate was all that was absolutely required was that the titles be parallel rather than one side being permitted its self-chosen propaganda name and the other being saddled with a neutral-shading-into-hostile description. This has perhaps been achieved (though the unfortunate implications of "legalisation" may subvert that beyond long-term tolerance). I support us all taking a break and giving matters some sober consideration before opening up the next can of worms. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit that had closed the mediation has been reverted Cs32en Talk to me  23:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See [4] Cs32en Talk to me  23:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I share the concerns over the implication in the title that abortion is or should be illegal, though my problem with it is less POV-related and more systemic-bias-related - most of our coverage of the movements for and against the right to abortion is coverage of localities where it is legal. We don't actually talk very much about localities where it is not. However, as I said many times during the discussion, I do not actually care that much what the titles are as long as they are parallel, so I'm fine with this. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Its so much better than it was it hardly seems worth fussing about. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CWenger. Pro-lifers oppose abortion regardless of legality, so the title isn't entirely accurate. I know the closing/moving admin was acting in good faith, but this does not resolve the dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I see the issue, but I think it's pretty minor. I'm not sure any title of reasonable length is going to be 100% accurate for these subjects (most pro-lifers support allowing abortion in some cases). I think you supported Pro-life movement / Pro-choice movement, as I did, but do you have recommendations to tweak the current title to resolve this? I could envision making it just Opposition to abortion, but some might see that as an unacceptable loss of the parallel naming structure. Pro-choicers would never support Support for abortion because they will say they don't support it, they just want it to be an option. –CWenger (^@) 19:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
If we're not going to use pro-life/pro-choice, which I still think we should, the only option is to do Opposition to abortion, but as you said, there would be objections to Support for abortion. Seems to me that the only surefire way to maintain accuracy is pro-life/pro-choice. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The only thing that's wrong with Opposition to abortion and Support for legal abortion is that it violates WP:TITLECHANGES, but so do the current titles, so it's not like we'd lose anything. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the general discontent with the new article titles, the pro-life article's title is very strange, fails to encompass the information provided and is should be changed back to pro-life or pro-life movement. The pro-choice article's name is also strange and, in American terms, certainly fails to adequately the pro-choice cause. I will leave it to persons with a better perspective on that side of the aisle to find the most fitting term. - Haymaker (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I see no "general discontent". Apart from you and NYYankees, there's some peripheral concerns. That's all. I think there's general content that this is over. (Silent majority!) DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that, the move just happened today and dozens of users provided input and we haven't heard from them. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Let it go, and discuss these further small changes in 3-6 months. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a lot of discussion here that the new title doesn't accurately describe the article. The previous suggested names of pro-life and pro-choice also did not do so. As TheCavalry said, these could mean a lot of things. No kill animal shelters, which describe themselves as pro-life. the death penalty, war, even turkeys. On the side of pro-choice. Pro-choice for what? Safety gear? The right to get cash grants instead of medicare? Conveyancing? If you really want to be descriptive, you'd have the article at Pro-life (abortion movement), aka anti-abortion movement, the people who oppose abortion of any kind, for any reason and Pro-choice (abortion movement), aka abortion rights movement, the people who support abortion of any kind for any reason. Unwieldy, isn't it? The purpose of a title is to give the reader a very very basic understanding about what the topic of the article is. The lead covers the details, and the main article has the rest. If pro-lifers oppose any type of abortion, regardless of the legality, write that in the article. Opposition to abortion of any way, shape or form is not a feasible title, and as I said, Pro-life could refer to a multitude of things. The discussion of common names, which has been refuted several times, has mainly been determined using search engine results, without the search engine test being done. As TheCavalry also has stated, Google searches are skewed towards US content. I think that above I've presented the flaws on the old names and how the new names can be a feasible, if not perfect solution. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I considered this to be a debate on whether the exact title should read "Support for legalized abortion", "Support for legal abortion", "Support for the legality of abortion", or a similar title, not whether to revive the debate between "Pro-choice"/"Pro-life" and other options.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... Am I at all open to revisiting the pro-life/pro-choice debate about the titles? Thinking... thinking... Hell Yea! Any discussion that was incompatible with Stephen's agenda was squelched.– Lionel (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
What agenda do I have? The suggestions I made were as a neutral mediator who assessed the situation, and the discussion was closed by an uninvolved administrator, who is also an arbitrator (though not acting in that capacity at the time). If you're not happy with the outcome, take it to the Arbitration Committee. See what they say. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you've done a good job, Steven, but the moves are not going to cut it. And the idea that "pro-life" is ambiguous is a joke; go out into a city anywhere in the world and ask people what they think of when they hear "pro-life", 99.9999999% will say abortion. Of course "pro-choice" is ambiguous and I object to the term, but the case is the same for that. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
What about say, Singapore? Hong Kong? Delhi? Sydney? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Steven, I think "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion" is unwieldy. It's also, as has been mentioned over and over, inaccurate as the Pro-life movement opposes abortion whether it's legal or not. When readers type "prolife" in the search window, they are not looking for articles about animal shelters or turkeys. --Kenatipo speak! 17:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
How do you know? Have you got any evidence or is it just a hunch? What about the people in Singapore, Hong Kong, Delhi and Sydney and other cities around the world? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Please try and be serious, Eraserhead.LedRush (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm being completely serious. There has been an enormous amount of asserting that things are true without evidence and without taking WP:NPOV into account. That's why Chase Me closed the mediation case the way he did, he made it clear why he closed the case that way in his rationale. How things work in your corner of the United States isn't necessarily how the rest of the world does things. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
If you are not going to engage in this conversation seriously (or without being condescending and presumptive), why even bother? Are you trolling?LedRush (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
If the terms referred to anything else at all, why don't we have disambiguation pages for them? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should. There are plenty of things on Wiki that aren't perfect and maybe this is one of them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It hurts me when you call Wikipedia "Wiki". —chaos5023 (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I just filed for formal mediation. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Opposition to the legalisation of abortion NYyankees51 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I had an interesting conversation with "Chase me, ladies" about his recent decision, on his talk page. (He said I was the only one that complained!) But he grew tired of it, so I copied it to the bottom of my own talk page (if you're interested). It may give insight as to how the deck is stacked, so to speak. --Kenatipo speak! 23:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Listed my opposition and reasons on the MedCom page. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm responding to Steven's main statement above, starting with the sentence, "There's a lot of discussion here that the new title doesn't accurately describe the article." Steven's whole point, if I'm not misunderstanding, is that the term "pro-life" should not be used, or cannot be used, simply because it has uses other than meaning opposition to abortion. So what? Countless names used as titles in WP have uses other than the topic of that article. That because in deciding titles in Wikipedia, we often consider a concept we refer to as primary topic:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

Can there be any doubt the topic being sought by someone entering "pro-life" in the search box is opposition to abortion? Seriously? What else do you imagine they might be looking for? Turkeys? Absurd! That's all that matters.

I'm sorry to say this, but it appears to me that many involved in this renaming decision, and, like Steven, have apparently been influential, are rank amateurs with respect to how we decide titles in Wikipedia. For someone familiar with WP title decision-making to argue against using some name simply because it has other uses, without even a hint of consideration about whether the use in question is primary for that name, is unheard of.

The alternative explanation is that they know this, but are deliberately being obfuscating in order to further their POV, but I seriously doubt that is the case --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Support for the legalization of abortion" is not an acceptable title, as it misunderstands the meaning of legalization and thus will either misinform our readers about the English language, or misinform them about the status of abortion. To legalize is to make the illegal legal. In places where abortion is legal, it is impossible to support or oppose its legalization. The correct title would be Support for the legality of abortion, I believe. -Silence (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
See my response on the other page. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
What kind of title is "Support for the legalization of abortion"?? I can only imagine the tortured debates that led to such a pitiful outcome. Why can't we just call it "Pro-choice movement" like Britannica and everyone else in the world does? This current title is absurd. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I just read through the Mediation decision – what a mess! I'm sure Steven Zhang had good intentions, but the idea that he could settle the dispute by enacting a solution that no one wanted is a bit absurd. It's really sad that the best chance to settle this debate was squandered. Kaldari (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I kind of want to stay out of this (I don't like drama), but the naming issue stays the same. In Britain, abortion is legal. Unlike in the United States, it's far less contentious. There is an anti-abortion/pro-life/whatever movement but it isn't mainstream, nor is it quite as radical as it is in the United States (we haven't had any George Tiller-esque murders, thankfully). And there is a pro-choice/pro-legal-abortion/whatever movement too. But because abortion is legal and not particularly contentious, it's not like they are arguing "for the legalization of abortion" as the article title puts it. If it were illegal, they would be. But it is legal, so they are really arguing for the status quo and against movements which they see as trying to undermine what they believe to be a basic and fundamental human right. The current naming still doesn't quite get it right. If the article has to have a silly name, I'd suggest "Support for legal abortion" would be marginally less silly. And the same problem applies to Opposition to the legalization of abortion. "Opposition to abortion" seems a much less clumsy name, even if it breaks parity with the equally clumsy name for this article. As Kaldari says, what a mess. (Sigh.) —Tom Morris (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to take the comments about "legal abortion" vs "legalization of abortion" to someone who has power to change the title? Its just such an awful title as Kaldari and Tom Morris said. I dont want to beat a dead horse but this really needs a better title. Absolutezero273 (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok so this has been done countless times. Obviously there are slight issues with titles and here are more: Opposition to legal abortion doesnt cover as pro lifers are also opposed to illegal abortions. And likewise pro choice movements exist after the legalisation of abortion and both movements have various nuances and diverse opinions. So for example there are pro lifers who allow for an exception for rape. http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/04/arguing-for-rape-exception.html These people, therefore, support the legalisation of abortion in some instances but would consider themselves pro life (even if other pro lifers would consider them pro abortion). Its the principle of being *pro life* but accepting the reality that opposing all abortions is not feasible, practical and/or legally acceptable (notably in the case of rape or threat to mothers life). The reason Pro Life and Pro Choice are the best available description of the movements are 1. Common use. Is it possible to see how often people search "pro life" as opposed to "Opposition to legal abortion"? Everyone knows what you mean when you say pro life. Its a broad term and covers all the people who oppose abortion on principle (although not necessarily in reality). 2. Its how they describe themselves. Anti-Abortion is not strictly accurate in that it implies that they are against "abortion" for the sake of it (as I noted there are those who would allow exceptions and still be pro life). Regardless Anti-aborton implies a bias because it implies a misunderstand of the ideals of the movement. The logic against pro-abortion makes sense:not in favour of abortion merely the option/the choice. 3. The ideals behind the movement. The arguments from the pro life center on the humanity and dignity of the unborn. This involves citing scientific evidence and making comparisons with slavery and the holocaust where human rights were taken from human beings. It involves asserting the right to life and makes the debate important by emphasising that there is a clash of rights. Pro life doesnt necessary describe the goal (no abortion) but describes the ideals upon which the movement is built; The humanity and right to life of the unborn. Any other description ignores that fundamental underpinning; they dont oppose abortion for the sake of it, or cause the Church says its bad. Its not necessarily that abortion is inherently and always wrong (although there are those that make that claim) but that the justifications for abortion are not good enough to kill another human life. Pro Choice likewise focuses on the *Choice* of the mother and her rights and the clash of rights that this situation entails. To be stritly accurate you could say "pro-Bodily Autonomy". But no one does. It is about the lack of choice that pro life logic implies; Forcing pregnancy against the will of the mother. Again; "Pro choice" describes not the goal but hints at the logic underpinning their reasoning. Both are not perfect description of the goals and aims and neither imply that the opposite is true of the other side (except as a derogatory insult). 4. Encyclopedia's are a reference for people to get information fast and to the point about something which might common knowledge in a particular social group. Especially in the future looking back on the past, the most accurate and fair moniker to describe these movements are Pro Life and Pro Choice. As it stands wikipedia is assigning labels based on what it deems is a compromise which nobody is happy with. Using pro life/pro choice - describes the movements and not the legal battle and can therefore be used to describe the various types of groups in diverse situations all across the world from Ireland, England, US etc. Most people searching in an encyclopedia will understand pro life and pro choice as opposed to the psuedo-compromise solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredbobhurst (talkcontribs) 13:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Latin American pro-choice movements

Brazil: Catholic women for the right to choose http://www.google.com.br/webhp?hl=pt-BR&tab=Tw&q=Cat%C3%B3licas%20pelo%20direito%20%C3%A0%20escolha#sclient=psy-ab&hl=pt-BR&safe=off&site=webhp&source=hp&q=Cat%C3%B3licas+pelo+direito+%C3%A0+escolha&btnK=Pesquisa+Google&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d6ac59b62fb1a76c&biw=1280&bih=709

There is pretty much debate over reprodutive rights in Brazil, which performs a role to expansion of feminist, progressist and leftist movements. It also generates criticism of the Brazil's evangelical and pentecostal benches (Protestants in Brazil are regarded as far more conservative, politically concerned and with kind of bigotry than Catholics everywhere thanks to the traditional Brazilian—New Protestant American religious movements groups cultural distance), a country that according to its constitution should be secular. The pro-life and religious authorities retaliate how they can and, frankly, demonize these movements in a Red Scare-style (Olavo de Carvalho draws connections between new social movements in Latin America to Foro de São Paulo attempt of implanting Communism in the region; he's pretty popular. Other more moderate conservative figures are among the most important Brazilian mass trendsetters; all of them have a collective disdain, or even hate, for world's #1 homophobic country's LGBT rights movements). If successful, pro-choice movements and new reprodutive rights laws in Brazil can be a model to be followed in other Latin American majoritarily-Catholic nations. I don't find the secondary sources now, but according to WikiLeaks, an estimated number of 4 to 5 millions of Brazilian women had illegal abortions between 1985 and 2005 and some souces put about 20.000 Latin American women dying year-round in the consequences of clandestine abortion.

How English Wikipedia has no content about it, and more, too little content about Brazilian social movements' scene and political scape? 189.106.123.96 (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Because English Wikipedia has systemic bias - people are more inclined to find sources in the language that they speak and write about things from their own country. It doesn't mean we wouldn't accept an article on the things you're talking about, or accept content on it in an existing article - it would be great if you could write something up. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Correction: "... as it involves a woman's body, personal health, and future."

Given that there is always the possibility of a woman dying during childbirth, I am thinking that the sentence "Abortion-rights advocates argue that whether or not to continue with a pregnancy is an inviolable personal choice, as it involves a woman's body, personal health, and future" should be changed to read:

Abortion-rights advocates argue that whether or not to continue with a pregnancy is a female's inviolable personal choice, as it is her life at risk during childbirth, it is her body that will change throughout the progression of her pregnancy, it is her personal health that may be compromised by medical complications arising from the pregnancy, and it is her perception of diminished economic and educational opportunities that may result from a unplanned pregnancy.Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


Legal in India

Legal in India. Makes sense from a woman's point of view and helpful to control an expanding population Tgkprog (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Americanisms? History of the use of the terms pro-choice and pro-life in the UK

It has been suggested that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are largely American language from a largely American debate. I'd argue that that suggestion is contradicted by this example of the use of both of these terms in a British newspaper in 1989. Petecarney (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a good place to discuss a title change - there's an ArbCom discussion going on, where your evidence may be more useful. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
That discussion is now closed. The linked information may be of use to editors wishing to add to either or both articles. Petecarney (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't think one counterexample or even several counterexamples would invalidate the observation that it's largely American language from a largely American debate. I would like to reiterate my view that if this wasn't basically about the American right wing, then the "pro-life" view would be opposed to the death penalty, as well as being opposed to consensual euthanasia or women having the option to terminate unwanted pregnancies.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC draft affecting this article open for collaboration

Hey. For those whom it may concern, I've been working on an RFC draft, User:Chaos5023/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, a followup to WP:RFC/AAT, which, if made an actual RFC, may affect the title of this article. It's open to collaboration, so please pitch in if you're interested. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage live

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage is now a live RFC, and would affect the title of this article if consensus is found in favor of its primary conclusion. It is now in its structure phase, where its arguments and options are refined before opinions are registered. Please participate! —chaos5023 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage ready for community feedback

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC that will affect the title of this article if consensus is found in favor of its conclusions, is now in its community feedback phase and ready for editors to register opinions and arguments. Please add your feedback; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This RFC is scheduled to close quite soon. If you're going to register an opinion, please do so in the near future. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Refactored Abortion-rights movements

After the result of WP:RFC/AAMC scoping this article specifically to the US pro-choice movement, I refactored some material that wasn't about the US to Abortion-rights movements. Editors who have been keeping an eye on this page will likely want to watchlist that one as well. I note that it's already come under truly ludicrously POV-pushing move proposal, mere hours after the RFC closure and its creation. Plus la change. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I was going to make a similar comment about moving material that is not specifically about US movements to the more general article. For instance, the general philosophy behind the position seems more appropriate in the worldwide article even if it happens to be supported by sources from US authors, unless there is some evidence that such reasoning is only used in the USA (or unless it is patently obvious that it's US-specific, such as an appeal to particular laws or constitutional rights). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)