Because those titles are now redirects, it will be easy for someone to miss the discussion that led to this merger. For that reason, I have preserved the discussion at User talk:HuskyHuskie/Abortion debate (here). There are two main sections, one taken from the talk page of Abortion rights movement and the other from the talk page of Pro-life movement. I ask that anyone considering a fork (is that the right use of the term?) read the prior discussion and achieving consensus here before attempting such.
In short, those who supported this merger saw it as a win-win situation. We believe that, in one fell swoop,
The incessant debate about whether the use of the propagandic self-labeling names of both organizations is now laid to rest.
The concerns of some that calling one group "anti-" anything is inherently negative is hereby rendered moot.
The chances that Wikipedia's treatment of the entire abortion issue will more likely meet the standards of WP:NPOV is enhanced, since both sides will be editing the same article, and checking each other.
Having said this, this article is not a quality article, by any stretch of the imagination. It is unwieldy, not well-organized, and I see a lot of improvement in its future. But we hope now that the focus will be on improving the content, rather than worrying about the title. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. WikiManOne 06:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) WikiManOne 06:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support -- Nominator's reasons make sense. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Does anyone actually use 'abortion rights' to refer to the fetus? (Fetuses don't have abortions.)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think those googgle ngrams speak by themselves: [edit: see below]. walkvictor falktalk 00:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I fixed the link for the 3rd) — kwami (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. walkvictor falktalk 00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. In that case I would say the international issue is largely irrelevant then. Kaldari (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). walkvictor falktalk 04:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support per proposer. Lionel (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Have you heard of Roe v. Wade?WMOPlease leave me a wb if you reply 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. walkvictor falktalk 04:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support unreservedly per all the above. – ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Or "pro-choice" could mean "professional choice, what professionals use" or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The close should've been executed by an uninvolved editor. Lionel (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Propose Abortion-rights movement → Pro-choice movement and Pro-life → Pro-life movementorRight-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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I LOVE the idea. But it'll never happen. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So to clarify, would you support the titles being "abortion-rights movement" and "anti-abortion movement"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that, Roscelese. Let's keep out the POV euphemisms. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Pro-life movement" and "Pro-choice movement" per CWenger.Griswaldo (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons it was moved away from that name in the first place. — kwami (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pro-life for the same reason I stated on the move discussion at that page. Lionel (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you asked, I think pro-abortion movement best reflects the topic.Lionel (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're a troll. Why should we consider your opinion then? — kwami (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting "pro-abortion movement" makes you a troll? –CWenger (^ • @) 14:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem enough to break WP:CIVIL and call someone a troll. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
are you OK with the way things are, and why?[edit]
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)[reply]
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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes its fine, and the name isn't really that big a deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. I don't see any convincing arguments for the move. For example, the suggested target isn't demonstrably the common name. To take another example, one argument for the move is that the current title is POV. Well, yes, I could be persuaded of that. It does seem to be favored by conservatives, but "anti-abortion" appears to be favored by liberals. The neutrality argument fails when proposing a move from one possibly POV title to one which is also perceived as POV; in my view, a move on that basis would need to suggest an article title perceived as neutral by both sides.
I note that another multiple move discussion is now open. I presume the outcome of that will be decided separately. DrKiernan (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be a POV push from people who consider themselves pro-life, as it moves them from a name with which they self-identify to one that carries with it strongly negative connotations. It's like suggesting that abortion-rights movement article be renamed the "anti-life" or the "pro-baby killing" article. It's easier to allow each article to be named as that group self identifies, especially seeing as each name is heavily supported by reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Anthony just closed the RM at Pro-choice by moving it to Abortion-rights movement. This article should parallel that one, either at Pro-life/Pro-choice or Abortion-rights movement/Anti-abortion movement (or similar title). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently a redirect. Look at its history. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this page should follow. Is the term "Abortion-rights" considered to be negative by anyone? I would agree if the title were the equally frank "pro-abortion" but it seems to me that the term "abortion-rights" is still preferential. - Haymaker (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be a pretty unfair way of effecting a change for which there is clearly no consensus. I would prefer that the two articles have parallel names (I strongly prefer symetry and consistency), but in this case there is no parallel except pro-life/pro-choice. Anti-abortion is not equivalent in terms of connotations as abortion-rights. And trying to force a move through this method would be supremely unfair.LedRush (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support In light of the move to Abortion-rights movement the context of this move proposal is very different to the last move proposal. "Pro Life" is by its nature a propagandist name, implying that opponents are anti-life. The only justification, IMHO, was that the article on the opponents had an equally propagandist name. That is now gone. So symmetry requires both have NPOV names. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As made clear above, there is no symmetry with the two names. Perhaps "Right-to-life movement" would be symmetrical, but this is being brought up in a very unfair manner.LedRush (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As made clear! No, I don't think so! DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that, in English, the connotations of having a "pro-something" group are not more positive than those of an "anti-something" group? I find that position strange. If there weren't a negative connotation (or less positive one, at least) to "anti-groups" why would there be so much wrangling to ensure that groups are named "pro-somthings"?LedRush (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Nazi League etc etc. You're confusing an NPOV point with the PR advice given to the leadership of the anti-abortion movement on how to be more successful with U.S voters. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-gay marriage groups? Nope, defense of marriage or pro-family. Anti-immigration? Nope, pro-America (obviously US-centric). Anti-guns movement? Nope, pro-gun control. There is so much wrangling because taking a positive position is seen generally as being better than taking a negative position. Of course, the underlying reason for the position is ultimately the most important factor but that doesn't mean there is no effect from the choice of language.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the anti-Nazi group (which I'd never heard of before and seems to have existed for about 5 years only) seemed to be an attempt of a leftist group to disparage a rightist group by calling them Nazis. I am sure you can find groups which self-identify as "anti-somthing", but that one is obviously not one for this discussion. Also, it seems impossible to honestly argue that more groups don't try to identify as a positive name rather than a negative one.LedRush (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are as prejudiced as you are incapable of addressing the someone's argument. It's good to know, I guess...LedRush (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*TWEEEEEEET* *hands out yellow cards all around* Cut that out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prejudiced? You need to calm down. I've given you a list of "anti's" used in the UK. How's that not answering your point?
When I've explicitly conceded that you will find many examples of "anti" groups, yet argued that (1) there is a connotation with respect to the term; and (2) that groups often fight for, and generally prefer, to give positive names to their groups. Instead of addressing my point, you give a list of things I've already conceded exists. Your position on this is quite surprising to me.LedRush (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And "abortion rights" isn't propagandist? It presupposes the view that abortion is a right. As I suggested before, if you want neutral names, those are "support for legalized abortion" and "opposition to legalized abortion". --B (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While better options, even those aren't completely neutral as support for a position is generally regarded more positively than opposition to something. (Obviously, other aspects of a name can affect the connotation more strongly than merely having it worded as a "pro" or an "anti", but that doesn't make my comment untrue).LedRush (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. One can seek to make anything "a right". It doesn't make it "a right". DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "support for legalized abortion" and "opposition to legalized abortion" are also good proposals. I would support them as well. But these are the recommendations of neutrality by the Associated Press. An "X rights movement" does not imply that X is a right, only that the movement thinks it should be a right. Which is exactly the situation here. — kwami (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The close at Abortion Rights is being questioned. Lionel (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, not this again. Pro-life movement makes more sense as a name than just "pro-life", but for all of the reasons given in the previous discussion, anti-abortion movement is not an appropriate move. --B (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, unless there is stringent opposition to doing so, I'm going to be bold and move the article to pro-life movement. Regardless of whether you would rather call it "anti-abortion", I think everyone can agree that "pro-life movement" is a better title than "pro-life". There's no reason to hold the clearly better naming convention (having "movement" in the name) hostage just because we have some need for the process of rehashing a month of emotional debate over pro-life vs anti-abortion. --B (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "good grief, not this again". And I'm appalled the pro-choice article was actually moved. Shame on someone... -Andrew c[talk] 18:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and stop making these silly suggestions. I am also left speechless that the "Pro-choice movement" has been moved. How did that happen? "Pro-life movement" and "Pro-choice movement" are clearly in line with WP:UCN. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support parallel names, don't care which set. It's ridiculous that one article should have a neutral name while the other has a propagandic name ("pro-life" is explicitly disallowed by the AP and BBC stylebooks; the latter doesn't mention "pro-choice" but the former disallows it as well). I move that this discussion be immediately closed and the two articles nominated together. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. Even if we disagree on what the name should be, I agree with the basic premise. It really seems like some sort of bias where we allow one side of a debate to use self-identifying terms, but not the other side (and also goes to show how 'consensus' is actually driven by the whims of majority rule based on selective participation.)-Andrew c[talk] 20:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that one group has a widely accepted, non-negative, accurate name (abortion rights) while the other doesn't (anti-abortion). I'd rather both get to self identify with positive-connotation names than have one get an accurate positive connotation name, and the other get an accurate negative connotation name.LedRush (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see what's so negative about "anti-abortion." If you think abortion is bad, being against it isn't negative. Cf. "anti-war." As far as I can tell, the objections to "anti-abortion" have been "waaaaah you're not using our propaganda term" rather than an actual problem with the connotations of "anti-abortion." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is clear that is not my position, so perhaps you could address what I'm saying and not an insulting characture of something else. Groups try extremely hard to make their groups "pro-something" instead of "anti-something". Additionally, the "accurate" pro-choice term is even less neutral as it supports rights. Who doesn't like rights? Bad people...that's who.LedRush (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support parallel names There's no obvious nonflawed way to handle this, but given the earlier change "Anti-abortion movement" seems the least bad. And note the "pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion". Nobody likes abortions. PhGustaf (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Do we really need to do this again? There was clear consensus against moving after hundreds of comments (or at least no consensus for moving). A parallel name would be "Anti-abortion-rights movement", and that's awkward. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a ridiculous name. "Anti-abortion movement" is a ridiculous name - there's no such thing. There is a "pro-life movement". There are people who hold an anti-abortion viewpoint. There is no such thing as the "anti-abortion-rights movement" or the "anti-abortion movement". As established before, we don't make up a name just because Wikipedians are offended by the term "pro-life". --B (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I don't like the term "pro-choice", but I can't change it to something more or less favorable just because I don't like it. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Brings the two opposing articles into symmetry name-wise. "Anti-abortion" is not a negative construction. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" symmetry? "Abortion rights" is a self-identification name (along with "pro-choice"). "Pro-life" is the self-identification name. No pro-life person identifies their movement as "anti-abortion". --B (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about we move the pro-choice article back to pro-choice? Pro-life/pro-choice are more in symmetry than anti-abortion and abortion rights. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: we just went through this. This article encompasses more than abortion opposition: it also includes opposition to euthanasia, stem cell research, and the death penalty. Lionel (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. The lede opens with "Pro-life describes the moral, political and ethical opposition to elective abortion and support for its legal prohibition or restriction." This is almost entirely about abortion; any other pro-life issue is merely consequential.
I would support an article at pro-life movement that covers all pro-life issues. But it shouldn't be focused on abortion, as the current one is. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to reiterate my support of an immediate close so both articles can be nominated and discussed together. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other article has already been moved. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know - that's why it's particularly urgent that we discuss both together, so we don't end up with another decision with the same problems as the first (people cherry-picking policy to support their views rather than forming a view based on policy, not all users participating in both move discussions) that'll only lend more weight to things as they are. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not suggest to the closing admin that, if they close on a move, that they do so under the condition that any future RfM be made with both articles considered together? A note to that effect could be placed at the top of the talk pages of both articles. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quote, "Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortionorpro-choice." (Norm Goldstein/Associated Press (2004:5) The Associated Press stylebook and briefing on media law[3])
I also support a second article at pro-life movement which would cover all pro-life issues, such as Jainism, opposition to the death penalty, the environmental movement, the living-wage movement, etc. The coverage of those movements in the current article amount to little more than their relationship to the anti-abortion movement. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... you think Jainism is a part of the "pro-life movement"? There was nothing called the "pro-life movement" until the 1970s. As for environmentalism, PETA has in recent years claimed that if you are "pro-life" that you should be vegan, but even they know that "pro-life" really means that you oppose abortion.[4][5][6] Trying to redefine terms to mean what you wish they meant instead of what they really are is ridiculous. --B (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's clearly not part of "the" PL movement, but then that's a very narrow perspective. And sure, vegetarianism and anti-vivisection can be included. There is no single "pro-life" movement; many vegetarians support the right to legal abortion. It would all have to be sourced too, of course, but we can leave that to the people writing the article.
Basically, one of the arguments against this move is that "pro-life" is not synonymous with "anti-abortion", though you'd never know it from reading the article. My position is that any such non-synonymous uses of the term "pro-life" can be covered in a separate article, and so should not be a reason to oppose the move. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami's point is a good one. If "'Pro-life' covers more than just abortion" is an argument against changing the title, the article needs to cover other "pro-life" issues - otherwise the argument is a very thinly veiled "I like the phrase 'pro-life'." (For what it's worth, I think the proposed article would be beyond terrible - it would combine far too many separate issues, many of which don't correlate at all with opposition to abortion - but all this proves is that that argument against a page move falls flat.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but Wikipedia doesn't operate based on what the AP says. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. Assuming the pro-choice article has been permanently moved and that is the consensus there, and no chance of undoing that, then I think it is 100% required and a must that we not allow this side of the debate to use their preferred term either. I know this sounds like a "pointy" vote, but it isn't. I'll concede that some journalism style guidelines have rules regarding the abortion debate, such as the aforementioned AP stylebook (but I'm not convinced that the majority of sources use this guide, nor that contrived attempts at "neutrality" for non-neutral topics supersedes individual identity in terms of our naming conventions). My number one preference is to use the term of self identity for BOTH. It is unacceptable to allow one side to do it, but not the other (I understand sometimes the world isn't fair, and there may not be parity in all situations, however given the AP style guide, we have at least some sources that treat these topics with such parity). So if we aren't ever going to get a "pro-choice" article back, I'm fine taking away the "pro-life" article as well, and bowing to the style guidelines of the associated press, as a compromise and to at least have consistency between topics. Good grief. This is a lesser of two evils vote. I feel like if I block this move based on my previous feelings and take on policy, even though it didn't work over at pro-choice, that I could stand in the way of consistency. So I think consistency and parity in these topics are MORE important that my personal preference and take on our naming conventions. So I reluctantly support this move, given the other article has been moved and that it won't be soon overturned.-Andrew c[talk] 00:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we were to move this and then revert the other to 'pro-choice', that would indeed be a dirty trick, but I don't think anyone would stand for it.
Remember too that this article started off life as a description of the phrase "pro-life" and its self identification. It was distinct from the article on the topic itself, which was at "anti-abortion movement" (which is why there is still a page history there to preserve). The article on the topic was then merged into the article on the name. — kwami (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) shut down discussion as premature under WP:BURO or (2) move Pro-life to Pro-life movement as the article about the self-identifying anti-abortion group then (3) split Pro-life movement with Anti-abortion This last point came out in discussion following the move attempt last month, that the two are not the same. Also, I have never heard of "anti-abortion movement", sounds like a Wiki-neologism. Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not a Wiki-neologism, a quick Google search and the first link I picked shows that "anti-abortion movement" has been co-opted by "Pro-life" people who say, "The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the only way to be pro-life is to be pro-choice." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscintillating (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An editor has raised questions about the close over at Pro-choice, excuse me, Abortion rights. After reading the discussion over there, it does appear, to me anyway, it was no consensus. The next time someone brings an RfC, which will be any minute now, it's going back to Pro-choice. You can take that to the Wiki-bank. Lionel (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He merely asked for clarification on the reasoning behind the decision. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should not base the naming of this article on Abortion rights. The discussion over there was contentious, the close is being questioned, and if that name returns to Pro-choice in a future RfC what happens here? This article should be based on self-identification. Lionel (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Crystal Ball. It's not an issue: If that move is reversed, it will happen before this discussion is closed, in which case anyone who voted 'support' here based on the name of the other article can change their vote to 'oppose'. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to get involved in the political, philosophical and ideological parts of the debate, but it does seem weird to me to have a Wikipedia article about an adjective. Even a change to Pro-life movement would make me happier. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Anti-abortion would be the same problem. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some editors have cited the AP stylebook, which favors the use of the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion". The AP, however, is not a neutral source. Most U.S. journalists and editors are liberal and pro-choice. Because they are the majority, their view predominates on editorial pages, front-page articles, news coverage, and stylebooks. Two pollsters (Gallup Poll and Rasmussen Reports) instead use the self-identifying names: "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
As a non-American I would describe that as an All-American post. The article attempts to portray the situation for much more than just the USA, perhaps even globally. Such data may be suitable for Pro-life in the USA, but inappropriate here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Pro-life" is ambiguous and completely meaningless to non-Americans. "Anti-abortion" is what it's all about. Barsoomian (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support since several "pro-life" activists are murderers, and others support the death penalty, it's not very "pro-life". (You're not a pacifist if you only fight a few wars; you're not a vegan if you only eat a few animals) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia names articles by the proper name for the topic, not what you wish the proper name was. --B (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been determined that we are going to abuse process by going through this again, only a month after the last one, I will reiterate my arguments from before. I support moving to "pro-life movement", so don't let the lack of the word "movement" in the article title create a false dilemma for moving to "anti-abortion movement".
If you look over in the article at the links to Wikipedias in other languages, ALL OF THEM use something that means "pro-life" or "pro-life movement" as their name for the article. Strangely, even those Wikipedias that aren't influenced by evil Americans know that "pro-life" is the right name for it.
Real reference sources know that the correct term is "pro-life". Encarta's dictionary has a link for pro-life, but not for anti-abortion. Ditto for Princeton WordNet and the American Heritage Dictionary. Three online dictionaries had both. No online dictionaries that we could find in the previous debate had only "anti-abortion", but not "pro-life". Only on Wikipedia, where we think that reality will readjust according to Wikipedians' points of views, is anyone even arguing for "anti-abortion" movement. Even the far-left RationalWiki thinks "pro-life" is the right term [7].
Wikipedia:TITLE#Neutrality_in_article_titles says that where there is a common name for a topic, we use the common name rather than focusing on whether a name is perceived to be neutral. "Pro-life movement" is unquestionably the more common name.
For g-hits, it's not even close. Pro-life gets 55 million g-hits and anti-abortion gets 4 million.
Even among UK publications, pro-life was the preferred term (these numbers are from a month and a half ago, I copied and pasted the table, you may get slightly different numbers now)
To repeat my comment from the last time on this table: this is a pretty unreliable reflection of UK usage. First, you will see only the right-leaning papers have pro-life as more hits (you have to remember that newspapers are much more partisan in the UK than the US, whereas TV is more NPOV in the UK than in the US). Secondly, you have to examine the hits more closely and see that significant propoortions are opinion pieces, quotes from "pro-life" campaigners etc. Whilst I accept that "pro-life" is used in the UK, I believe it is used differently than in the US: it is much more consciously used to express support for the "pro-life" side. Look at the BBC usage. DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But our standard is that we use the "more common" term, not the term preferred by opponents of the subject. Your argument is that if you throw out usage of the term by pro-lifers themselves, then pro-life is used less commonly. Regardless of whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant. --B (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if newspapers are more partisan, let's try the broadcasters with a quick Google check. BBC website is 26K for "pro-life", 9,930 for "anti-abortion" (in spite of their expressed preference in their style guide for not using "pro-life"). Channel 4 is 752 for "pro-life", 290 for "anti-abortion". ITV.com is equal: four each. ITN is 3 for "pro-life" and 5 for "anti-abortion". Sky News (news.sky.com) has 221 for "pro-life" and 171 for "anti-abortion". This, and the fact that the main pro-life/anti-abortion groups in the UK are the ProLife Alliance, 'LIFE' and 40 Days of Life. Interestingly, the "Pro Life All Party Parliamentary Group" (website) seem to be more concerned about euthanasia, stem-cell-based experimentation and eugenics than they do abortion, indeed supporting the current situation with the 1967 Act. That said, the idea that "pro-life" is an Americanism strikes me as a Brit as slightly silly.
When you compare news.bbc.co.uk for both terms you get 3630 for pro life vs 1380 for anti-abortion, which is consistent with your other searches. And there is also the issue that as anti-abortion is more neutral there have to be a lot more hits for pro-life for that to be the more appropriate name. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I would support anti-abortion/pro-abortion or opposition to abortion/support for abortion but the proposed language does not seem particularly level. From where I'm sitting, the pro-life outlook isn't about being opposed to abortion, it is about trying to secure a right to life for unborn children. Allowing the pro-choice side the preferential language of saying they're all out about providing people a right while constricting the pro-life side to the negative language of saying they're all about constricting a right is less than equal. - Haymaker (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I've spent about 10 posts trying to say what you've said far more concisely and intelligently than I could have.LedRush (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the interest of parallel naming with Pro-choice, as discussed by Haymaker above. –CWenger (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Pro-choice was moved. Are you saying that "Abortion-rights movement" should be moved back to "Pro-choice", or that this should be moved to match? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just noticed that Pro-choice has been movedtoAbortion-rights movement (without as clear a consensus as is normally required, if you ask me). So the parallel naming arguments have been pretty much thrown out the window. It seems awfully unfair for one side to be called the "rights" side and the other to be the "anti" side. I think it just makes sense to leave the article here or move to Pro-life movement. –CWenger (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair "Anti-abortion" and "Abortion-rights movement" are not parallel at the end of the day regardless of CWenger's possible confusion.Griswaldo (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, would not oppose moving the current opposite of this article back to pro-choice. - Haymaker (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "pro-choice" or "pro-life" are very good titles - they should be "pro-life movement" and "pro-choice movement". Unfortunately, both this discussion and the other one are presenting the false dilemma of "pro-life" vs "anti-abortion movement" and "pro-choice" vs "abortion rights movement". --B (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I wouldn't mind "pro-life movement"/"pro-choice movement". - Haymaker (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, pro-choice should not have been moved, and I would support "____ movement". NYyankees51 (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like more of the supporters of the Pro-life name to respond to my earlier comment that they are wanting an article about an adjective. Vey unusual in Wikipedia. If I don't see such responses, I will continue to think that they are less well educated. All I asked for was a change to Pro-life movement. I can guarantee that it would keep a lot of people happier. HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the current adjective name is bizarre. I would certainly support a move to Pro-life movement. –CWenger (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should brush up on my grammar, but, while I acknowledge "pro-life" can be an adjective, I feel it may also act as a noun, so this hasn't ever been a concern for me (and then, we can move back and ask, should the article be about an organized movement, or about a view people take on an issue. Tons of people who don't like abortion and who may identify as "pro-life" have nothing to do with the "movement". It can also involve the religious and philosophical arguments in the debate, and not the movement). That said, I'm entirely fine with adding "movement" to the end of the article, as long as BOTH have the word "movement" in them. And I'm fine with pro-life/pro-choice movement (first choice), or anti-abortion/abortion rights movement (far 2nd), over any mixture of a self-identifying name with a media "neutral" name. -Andrew c[talk] 23:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you use pro-life as a noun in a sentence? I don't think it is possible. On the "movement" issue, I think if somebody is pro-life it is OK to say they are part of the movement, even if they don't actively participate in it. The alternative would be something like Pro-life position, which might not fully cover the content of the article. –CWenger (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DeCausa, above. "In light of the move to Abortion-rights movement the context of this move proposal is very different to the last move proposal. "Pro Life" is by its nature a propagandist name, implying that opponents are anti-life. The only justification, IMHO, was that the article on the opponents had an equally propagandist name. That is now gone. So symmetry requires both have NPOV names." although I would also say the last umpteen move proposals, rather than simply the last single. :-) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very valid point, but do you also see a NPOV problem with one side being named the "rights" side and the other being named the "anti" side? Would you support something like Right-to-life movement? –CWenger (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rights" doesn't have an NPOV problem: just because someone ca\mpaigns for a "right", it doesn't mean that they should be granted the right. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to say abortion "rights" the reciprocal name should also include "rights". - Haymaker (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(re to CWenger) I would have preferred they both stayed at Pro-Life and Pro-choice, but as Pro-choice has been moved, then either Anti-abortion movement or Pro-life movement would work for me. But Right-to-Life movement is used by virtually no-one. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - I would have thought that having "movement" (regardless of what the movement is called) would be non-controversially the better choice than not having "movement". Most encyclopedia articles are about nouns (Antarctica, George W. Bush, allegations of such and such, etc). I can't think of very many about adjectives. Can you clarify the reason you would prefer not to use "movement"? --B (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that I would have preferred not to use "movement" - its that I would have preferred the articles stayed where they were, which has been stable for years now. *sigh*. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or move Abortion rights movement back to Pro-choice, which would restore the symmetry and simply remove the "movement" verbiage in the titles. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been advocating an immediate close for the purpose of a unified discussion since the proposal was opened. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Same reasoning as last move request. As PBS and other agencies refer to both sides as Abortion right supporters and anti-abortion right supporters. It's the most neutral reference and should follow Wikipedia guidelines. The first sentence in each article can outline what each group consider themselves to be, but calling one 'Pro-life' infers that the other side is 'anti-life', as well as calling one side 'pro-choice' infers the other is 'anti-choice'. This should all be common sense, and there are vast amounts of sourcing to make these moves to adhere to Wikipedia's own guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Full disclosure For what it's worth, and this may or may not be germane, but it should be pointed out that the editor who has re-opened this discussion was the editor who closed debate on moving "Pro-choice" to "Abortion rights movement."[8]Lionel (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a problem with objectifying the name and the topic. The Google snippet for www.prolife.com states, "Christian group that argues against abortion and premarital sex...". I think that the current article needs to be split, with the points about Judaism, Hinduism and Islam being moved away from "Pro-life", just as issues about premarital sex are not related to the title Opposition to legalized abortion (or whatever other name is chosen). Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, proposed title makes it clear to everyone what the article is about, and is parallel to the title of the pro abortion rights article.--Kotniski (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We went through this process a month ago with clear consensus against moving. Consensus here is the same. Seems like most folks want to close this and put both articles up together for moves to "Pro-life movement" and "Pro-choice movement". In any case, this proposal should be closed as keep as per WP:SNOW. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the page you are linking to. This is not a case of snow. Considering that the proposal at pro-choice resulted in a move, I imagine a motivated admin could close this one as move as well... -Andrew c[talk] 02:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second. Same people as last time. Same points as last time. Same result as last time. Lionel (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, more than one editor has changed their votes to move the article, and at least a couple more editors last time insisted that they would support a move here if "Pro-Choice" was moved. Which it was. So if this is a vote(which it's not), I Oppose a "snow keep". Dave Dial (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose snow keep per clear absence of consensus for it, support immediate close, as I said, for purpose of dual nomination. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a "snow" keep??? From simple vote-counting, the idea seems very competitive. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Oppose I honestly don't understand how anyone can think something as obviously controversial as this is worthy of a snow keep. We already went over this point last time, and this discussion is also reasonably split down the middle. Snow keeps are only appropriate when the discussion is very one sided, this discussion quite clearly isn't one of them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, a Google site search with quotes shows the same trend. But even still it is only slightly more hits for anti-abortion over pro-life, so both are fairly common in the UK and likely elsewhere outside the U.S. I would argue the relative popularity of pro-life in the U.S. (as evidenced by global Google search results) should put it over the top. –CWenger (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this articles subject was the pro-life movement I would feel differently but is not. It covers a broad range of anti-abortion topics and as such a move is warranted so the title better describes the article. Tmckeage (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some editors have cited "symmetry" as a reason for re-naming as "Anti-abortion rights" (instead of "Pro-life"), i.e., vis-a-vis "Abortion-rights movement". There is, however, no requirement of symmetry in article names. Wikipedia's articles on the slavery issue are titled "Abolitionism" (not "Anti-slavery") and "Proslavery". Eagle4000 (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, it seems like a reasonable thing for an encyclopedia to do for an evenly divided (at least in the U.S.), highly contentious current issue, does it not? The slavery debate is over, we are allowed to take sides on that, but I don't think we should do so on abortion. –CWenger (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per favored term by New York Times, Washington Post, and other major publications. Note that a flat comparison of results for each term is irrelevant as that would include self identification. Both publications I mentioned use that as their term when reporting on the movement in news due to its non-pov. BelloWello (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Symmetry or no symmetry, "pro-life" is bound to eventually be confusing and ambiguous, since it could in the conceivably near future (or even now) refer to, or seem to refer to, other matters including anti-euthanasia, veganism, vegetarianism, PETA-type issues, anti-war, anti-capital punishment, and so on. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - usual reasons. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support because anti-abortion movement is less POV than "pro-life movement" - you could certainly argue that being against the death penalty or against euthanasia would be pro-life positions - so I'm not sure this title completely meets the accuracy part of WP:TITLE (you could even argue that allowing abortion is pro life as it allows women to make the choice not to have a child when it might ruin their life and not allow them to complete their education etc.). Additionally because pro-life hasn't got significantly higher usage (especially outside the US) to refer to anti-abortionists so per WP:TITLE the more POV title of pro life doesn't appear to be the more appropriate name for use here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a little, would anyone consider calling the anti-nuclear weapons movement the "pro-peace" movement? That's the equivalent to this title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - This whole discussion was brought in bad faith, about a month after consensus was reached not to move this article. The renaming of the "pro-choice" article seems to have been done in bad faith as many of the editors on that article explicitly 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 this 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 this article.LedRush (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think throwing around accusations of bad faith on the part of the move requester is inappropriate. After closing the discussion on pro-choice opening a similar one here seems perfectly reasonable and sensible as the articles are similar. That there were two discussions close together is unfortunate, but as the other article had been moved opening this one seems reasonable enough - especially as I remember several people in the first discussion opposed due to the other article having not been moved.
With regards to anti-abortion casting the movement in a "bad light" so does being the anti-nuclear movement. And actually the same applies to describing anyone as left wing rather than right wing as left wing has a lot of negative connotations - I think to an extent you have to accept that kind of descriptive term will be used. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks you need to look up the word "generally".LedRush (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point - that you feel it is bad for anti-abortionists to be seen as taking rights away - I just don't think in terms of the title that any possible implication on those lines is as important as not using a self descriptive term that has more issues as its more clearly POV and it's an ambiguous term. the other thing is that if you feel abortion is bad then being against it should be a good thing. Like being anti-corruption is usually seen as a good thing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who are pro life (meaning they don't like or condone abortions) but who believe that women should have the right to choose. These people are not anti-abortion rights, they are anti-abortion (or more accurately and neutrally, pro-life). Pro-life is the most used term, the most accurate, the most neutral and the one the group self-identitifies with. There is no good reason to entertain this move, except as a cynical POV push.LedRush (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, your comment just undermined your own vote. No one's suggesting a move to "anti-abortion rights," and since you've just admitted that "anti-abortion" is an accurate descriptor for people who oppose abortion, what is the problem? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, didn't I just say something completely different from what you're saying I said? Read the above post for my opinion as to whether "anti-abortion" is neutral or accurate. Sorry for confusing the POV push to move the article to "anti-abortion" and "anti-abortion rights", though both have been suggested.LedRush (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case then the discussion we should be having is to merge the "pro choice" and "pro life" articles together. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with that.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...Which is a minor sidebar for some but not all pro-lifers, and is utterly unimportant to the topic of this article. Check out the lead section: nothing about those concepts. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The national organizations spoke of in the article consider opposition euthanasia, human cloning, and stem cell research as issues they take part in. The same is true for state level organizations. In Michigan in particular Pro-life groups spent a great deal of money campaigning against stem cell research. It was much more than a “minor sidebar.” PeRshGo (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet there is no agreement on these issues among other American groups or among international groups. Some pro-lifers are okay with the death penalty while others are not. Some are okay with assisted suicide for the terminally ill while others are not. Because there is no agreement on these issues, the one issue of abortion is rightfully the subject of this article. It is also the one issue which was selected by the 1973 group of Roe v Wade protesters who coined the term "pro-life". Abortion is the correct topic of this article. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there isn't agreement doesn't mean it's not important.LedRush (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It means this article is not about that. It is about abortion, and only abortion. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except, of course, when it's not. Except for that.LedRush (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out the content that isn't about abortion? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undo this move please. The person who made the move request has closed the discussion themselves, and done so in the manner they were suggesting. That should not happen. Also, the same editor closed the discussion a week ago as no consensus/no move and then reopened the discussion 2 days later, and now has closed it again as a success for his own requested move. I want to give him an opportunity to reverse his action himself but will revert the move myself if he does not do so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done OK, OK, OK, I have reverted the move and the close. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please edit the move request to reflect this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TO CLOSING ADMIN, consider this. Not that this matters, as I support the terms of self identity for both articles, but looking through the discussion, there are around 18 support and 7 oppose. There are some grey area votes, and people who think the move shouldn't have been proposed in this manner either because it was too soon, or because both articles should be discussed together, so there are a few neutral votes as well. If we are to assume that the pro-choice discussion is not to be reviewed, that was closed as moved with only 12 supporters and 8 opposes (and a couple neutral supporters). There is WAY more consensus here than there based on vote counting. Even when reviewing the arguments, at pro-choice there isn't much agreement towards the end, while here there appears to be more support towards the end, and no ongoing discussions... if you, the closing admin, decide there is no consensus here for move, I strongly, STRONGLY urge you to review the closure here Talk:Pro-choice#move_2011 as well, as the closing admin also commented, and based on votes alone, there is clearly less support for that move. -Andrew c[talk] 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TO CLOSING ADMIN, consider this. I don't know if my opposition is being included in the above summary or not, but this entire discussion was inappropriate as it was opened an extremely short time (about a month) after a consensus to keep the the article where it was. The discussion has been ongoing for about four months. People have tired of the conversation and only the editors who feel most strongly about the necessity to move the article remain. Allowing the move not only is blind to the fact that the new names would not be parrellel (something the people who want the move knew and planned when they changed the title of "pro-choice"), but rewards move requests made in bad faith (immediately after consensus) and fillibustering.LedRush (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument I agreed with and made strongly on Talk:Abortion-rights movement as it was the third such move in a short time, however I don't think this is a legitimate argument here. Opening a move request after closing the one on pro choice seems perfectly sensible to me - and it was only the second one, so the number wasn't that excessive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abortion-rights movement which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is too chaotic, and will accomplish nothing in its current state[edit]
I can't even tell who is discussing what, and where. I stayed away the last two weeks because this made it seem clear the the discussion was unified over at Talk:Abortion-rights movement; now I come back and find out that it's been going on for two weeks here, pretty much non-stop. But it gets closed and reopened and etc and etc. What a friggin' mess! How can anyone look at this and believe they can ascertain "consensus"?
For the record, I am a pro-lifer who prefers the neutral (non-propagandic) terms "Anti-abortion movement" and "Abortion rights movement", and I've got plenty of good reasons. But that's not what's important now. Someone needs to find a way to corral this discussion into an easy to follow, organized layout. Nothing will get settled with this crap going on like this. (And maybe that's what some people want). How can we get a fresh (and disciplined) start to this discussion? HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This should have been closed because consensus not to move the page was reached about a month before this discussion reopened. The amount of bad faith and wikilawyering by certain editors who will not stop unti this move occurs is shameful.LedRush (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And do what? Open another move request? The best is just to let an uninvolved admin close the discussion. There may be some discussion here, and some on Talk:Abortion rights movement, but I'm sure in due time someone will make a decision.
If the arguments for one side or the other are clearer than the other then the article should be moved or not moved, if not then it should be closed as no consensus.
Given its just sitting here, its essentially "no consensus" for now, so it doesn't seem like a big deal if we have to wait a little longer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. That's the point. The debate happened. No move was made. Full stop.LedRush (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug> I think its important to let an uninvolved admin make that decision. I'd much rather talk about merging the articles though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree (with HH) but in a less partisan way as both "sides" come out of this with no credit. The irony is that both articles are not very good - C-classers. Everyone's more interested in winning their POV on the title than actually creating decent encyclopedia articles. I previously suggestted collapsing the two into the much better Abortion debate article...oh well... DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at the three articles, pro-life movement currently has about 25000 characters, abortion-rights movement has about 10000 and abortion debate has 35000, so unless the content can be slimmed down without losing detail having at least "pro life" as a separate article is probably going to need to continue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It covers a lot of the same issues, lots of repetion bewteen the three. Abortion debate does it fairly well, the other two, IMHO, are lucky to be C-class. Anyway, it's never going to happen, too many editors are too attached to having an article for "their side". DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead, I don't follow that logic at all. Are you saying that because one article is two or three times bigger than the other they can't be merged? What do you think the mergers would do? Just cut and paste the two (or three) articles together? I don't think that would be the plan at all. As I see it, there's no reason that the two articles can't or shouldn't be merged. Frankly, it's the most logical way out of this morass and will save us the title/move arguments in the future. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the content in detail, but I think giving the articles size is useful/interesting to see. I think given abortion-rights movement's size that it probably doesn't justify its own article, pro-life I'm not so sure on, but if you are saying there is a lot of duplicated content maybe "pro life" could be merged in too - that would also solve the issue of arguing about titles, so even if abortion debate was pretty long it would probably be worth it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to have a hack at that and remove any content that's already covered by Abortion Debate.
If the combined readable size of all three can be got down to 50k-60k characters or so (see WP:SIZE), then I think there would be a strong case to merge the articles together, and I'd be behind that as a good way forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of work involved in this merger will exceed anything that I have ever been involved in on Wikipedia, and of course, it has a high likelihood of all being for naught. I applaud Eraserhead's enthusiasm and good faith spirit here. Might I suggest, however, that instead of actually compiling a completed article, that we first design an outline of what that article's structure should look like? By that I mean literally a set of headings and subheadings that organize the information in the three articles. It will be easier to move around headings sans section text, and then, if we can reach some agreement as to the outline (and even that won't be easy), it'll be a piece of cake to insert the material from the old articles.
I've set up all the headings at User:HuskyHuskie/Abortion debate, but the fact that it is in my userspace does NOT mean that I am volunteering to head this or even be particularly active--it just means that I had to put it someplace. I'm just taking the ideas of DeCausa and Eraserhead1 and taking them in a slightly different initial direction, but with the same end goal in mind. My prayer is that someone else (most likely, DeCausa or Eraserhead themselves) will take this outline and work on it--I don't care if it's done in my userspace or elsewhere--it just needs to be understood that whoever's userspace it ends up being located, anyone can help move the sections around, propose new ways of organizing things, adding sections, deleting sections, etc. There needs to be a lot of discussion on the talk page. This is a huge project, and it will not work unless several editors really work together. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added merge templates to the various articles. I think its worth being transparent about this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the content I'd suggest adding the content from Abortion Debate first, and then adding other stuff from the other articles as that seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some copy-pasting and have updated User:HuskyHuskie/Abortion_debate so that I think it has all the content from the various articles, and better only has 43k characters, well and truly under the soft 60k limit. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Completely new abortion proposal and mediation[edit]
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done OK, OK, OK, I have reverted the move and the close. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
