Talk:United States abortion-rights movement

"forced" abortion

Someone removed the word "forced" from the lede where it said that the pro-choice movement works for "legal protection from forced abortion". The idea here is that one of the goals of the pro-choice movement is to prevent governments from mandating abortions, as for example may happen with the one-child policy. Removing the word "forced" makes it mean that the pro-choice movement wishes to "protect" women from abortion itself. However, the word "forced" clearly should not have been linked to a physics article. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You may want to explain it better in the article itself. "Forced abortion" would not be a familiar term to most people. (Huey45 (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

Is it really fair to say that is part of the movement? - Schrandit (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)We use the term compulsory abortion in another article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Picking up on Schrandit's point, though protecting women from "forced abortion" sounds "pro-choice," and a decent thing to do, is there any reliably sourced information indicating that the movement is devoting a significant amount of energy in this endeavor? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead certainly implies that "pro-choice" would mean opposition to compulsory abortion, however, specifically listing "legal protection from forced abortion" as one of the basic tenets of the pro-choice movement is quite misleading because, practically speaking, the leading pro-choice organizations have done very little to oppose it. Their overwhelming emphasis has been on legalizing, or maintaining the legality of, abortion, not on preventing it in situations where it becomes coercive. If someone can produce reliable sources that demonstrate otherwise I stand corrected. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is long the lines of including cloning, stem cells, death penalty, and euthanasia in the lead of the pro-life article. I did find this source which says pro-choice people oppose forced abortion. I think this is a position that no only pro-choice individuals take, but most everyone (except, you know, Nazi Germany and Communist China). But I'll agree that I haven't found it in the core mission of any pro-choice organization, not that I have read every mission statement from every organization. It may be a position the pro-choice individuals hold, but maybe not the center of campaigns from pro-choice organizations. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is an issue here: I know some pro-choice individuals (and organizations?) are actively opposed to, say, the coercive policies in China. In the case of others, the issue is contentious at best [1]. I believe the statement should therefore be qualified.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, most pro-life organizations would support a "right" to abortion when a pregnant woman's life is seriously in danger, but we probably wouldn't make this stance a major tenet in the lead paragraph of the article on "Pro-life." Pretending that pro-choice organizations, on the whole, make opposition to compulsory abortion a significant part of their program would seem to be at least equally dubious. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But the lead isn't describing pro-choice organization's activism, but the general ethical view "pro-choice". There is a difference. I am leaning towards deletion myself, don't get me wrong. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

True, Andrew, but as I said, the first sentence in the lead basically denotes "pro-choice's" theoretical opposition to compulsory abortion. However, emphasizing that theoretical but often practically ignored opposition by specifically listing "legal protection from forced abortion" as a major part of this "general ethical view" seems pretty misleading to me. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between holding an ethical position, and activism. Does Operation Rescue do sidewalk counseling outside of IVF clincis? Hold daily vigils outside research institutions and hospitals using stem cells? I'm not sure we need to require action based on belief in order to include content in the lead. I think it's important to emphasize "choice" here, in that forcing someone to give birth, and forcing to have an abortion is against the "pro-choice" ethos, even if there aren't organized campaigns against either. Should we remove the mention of the consistent life ethic from the pro-life article because it is just a moral position, not action? Hmmm... maybe I'm coming around again. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But again, the lead sentence already says that "pro-choice describes the . . . view that a woman should have control over . . . the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy," so the theoretical opposition to compulsory abortion is already stated. Why give readers the misimpression that opposition to forced abortion is an emphasized component of that ethos by adding more specific language, when the opposite is true? In point of fact, a significant number of people who consider themselves "pro-choice" don't oppose, even in theory, compulsory abortion in the parts of the world where it is an issue. A significant number of pro-choicers are also population control advocates who are sympathetic with the use of this tool in reversing population growth. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The map again

Germany should be light blue, see discussion section of the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.95.223 (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not actually in favor of this move, I am making this suggestion as numerous opposition voters have stated that should that Pro-life be renamed Anti-abortion then they feel Pro-choice should be renamed in a similar manner, I am starting this discussion to allow them to support both, if they so choose. _WikiMan^One 06:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and close If you don't agree with it, it's purely a pointy nomination. I'd advise this be speedily closed. Dayewalker (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I personally do not agree with it, but there are those that have clearly stated that they would support it at Talk:Pro-life, I am giving them an opportunity to do so and see where the community stands on it. (The argument is, if Pro-life is to be moved, so should Pro-choice, so let it be discussed then is my view) _WikiMan^One 06:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. WP:POINT nomination being used to justify or excuse bad behavior at an equally bad move discussion of Pro-life. Also, nobody at the other discussion has "expressed support" for a proposed title invented just a few minutes ago. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close per clear WP:POINT. I suggest the nominating editor step away from the keyboard for a second and consider what he or she is actually trying to achieve with these discussions. Because whatever it is, it isn't working and you are doing your cause more harm than good. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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-choice → Abortion-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-life → anti-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. _WM^O 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? _WM^O _{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)
    • Same sentiment here. I think it's presumed that "rights" movements are fighting for whatever it is to be recognized as a right against people who do not believe it is a right - civil and political rights, human rights, right to die, right to keep and bear arms, right to life are all article titles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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. [2] 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

Abortion-rights movement → Pro-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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Pro-life → Anti-abortion movement

Is this the intended place for centralized discussion? PeRshGo (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Propose Abortion-rights movement → Pro-choice movement and Pro-life → Pro-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)

• 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)

• 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)