Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abortion_advocacy_movement_coverage below:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage

Completed

1 October–19 October

• Review and refine arguments surrounding premises, conclusion, and title choice
• Add or remove title options
• Refine RFC procedure (such as consensus-finding methodology)

Completed

20 October–3 November

• Feedback from the community

Closing

Completed

4 November–9 November

• Closers will review feedback, arguments and comments
• Closing of RFC on or about 9 November

The purpose of this RFC is make a decision regarding the fate of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion, as a previous RFC attempted to. In order to avoid issues that plagued that process, this RFC constructs a specific question of an article move, considered as an encyclopedia maintenance issue, built on premises grounded in Wikipedia policy.

From October 1st to October 19th, editors should participate in collaboratively creating a structured overview of the major premises this RFC is based on, the conclusion or conclusions they lead to, and relevant title options, consisting primarily of policy-based arguments regarding each. This summary should focus on being clear, concise, and easy to navigate, presenting the best collaborative analysis of the situation that the participants can arrive at. Procedural elements such as closing methodology may also be revised during this time.

On October 20th, the community feedback phase begins, and a WP:NOTVOTE on the premises, conclusion or conclusions, and title options presented will take place. Please do not register support or opposition regarding summarized elements until that time.

On November 4th, the community feedback phase ends, and the intention is that one or more neutral administrators, as yet undetermined, will close the RFC and carry out any indicated actions. A non-admin closure would also be feasible in the event consensus does not support the Conclusion (administrative privileges are needed to implement the moves called for if the Conclusion is upheld). The mechanics discussed in User:Homunq/WP voting systems, using Continuous Majority Judgment with the 20% supermajority (60/40) option, are recommended to closers as a method of gauging sentiment, though the finding of consensus remains a matter of their judgment.

Please note that if articles moves are carried out, then per WP:TITLE, the new titles will define the scope of the articles moving forward. Current content which is not germane to the defined scope should be refactored appropriately.

Please carry out working discussion of this RFC, such as procedural questions, discussion regarding options and arguments to present in the summary-building phase, and so on, using the talk page.

• Topics are clearly notable per WP:NOTABILITY
• Topics are of extreme cultural impact and focused coverage of them may be validly considered crucial to fulfillment of our mission as an encyclopedia

• none identified

• WP:NPOV is policy written to address how we cover topics, not which topics we cover, and refraining from covering topics for the sake of neutrality raises the specter of censorship; our standards for determining what topics to cover are primarily encoded in WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT, not WP:NPOV
• Concerns about global perspective do not argue against articles covering regional topics, so long as the regional topic is clearly and unambiguously identified; like NPOV, global perspective is a question of how we cover topics, not what topics we cover
• Sometimes arguments stress global perspective when what the people presenting them seem to actually be arguing for is global scope of topic; this is, again, irrelevant to whether we cover these US regional movements, because having these articles does not interfere with having articles on any related globally-scoped topics that may exist (though no evidence has been presented that global abortion advocacy movements exist)

• These articles were originally titled Pro-choice and Pro-life, which may indicate an intention to identify these movements (though using vague adjectivial titles disrecommended by WP:TITLE for exactly the reason that they make topic identification difficult)
• The original titles Pro-choice and Pro-life are heavily laden terms originating and predominantly used in US politics, which argues against the articles identifying any other regional movements or any non-regional movements as their topics
• The original content of these articles primarily describes people and organized behavior rather than positions and arguments
• The current content of the articles is still predominantly about these movements, with the current titles functioning as little more than a WP:COATRACK
• The main alternate position to this premise (the idea that we have separate, opposing articles covering the pro and con sides of a political issue) would be, if true, completely broken, setting up a situation of dueling WP:POVFORKs that is obviously and on the face of it destructive to WP:NPOV, so we can probably conclude that that interpretation is mistaken simply from assuming good faith on the part of the bulk of the many, many editors who have worked on these articles
• The template {{Abortion}} has, ever since its conversion to navbox form in 2009, categorized these two articles as about "Movements", separate from the category "Issues"

• It can be argued that the original contents of Pro-choice, at least, were so minimal and vague as to render it impossible to say definitively that the article had any given topic

• none identified

• If and only if Premises 1 and 2 are accepted: If we are to have articles on these movements (Premise 1), and the articles in question were originally about them (Premise 2), then we should restore the articles to that scope (for reasons including but not limited to retention of article history in the appropriate place), while WP:TITLE calls for clear and unambiguous identification of their topics
• The current titles do not identify any useful scope for their articles (speaking as they do, on the one hand, of the specific process of legalization rather than legality or legal access, and on the other hand only of opposition to legal and not illegal abortion), so rescoping to any relevant and useful title consistent with the principles of WP:TITLE would constitute an improvement
• Since the current titles, if they were actually adhered to, would in fact create the situation of having "dueling POVFORKs" covering two sides of a political issue, WP:NPOV strongly calls for them to be restored to their original, movement-based scopes

• If and only if Premise 1 is rejected: If we should not cover the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements as distinct topics, then even if Premise 2 is accepted, this still has no bearing on what the titles of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion should be
• If and only if Premise 2 is rejected: If Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion were not originally about the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements, then even if we should cover those movements as topics, it is perfectly acceptable for new articles to be created for the purpose rather than moving existing articles
• It can be argued that, rather than restoring the original scope of these articles, it is more helpful from an encyclopedia maintenance viewpoint to preserve the relevant article history in articles scoped to international overviews of relevant movements (such as articles titled Abortion-rights movements and Anti-abortion movements -- leaving, if Premise 1 is affirmed, the coverage of the US movements to new articles)

• none identified

Title choice is only relevant if consensus is found in favor of the Conclusion. If the Conclusion is upheld, then we need to determine what titles to use to specify the scope of the articles being moved. Editors who oppose the Conclusion may still choose to indicate support or opposition for title options, since even if they oppose any action being taken as a result of this RFC, they may legitimately express a preference for which action is taken in the event one takes place. If the Conclusion is rejected, then no action will be taken on the basis of this RFC.

As the mandate of the Conclusion is that the scope of the articles concerned be set clearly and unambiguously, title options should be added to this section only if they clearly and unambiguously identify the scope of the articles as the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements. Title options must also align with the established community consensus that a situation should not arise where one of these movements is identified using its self-chosen name and the other movement is denied such self-identification.

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles and this RFC's talk page for sourcing statistics. For reasons such as the impossibility of determining, in a large-scale analysis, when sources are talking about the US movements when they use various terms, a strictly statistical argument cannot be relied upon, so sourcing statistics are used only as a general guide here.

• The United States pro-choice and pro-life movements are clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the terms Pro-choice movement and Pro-life movement
• Titles are reasonably concise and not needlessly precise, as recommended by WP:TITLE
• Does not deny these movements the right to self-identify
• Sourcing statistics show that "pro-life movement" and "pro-choice movement" are the most frequent names for these movements, especially "pro-life movement", if the US pro-life and right-to-life movements are held to be different things. If usage is predominant enough, WP:POVTITLE may be applied.

• Movements identifying using these names do exist outside of the United States, so there is some ambiguity in them, though WP:PRIMARYTOPIC probably nullifies this concern
• The POV inherent in these terms is extreme in nature, having been selected for blatant propaganda purposes by the movements involved. This is recognised to such an extent that other names such as "anti-abortion movement" have a reasonable frequency. WP:POVTITLE talks about a general rule when you have a significant majority. Arguably, the majority is not significant enough to apply the general rule in this specific case.
• The strong POV inherent in these titles violates WP:NPOV, which is only acceptable per policy if the conditions of WP:POVTITLE are found to apply

• Concerns about the philosophical validity of these movements' self-applied labels are irrelevant because Wikipedia's standards for titles are sourcing-based and do not evaluate said philosophical validity, any more than we examine the validity of the name of the retailer Best Buy
• Appeals specifically to WP:COMMONNAME are irrelevant because the strong inherent POV of these titles means we should use the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE

• Titles are completely unambiguous without needing to rely on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
• Does not deny these movements the right to self-identify
• Sourcing statistics show that "pro-life movement" and "pro-choice movement" are the most frequent names for these movements, especially "pro-life movement", if the US pro-life and right-to-life movements are held to be different things. If usage is predominant enough, WP:POVTITLE may be applied. (Statistics may be analyzed without the "United States" prefix due to its status as "natural disambiguation" per WP:PRECISION.)

• Titles are verbose and perhaps unnecessarily precise, which WP:TITLE tends to disrecommend
• The strong POV inherent in these titles violates WP:NPOV, which is only acceptable per policy if the conditions of WP:POVTITLE are found to apply
• The POV inherent in these terms is extreme in nature, having been selected for blatant propaganda purposes by the movements involved. This is recognised to such an extent that other names such as "anti-abortion movement" have a reasonable frequency. WP:POVTITLE talks about a general rule when you have a significant majority. Arguably, the majority is not significant enough to apply the general rule in this specific case.

• Concerns about the philosophical validity of these movements' self-applied labels are irrelevant because Wikipedia's standards for titles are sourcing-based and do not evaluate said philosophical validity, any more than we examine the validity of the name of the retailer Best Buy
• Appeals specifically to WP:COMMONNAME are irrelevant because the strong inherent POV of these titles means we should use the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE

• Titles are completely unambiguous without needing to rely on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if the US right-to-life movement is the same thing as the US pro-life movement
• Sourcing statistics show that "pro-life movement" and "right-to-life movement" are the most frequent names for these movements, especially "right-to-life movement", if the US pro-life and right-to-life movements are held to be the same thing. If usage is predominant enough, WP:POVTITLE may be applied.
• Arguably does not deny these movements the right to self-identify

• Movements identifying using these names do exist outside of the United States, so there is some ambiguity in them, though WP:PRIMARYTOPIC probably nullifies this concern
• Titles are verbose and perhaps unnecessarily precise, which WP:TITLE tends to disrecommend
• The strong POV inherent in these titles violates WP:NPOV, which is only acceptable per policy if the conditions of WP:POVTITLE are found to apply
• The POV inherent in these terms is extreme in nature, having been selected for blatant propaganda purposes by the movements involved. This is recognised to such an extent that other names such as "anti-abortion movement" have a reasonable frequency. WP:POVTITLE talks about a general rule when you have a significant majority. Arguably, the majority is not significant enough to apply the general rule in this specific case.

• Concerns about the philosophical validity of these movements' self-applied labels are irrelevant because Wikipedia's standards for titles are sourcing-based and do not evaluate said philosophical validity, any more than we examine the validity of the name of the retailer Best Buy
• Appeals specifically to WP:COMMONNAME are irrelevant because the strong inherent POV of these titles means we should use the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE

• Titles are completely unambiguous without needing to rely on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if the US right-to-life movement is the same thing as the US pro-life movement
• Sourcing statistics show that "pro-life movement" and "right-to-life movement" are the most frequent names for these movements, especially "right-to-life movement", if the US pro-life and right-to-life movements are held to be the same thing. If usage is predominant enough, WP:POVTITLE may be applied. (Statistics may be analyzed without the "United States" prefix due to its status as "natural disambiguation" per WP:PRECISION.)
• Arguably does not deny these movements the right to self-identify

• Titles are verbose and perhaps unnecessarily precise, which WP:TITLE tends to disrecommend
• The strong POV inherent in these titles violates WP:NPOV, which is only acceptable per policy if the conditions of WP:POVTITLE are found to apply
• The POV inherent in these terms is extreme in nature, having been selected for blatant propaganda purposes by the movements involved. This is recognised to such an extent that other names such as "anti-abortion movement" have a reasonable frequency. WP:POVTITLE talks about a general rule when you have a significant majority. Arguably, the majority is not significant enough to apply the general rule in this specific case.

• Concerns about the philosophical validity of these movements' self-applied labels are irrelevant because Wikipedia's standards for titles are sourcing-based and do not evaluate said philosophical validity, any more than we examine the validity of the name of the retailer Best Buy
• Appeals specifically to WP:COMMONNAME are irrelevant because the strong inherent POV of these titles means we should use the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE

• United States abortion-rights movement is completely unambiguous; United States anti-abortion movement is, at minimum, unambiguous given WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
• Arguably benefits WP:NPOV by denying both movements identification using their self-chosen propaganda names, which is a measure frequently recommended by the style guides of reliable sources for the stated purpose of improving neutrality
• By identifying these regional movements using terminology that is more common in global media, global perspective is arguably better-served
• Sourcing statistics show "abortion-rights movement" being a very frequent usage and "anti-abortion movement" being fairly frequent (statistics may be analyzed without the "United States" prefix due to its status as "natural disambiguation" per WP:PRECISION)
• The style guides of sources we consider reliable frequently recommend preference of this terminology for the stated purpose of improving neutrality

• There is POV inherent in these terms (violating WP:NPOV), though it is relatively mild, mostly consisting in that some anti-abortion activists protest that description using the prefix "anti-" has deleterious semiotic impact; abortion-rights activists more frequently voluntarily identify in those terms and there does not seem to be any POV objection from them
• The word "rights" carries certain connotations that are positive, the same way that the anti- prefix carries a slightly negative connotation. This makes this set of titles more "unbalanced" in terms of neutrality
• Titles are verbose, which WP:TITLE tends to mildly disrecommend
• Denies the US pro-life movement the right to self-identify, and arguably the pro-choice movement as well (this is less clear)
• By identifying the US pro-life movement entirely as an anti-abortion movement, we place ourselves in a problematic position as an encyclopedia in that it becomes unclear where coverage of that movement's involvement in issues like euthanasia and capital punishment would be germane
• These abstractions only clearly and unambiguously identify the US pro-choice and pro-life movements as their topics so long as the relevant political advocacy remains centered in those movements; if said advocacy becomes centered in otherwise-identified movements, these titles' topic identification fails, making their use potentially a form of slow WP:RECENTISM
• Identifying the US pro-choice and pro-life movements in these terms privileges those movements as subsuming all relevant regional political advocacy within themselves, which serves their political agendas and so arguably violates WP:NPOV

• none identified

• United States abortion-rights movement is completely unambiguous; United States right-to-life movement is unambiguous if the US right-to-life and pro-life movements are the same thing
• Arguably benefits WP:NPOV by identifying both movements using less-frequently-employed terms that are nonetheless commonly used for voluntary self-identification by each, both of which construct their case in terms of "rights"
• Sourcing statistics show "abortion-rights movement" and "right-to-life movement" both being very frequent usages; if usage is predominant enough, WP:POVTITLE may be applied (statistics may be analyzed without the "United States" prefix due to its status as "natural disambiguation" per WP:PRECISION)
• Arguably does not deny these movements the right to self-identify

• United States right-to-life movement only validly identifies the US pro-life movement as its topic if those movements are the same thing
• There is POV inherent in these terms (violating WP:NPOV), mostly consisting in that "right-to-life" is a more propagandist construction than "abortion-rights"; anti-abortion activists more frequently voluntarily identify in these terms and there does not seem to be any POV objection from them
• These terms are asymmetric because understanding how "right-to-life" applies to the abortion debate requires further assumptions which are rejected by one side of the debate, whereas although "abortion rights" themselves are rejected by one side of the debate the applicability of the term to the movement is not in question.
• While reliable source style guides recommend the use of "abortion-rights" terminology for the stated purpose of improving neutrality, they recommend against using "right-to-life" for the same reason
• Titles are verbose, which WP:TITLE tends to mildly disrecommend
• The abstraction "United States abortion-rights movement" only clearly and unambiguously identifies the US pro-choice movement as its topics so long as the relevant political advocacy remains centered in that movement; if said advocacy becomes centered in an otherwise-identified movement, this title's topic identification fails, making its use potentially a form of slow WP:RECENTISM
• Identifying the US pro-choice movement this way privileges that movement as subsuming all relevant regional political advocacy within itself, which serves its political agenda and so arguably violates WP:NPOV

• Symmetrical in that both movements are unambiguously and clearly identified as advocating a right which obviously applies to abortion.
• Although the term "fetal rights" is mostly used to refer to legal rights, which are only one of several strategic foci of the anti-abortion movement, the broader movement does generally embrace the moral rights of the fetus or unborn child.

• The identification value of "fetal-rights movement" is very questionable given that the movement to be identified neither voluntarily self-identifies in those terms nor is commonly identified in those terms by reliable sources
• Anti-abortion activists tend to prefer "unborn" to "fetal". However, "unborn-rights" could be read as rights which are unborn, rather than rights of the unborn; "fetal" is clearer in that sense.
• On the other hand, abortion rights activists often emphasize the distinctions between the zygote, embryo, and fetus. The word "fetal" is thus technically too narrow to cover these rights as conceived by most anti-abortion activists.
• "Fetal rights movement" may be too specific, referring only to one sub-branch or sub-strategy of the wider movement in question
• "Fetal rights movement" is less common in reliable sources than most of the other options by about two orders of magnitude

• none identified

• Identifies active movements in favor of legal abortion and in favor of banning abortion without applying partisan labels ("Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life").
• Titles are free from POV and objectively identify the subjects (abortion activism movements in the United States).

• Titles are both rather wordy and may not be the most concise options for naming the articles.
• Titles are not aligned with WP:COMMONNAME in that the movements are known primarily as the "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" movements in the United States, as opposed to the proposed titles.

• Beginning October 20th 2012, members of the community are invited to WP:NOTVOTE on the elements of this RFC, giving reasons as to why they support their choices. Comments will be weighed based on strength of argument. Please DO NOT register opinions and arguments here until October 20th. Thank you!
• When feedback is open, please register basic opinions in the form of, for example:
  • Endorse Premises 1, 2, Support Conclusion, Strong Support Title Option 1, Support Title Options 2, 3, 4, 7, Oppose Title Options 5, 6
  • Endorse Premises 1, 2, Support Conclusion, Strong Oppose Title Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, Support Title Option 5
  • Endorse Premise 1, Reject Premise 2, Oppose Conclusion
  • Reject Premises 1, 2, Strong Oppose Conclusion, Support Title Options 1, 2, 3, 4, Oppose Title Options 5, 6, 7

followed by arguments, for ease of review by closers.

• Please use this section for responsive participation in the RFC, not meta discussion of the RFC itself, which should take place on the talk page. If you oppose the very idea of this RFC and wish to see no action taken upon it, your best course is to indicate opposition to the Conclusion, preferably with some rationale given as to on what basis you disagree with either or both Premises, so that your position presents strength of argument. Meta discussion of the RFC may be refactored to the talk page.

• Support the conclusion that the article histories that exist now should be returned to US scope, with Title option 1. Propose creation of "Support for legal abortion" and "Opposition to legal abortion" as new articles with blank history, to merge the international information into using edit summary attribution to the old article histories. New articles should have very small sections on the US movement that basically consist of links to the Title option 1 articles. Gigs (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur Parallelism and use of phrase "legal abortion" is best option for WP:NPOV. Articles with these titles, with each having separate paragraphs, by country, with links to specific country articles, accommodates avoidance of country-centric main article, combats confusing sprawl, and gives users a roadmap to find the info for which they are looking for. There is plenty of info for a "start" class main article duo, that can be improved over time. There's more than enough info to have a U.S. article duo that is far more than "start" class. Care should be taken so that both articles remain objective and NPOV, rather than two WP:FORKs, but that can be accomplished by editors of good will and with collaborative editing as their touchstone. David in DC (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Premises 1, 2, Strong Support Conclusion, Strong Support Title Option 2 - I would follow the proposal of the user above me. I think this will go a long way to reduce conflation of American and international view-points on topics on Wikipedia. This problem has decreasing lately, and this will help put a final nail in that coffin. The whole abortion controversy in the United States is very odd in an international context, and perhaps is an example of American exceptionism. Let's make it clear for readers that this is primarily an American issue, and put information on similar (but different) controversies in other countries at a different location. RGloucester (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: I've changed my mind. One “abortion debate" article is better than two separate articles. RGloucester (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Premises 1 and 2 and Title 1. Weak support for Conclusion and Title 2. Quick search for sociology books on the theme suggest a strong preference for pro-life/pro-choice naming over the other variants. Let's stick with the scholarly naming. I am not sure if we need to state those movements are US only, as I am not sure if the name is used outside US, however. The issues themselves are certainly international, and while it certainly stands to reason that the US movements are notable to stand on their own, the question is - are the articles geared to be about US movements only, or international? The answer to this should determine the inclusion (or lack of it) of the "United States" in the name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Premises 1, 2, Strong Support Conclusion, Strong Support Title Option 2, Support Title Options 1, 5, Oppose Title Options 3, 4, 6, Strong Oppose Title Options 7, 8. If the objective is to identify these movements, the best titles are those that use the best-sourced terminology, with the regional disambiguators to help make it abundantly clear that we are identifying specific movements, not generalized sentiments. The right-to-life variations would have strong sourcing support if they actually identified the movements, but it's not clear to me that the right-to-life and pro-life movements actually are the same thing, and enough people seem to believe otherwise that using that terminology as primary would be inevitably highly controversial. The new 8 basically demonstrates that if we manage to succeed in identifying the pro-choice and pro-life movements using "neutrality-oriented" language (POV can still be identified in that formulation, as in all made-up titles, which by the way WP:TITLECHANGES tells us we should never have used), we wind up sounding painfully mealy-mouthed, which isn't something I believe WP:NPOV commends us to. Incidentally strong oppose Gigs's proposal of creating new generic articles, as this sets up a situation of dueling WP:POVFORKs that is destructive to WP:NPOV; general perspective on the issues should be covered in Abortion debate and relatives, and the only sensible thing to do with articles actually scoped as Gigs proposes would be to merge them to Abortion debate. I contrariwise consider that the material currently present in the articles in question covering non-US abortion-related advocacy movements should be refactored to Abortion-rights movements and Anti-abortion movements as overview articles. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how moving the non-US movements to those titles is much different than my proposal. Gigs (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems very different to me. One identifies general advocacy sentiment on a political issue as its topics, making it a pair of POVFORKs of the general political issue, while the other makes sets of identifiable, related political movements its topics. One creates a situation that promotes each article becoming a polemic for its side of the issue, the other doesn't. (Articles titled Support for legal abortion and Opposition to legal abortion should cover the reasons for such advocacy, Abortion-rights movements and Anti-abortion movements, as list articles, shouldn't.) —chaos5023 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I missed that you wanted them to be list articles. Your way seems fine to me. It's just that we need to do something with the international movement material, not just throw it away. Gigs (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Definitely, couldn't agree more. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Premises 1, 2,Support Conclusion, Oppose Titles 1,3. Support any of 2,4,5,6,7. Anything that depicts the abortion-related debates should be refactored out. I agree with Chaos5023 that we need to keep Abortion debate highlighted. Additionally, I strongly support an Abortion-related advocacy groups article or category. (20040302 (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)) addendum. I see that there are already categories in place that probably do the job. (20040302 (talk))[reply]
• Neutral on premise 1. Endorse premise 2 and conclusion. Strong oppose titles 1, 3; neutral titles 2, 4, 6, 7; strong support title 5. Yes, we have WP:POVTITLE which allows titles 2, 4, 6, or 7, but as an encyclopedia we should prefer the most NPOV titles in common use. That is 5. I understand that some people feel that "anti-" is POV, but this is really an unsustainable position; there are too many "anti-something" movements which embrace that terminology for that to be true. Oh, and of course there should be some global articles somewhere, probably with titles along the lines of 5, because of course globally movements' self-identified names vary. Agree with User:Chaos5023 about avoiding POVFORKs. Homunq (࿓) 14:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit on my "anti-something" point: as Chaos5023 says below, "Has anybody ever objected to the labels anti-war, anti-racist, anti-death-penalty, anti-nuclear?" I'd add "anti-government", "anti-tax", "anti-drug", and "anti-corruption" to balance out that list a bit. Homunq (࿓) 12:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with 5 is not the use of "anti", but the use of "rights". See my response to Chaos5023 below. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 15:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. So you're saying "abortion-rights" is an unfairly positive POV... so the solution is to use titles like "pro-choice", "pro-life", or "right-to-life"???? Am I missing something here? Homunq (࿓) 15:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my vote, my preference would be Title 6 (which uses the word "rights" for both sides, thus preserving the balance), or Title 2 (which is justified because "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are by far the most frequently used terms historically). I agree that if "pro-choice" and "pro-life" were terms invented in the very recent past, like "abortion-rights advocate", then I would oppose them as well. But they are long-established terms, and therefore it seems perfectly reasonable to use them, just as we use words such as "capitalist" and "communist" and "democracy" despite their origin, long ago, as POV terms. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I (weakly) oppose title option 8. I literally can't even imagine anyone ever searching on those titles. I know we have redirects, but still, I think that it should at least be conceivable that someone somewhere uses it in a search. Homunq (࿓) 18:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support premises and conclusion. Strong support titles 1 and 2; oppose titles 3, 4, 6, and 7; strong oppose title 5. As there is no viable title that is NPOV, POVTITLE applies. Titles 1 and 2 are the most balanced, in that each subject gets to choose its own name. They are also the most widely known names, best satisfying COMMONNAME. Titles 3, 4, 6, and 7 put undue focus on the fetus; for many, the culture of life is about the spiritual health of the parents and the broader culture, as much as it is narrowly about the "rights" of the fetus. Titles 3, 4, 6, and 7 are also less commonly used, probably for the reason I just described. Title 5 is particularly POV in that only one side is described as "anti-" and only one side is described as being for "rights". --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Oppose Title 8 As with my argument above against Titles 3, 4, 6, and 7, the proper scope of the "pro-life" article, at the very least, should include opposition to federal funding for abortion and the like, and should probably also include opposition to euthanasia, fetal stem-cell research, and other things. A title that is restricted to the legality of abortion is far too narrow. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the above. The topic has always been Abortion debate, arguably Abortion debate (United States) or Abortion debate within the United States. There should only be one article discussing both sides of the debate, not two articles, one for each position. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So what is your argument against Premise 1? And when can we expect your proposal that The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo be merged into Cola Wars? —chaos5023 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we all agree that the debate should be covered in a single article that "discusses both sides of the debate". The suggestion here is that the movements be separately covered in their own pages. For example, the suggested page on the pro-choice movement would give details about the relevant organizations, their activities, and their history, but would have only a few sentences on the philosophical justification for their position along with a {{main}} tag for abortion debate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If the "movement" articles stayed away from pro/con arguments I would support that. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, well, good. That's actually what's being proposed here. See the bits about unambiguous identification of topic and "Current content which is not germane to the defined scope should be refactored appropriately". —chaos5023 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse the "Cola Wars" analogy as both hilarious and dispositive for the proposition that there should be one "abortion debate" article. Also as the best bit of "argument by snark" I've encountered in quite some time. David in DC (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Premise 1, endorse Premise 2 if I understand it, support Conclusion, strongly support Title Option 5 as the only neutral and unambiguous option. If I may wiggle within the straitjacket of this RfC format, I see this as a matter first of scope and second of appropriate naming. It's reasonable to have two separate articles dealing (under whichever names might be chosen) with these two movements as they pertain to the United States. I therefore support the existence of two such articles, and prefer Title Option 5. Procedurally, I endorse Premise 2 because a global article would still exist separately on the legality of abortion—a global article that examines (sorta) the legal history and current status of abortion (as distinct from history of abortion covering medical procedure, philosophical and religious views, etc). On the issue of scope, I endorse having two separate articles on the so-called pro-life/pro-choice movements in the U.S. if these articles focus on the movements as such (their organization, history, stated aims, methods) and aren't just platforms for arguing the issue as such. If a similar division exists notably within other countries, religions, or whatever, that division can get its own pair of articles, or a single article, as seems appropriate. On the issue of naming, the article title should reflect that article scope is confined to the movement in the U.S. Therefore, I strongly oppose Options 1 and 3 as not defining scope. I oppose Options 2 and 4 as self-promotional euphemism and jargon (images of peacocks and weasels come to mind). I oppose Option 6, again because "right-to-life" is a vague euphemism that leaves the scope undefined (unless the article also deals equally with opposition to capital punishment and euthanasia and so on). I weakly oppose Option 7 because "fetal-rights" defines the scope improperly if the topic is opposition to abortion; if the article is truly about "fetal rights"— whether homicide can be committed against a fetus, and whether a pregnant woman can be charged with abusing a child in utero, and legal issues beyond the scope of abortion—then that title would be OK. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify at least what I consider to make sense in re your feedback on title option 6, the idea is specifically not that we're trying to identify abortion-related advocacy as our topic through the use of these movement labels, it's that whatever labels we use, that movement is our topic. So the US political movement that identifies using the terminology "right-to-life" would be the topic in that event, and to whatever extent it involves itself in capital punishment and euthanasia, that would be germane to the article. (My reason for opposing option 6 is that I'm not sure that it actually identifies the pro-life movement, which is the requirement set by the Conclusion.) —chaos5023 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your clarification, but could you clarify further: do you see the Option 6 article title with the phrase "right to life" as not being confined to abortion, but all aspects of legal issues (not moral or philosophical, since the word "right" is used) pertaining to the relation of individual autonomy vs. the state and its laws and justice system? I oppose "right to life" as a euphemism for opposing abortion. Some groups that oppose abortion also oppose euthanasia or assisted suicide. The Catholic Church takes a coherent "right to life" position, because they oppose abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. So yes, such a thing as a "right to life" movement can probably be defined enough to establish the scope of an article, and my objection is to Option 6 is only if "right to life" is a euphemism for opposing abortion. If it's the more complex topic I outlined, then I don't know what else you'd call it. But in that case, you could justify having both an article on "right to life" issues, and an article on the anti-abortion movement as a spinoff, since the latter has sufficient material for an independent article and might overwhelm the first. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it as anything, really. My only interest in it consists in that reliable sources very frequently use it to identify a political movement (that may or may not be the one we're trying to identify). From the standpoint of encyclopedia maintenance, specifically titling in this case, I literally do not care what that movement's activities are, only whether I can successfully identify it as a coherent and notable topic of coverage. It's just a label, and getting into philosophical debate as to what exactly all these propaganda terms do and/or should mean is a good way to get into a useless tailspin, and is probably best considered a derailment of the discussion. In my opinion, the only way to get through the noise in this area is to immediately stop regarding anything as a code-word for any form of abortion-related advocacy and LET TITLES MEAN WHAT THEY MEAN. That is, we actually use WP:TITLE, meaning the title IDENTIFIES THE TOPIC, the title is not a way to vaguely get at a different topic that exists in some limbo somewhere, and if we identify the US right-to-life movement as our topic, we ARE NOT identifying anti-abortion political advocacy as our topic, we are identifying THE US RIGHT-TO-LIFE MOVEMENT, whatever that consists of, as our topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was my point: what is the scope of the article? You don't need to shout. Scope has to be established before the best title can be chosen. There is an important exception to WP:UCN: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. I think that is the case with "pro-choice" and "pro-life": no one can dispute that these are common ways to refer to these movements, and probably the most common, but they aren't the clearest and most natural ways to express these concepts in English unless you already know, or think you know, what they mean. "Abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" (or more broadly "fetal-rights" or "right-to-life", depending on the actual scope of the article) are specific, accurate, non-ambiguous, non-jargony, and neutral. However, "anti-abortion movement" is a different topic from "fetal-rights movement" and in turn a different topic from "right-to-life movement." These are three separate articles, each with its own scope, in ascending order of broadness. The opposite of "abortion-rights movement" is "anti-abortion movement." The existence of an article on the movement to criminalize abortion does not preclude the simultaneous existence of an article on fetal rights, as well as an article on the right to life. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry, I didn't really mean to be shouting at you. More everybody, really; it's a set of very general tendencies I was getting exercised about there. I tend to agree with you about the scope issues, which is a good reason we should pay attention to how precisely different title options identify our target scope. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll endorse premise 1 and premise 2, and I'll oppose title option 1 and title option 3 on the basis that the title should be US-specific. If this was about any other country, "pro-life" would mean "opposed to the death penalty".—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Premises 1, 2, Strongly Support Conclusion, Strong Support Title Options 2 and 4, Would Support Title Options 1, 3, Oppose Title Options 6, 7, 8, Strongly Oppose Title Option 5. Title Options 2 and 4 seem the best fit. I oppose title options 6, 7, (edit) and 8 because they feel clumsy, but title option 5 is definitely wrong. To use "anti" in a title is a mental nudge in the opposite direction, and I would consider it biased. Go with 2. Respectfully, Light-jet pilot (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Premises 1, 2, Support Conclusion, Strongly support Title 5, weakly support Title 1 due to arguments given. I was originally opposed to these articles being maintained as US-centric, but given the premises, they need to be titled appropriately.  / Per Edman 21:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Premises 1, 2, Support Conclusion, Strongly support Title 5, Oppose Titles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. because all titles other than 5 are attempts to put some kind of spin on it. Chris the speller ^yack 01:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you regarding Conclusion, but I think that all these titles have large amounts of "spin". I certainly am affected by my own biases (which is why the current debate and search for consensus is a good thing!), but it seems to me that Title 5 has more spin than almost any other choice. If you were to poll Americans and ask them "Which sounds more appealing to you: 'I support the right of XX' or 'I am anti-XX'?" -- without telling them what XX is -- I think you would find that "rights" is a very popular word and "anti" is a scary word. Just my two cents. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to randomly add 2 cents, I accept that this is commonly held, but I gotta say I'm kinda with Homunq on this one. People really don't seem to have any problem processing that if X is bad, being anti-X is good. Has anybody ever objected to the labels anti-war, anti-racist, anti-death-penalty, anti-nuclear? —chaos5023 (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My 3 cents, In my humble opinion, the titles must needs be equal. If it is a "right to choose", then the other title must be a "right to life". If one is negative, the other must also be negative. If the titles are unbalanced or unequal, than the articles are taking sides. The entire point of Wikipedia is to be unbiased, and no one I know in real life would call it anything other than "Pro-life and Pro-choice" Respectfully, Light-jet pilot (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos5023, I concede that the term "anti" is not always pejorative. But wouldn't you agree that the term "rights" is always positive? There are people who call themselves "anti-war", but nobody says "I oppose war rights" or "I oppose the right to own slaves" or "I oppose the power industry's right to build nuclear power plants." To phrase something in terms of "rights" is to virtually end debate. Thus, if I ask "do you support abortion rights or do you oppose abortion rights?" or "do you support the fetus' right to life or oppose the fetus' right to life?", I am asking a loaded question. (At least in the United States, where "rights" are central to all political arguments.) — Lawrence King ^(talk) 15:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, "rights" sounds nice and "anti-rights" sounds mean. But the formulation isn't "anti-abortion-rights", it's "anti-abortion". Don't get me wrong, I don't think title option 5 is very good, though for reasons other than this one. It just seems to me that the semiotic objection is pretty overblown. But going back and forth about that is, well, exactly the kind of derail I was myself speaking against earlier, so if we want to do so some more we should probably head over to the talk page. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Premises 1, 2; strongly support Conclusion. Strong support for Title 6 or Title 2; weaker support for Titles 4, 7. At one time I disagreed with premise 1, but now I think it clearly is best. The only significant thing that the U.S. pro-choice and U.S. pro-life movements have in common is that they both hold positions on the abortion issue. Their sociological makeups and institutional histories are so different that they should not be in the same article as each other. Regarding titles: Title 2 has the huge advantage that it reflects the most common names that each group uses for itself, while Title 6 has the huge advantage that it is completely descriptive. (The disadvantage of Title 2 is that "pro-choice" is a euphemism; nobody unfamiliar with the U.S. debate could guess, a priori, what a "pro-choicer" wants to choose; and while there are pro-life organizations that support a "broad understanding of life" (anti-death-penalty, anti-war) there are no pro-choice organizations that support "a broad understanding of choice" (the right to choose handguns, the right to school choice, etc.) I strongly believe that Wikipedia should not, in general, use euphemisms. However, in this case we are documenting a movement, not a position, and a movement that gives itself a euphemistic title can be documented under that title. So I am happy with Title 2, and also happy with Title 6. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Update to my vote: If we are allowed to vote for new options, I support Tyrol5's suggestion (below) of Movement in favor of legal abortion in the United States and "Movement to ban abortion in the United States. They are the most descriptive and unambiguous options, since they make it clear that this page is about the movements (not just the sentiments or viewpoints). But if these are not allowed options, I continue to like Title 6 and Title 2. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse premises 1,2,neutral on conclusion, endorse title option 5, reject all other titles, "pro-life" without inclusion of euthanasia, capital punishment, stem cell research, etc. is a misnomer and is not the counterpoise of "pro-choice" which is not used in contexts of euthanasia and capital punishment, for example. Thus, title options 1,2,3,4, and 6 are all wrong. Between 5 & 7, not all fetal rights are at issue: I see no reliable sources telling us that the anti-abortion movement is an advocacy organization for gestational nutrition, inheritance rights, carpool lane access for pregnant women, or anything else wrapped up in what rights a fetus may or may not have in law, save not to be aborted. Hence, 5 is the most accurate statement of the two positions of the seven on offer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're responding to the RFC as if it were saying "how do we identify abortion-related sentiment?" It isn't. If we identify the US pro-life movement as a topic, and reliable sources document the US pro-life movement's involvement in euthanasia, capital punishment, and stem cell research, then those would be areas of coverage germane to the article. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this is yet another reason why "anti-abortion" is a poor choice. It's not uncommon for the U.S. media (who are committed to the term, for some reason) to be writing about someone who is broadly pro-life over a range of issues, but the only label they are allowed to use is "anti-abortion". It would be funny if it weren't so frustrating.

I move that Carlossuarez46's comment on titles be judged non-responsive to the RFC question. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re anti-abortion, yeah. That's raised in the arguments against option 5. As to the comment, enh, it's trying to be responsive, even if probably based on a misapprehension. I think we should save that judgment for things more like Kaldari's flailing his hands in the air. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the move and disagree with Premise 2 as a reason - Yes, the aticles might have started with a US focus but as of today abortion is still the most widely accepted term globally. Agreed, that the greatest degree of attention on this topic is still in the US but that should not trivialize the attention given in other countries. While the US media might be blunt and direct about the issue, media from other countries might have to be indirect and cover up the debate. My point is that pro-choice and pro-life are more popular in the US. Abortion is still the globally accepted term. -Wikishagnik (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about premise 1? Homunq (࿓) 14:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as such an article does not cannibalize the articles on pro and anti abortion movement in general, yes, I don't mind seperate articles for US movements -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Premises 1, 2, Support Conclusion, Oppose all proposed titles. — The premises are sound, as is the conclusion (the natural extrapolation of the premises). However, I'm not satisfied with any of the seven (as of this post) currently proposed titles. I'd be more inclined to support "Support for legal abortion in the United States" and "Opposition to legal abortion in the United States." They are, in my judgement, POV-free and accomplish the task of clearly and unambiguously identifying support for and opposition to legal abortion in the United States. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Do they identify the topics the conclusion calls for identification of, though? "The US pro-life movement" is not the same topic as "opposition to (legal) abortion in the United States", in much the same way that "The Ku Klux Klan" is not the same topic as "White supremacist activity in the United States". —chaos5023 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The Ku Klux Klan is a specific organization, but the "pro-life" movement is not an organization, but rather a designation for general opposition to abortion in the United States. All who oppose abortion can be considered pro-life (in its most general sense), but not all white supremacists are members of the Ku Klux Klan. Pro-life and Pro-choice are the popularized names for support for and opposition of legal abortion in the United States, respectively, rather than specific organizations. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. I don't agree with that at all, and would actually oppose the Conclusion if I modeled it the way you do. In my view, it's important to identify the pro-choice and pro-life movements as organizations (loose political ones, to be sure) to distinguish them from generalized abortion-related-advocacy sentiment, because identifying them with that sentiment privileges these particular movements that use this terminology as automatically subsuming all relevant regional advocacy within themselves (which suits their propaganda aims, and Wikipedia should avoid suiting anyone's propaganda aims). And then in your formulation, we wind up still having pro and con articles on each side of a political issue, which is the "dueling POVFORKs" situation that calls not for a move, but for these articles to be done away with and merged to Abortion debate. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Chaos5023, with two caveats. First, I think the term "organization" isn't quite correct; the pro-life movement and the pro-choice movement are not organizations, and are not even merely collections of organizations. Rather, they are political movements -- analagous to the conservative movement in the United States or the Civil Rights movement or the anti-Vietnam War movement. Such movements have their own sociology and demographics, and while not every person in the movement is a member of an organization, such movements almost always have their focus and tactics determined by actual organizations. (For example, someone who shows up to pro-life rallies and marches and has a pro-life bumpersticker on her car, but has never formally become a member of the many pro-life organizations, is certainly part of the pro-life movement; and yet these rallies and marches were organized by specific organizations.) Chaos5023, would you agree? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 14:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I substantively agree with that. My only point of difference is that I still regard the looser group as an organization (my concept of "organization" is very broad, and encompasses things like organizations that you can be a part of without anybody else knowing it, for example, so political movements easily fit within it). —chaos5023 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My second caveat is this: "Opposition to legal abortion in the United States" and "Support ..." are themselves actual viewpoints -- much more broad than movements, since these include anyone with an opinion on the subject. If these articles are intended to document the movements and not the broad sentiments, then are we agreed that there will not be any Wikipedia articles documenting the broad sentiments? (I am fine with that; we don't have an article entitled "Opposition to extending the Bush tax cuts for people making over $200,000/year", even though this is a significant political sentiment.) — Lawrence King ^(talk) 14:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Would it perhaps be a better option to name the articles "Activism for legal abortion in the United States" and "Activism for banning abortion in the United States"? I think they're both POV-free and are free of ambiguity. They also specifically denote activism, rather than mere support and opposition to abortion, as per the concerns articulated above. I realize not all would be satisfied with that proposal, but I'm just not satisfied that any of the title proposals above really accomplish the purpose of eliminating ambiguity and remaining POV-free simultaneously. It's a tall order. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's something of an improvement, but not much of one. It's almost certainly too late for this RFC to reach that outcome in any event, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Do keep in mind that the goal here is to improve the proposal in the eyes of the community-at-large, rather than yours specifically. To that end, I'd respectfully disagree with your critique. As for your second point, the objective of my title proposal is based solely upon my interpretation of the conclusion (to clearly and unambiguously identify activism in support of and in opposition to legal abortion in the United States). If that goal is unattainable under this RFC (If my logic is sound), then what is the goal? Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, if we can keep in mind that you aren't the community at large any more than I am. As to the other bit, well, that isn't what the conclusion says, is it? Your restatement relies on your usage of "support of and in opposition to legal abortion in the United States" as synonymous with "the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements", which, well, if there were a proposal to consider those synonymous I would certainly strongly oppose it. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  (od) Fair enough, but that's why I refined the proposal to disambiguate between mere support/opposition and actual activism in favor of each position. But, you're correct in saying that mere support/opposition is not synonymous with pro-choice/pro-life activism in the United States. I suppose my main inquisition here is this: is there a way of unambiguously describing the movements in favor of and against legal abortion in the United States without contributing to the propaganda aims of either side (i.e. without labeling them "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice")? I think there is and, in my own humble opinion, that's my second suggestion. But, you've submitted some very credible arguments. How about something like "Movement to legalize abortion in the United States" and "Movement to ban abortion in the United States"? They objectively identify the subjects (the "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" movements) unambiguously without resorting to partisan labels for each side. But again, that's my humble opinion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I like the titles you propose. I suppose the first one isn't absolutely perfect ("movement to legalize abortion" implies that it's currently illegal; "movement to keep abortion legal" implies it's currently legal; a compact formulation that encapsulated both of these at once would be best but I can't think of one). But then, no title is perfect. Still, I'd rate your title tied for first place with Title 6: both of them are clear and NPOV. (I also like Title 2; it is somewhat POV but these terms are by far the most common, which I think counts for a lot.) — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, how about another possibility: "Movement in favor of legal abortion in the United States" and "Movement to ban abortion in the United States"? The first one, I think, is probably the most simple incarnation of the "compact formulation" (it's about as "compact" as it gets for so complex a topic) and the second is, obviously, retained from the previous suggestion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I like those titles. I would vote for them alongside Title 6, if this RFC allows for additional title suggestions. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and add the suggestion, marking it clearly when it was added, and including balanced arguments for and against. If you could alert people who've already voted, that would help too. Homunq (࿓) 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and  Done so, but don't have time at the moment to alert those who've already commented; I trust many of them are watching this page. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject Premise 1 and Conclusion; Support Title 8, Title 5 (second choice). The movements in support of and against legalised abortion (whatever we choose to call them) are international movements. I don't see any good reason for limiting the scope of our articles on them to the United States. As such, I don't think I can really support any of the proposed titles; but if forced to pick one, I'd prefer Title 8, wordy though it is, with Title 5 as a second choice. Robofish (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is actually the first time I've seen someone assert that the relevant movements here are international, so this is potentially very interesting. If you could present any reliable source evidence that the movements in question are international in character -- not just multiple unrelated advocacy movements on the same topics, but international political movements like the Communist International -- that could significantly inform how we handle this issue. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject premise 1, neutral on premise 2, oppose conclusion. For a long time I have been watching this debate and thinking that no-one is going to be interested in a !vote from me that says I'm neutral on all of this, as I'm not an American, and you can call your movements, and their articles, whatever you like as long as the rest of the worldwide coverage is left adequate space to grow. Then this evening I suddenly realise that I have to oppose the whole idea of having two (relatively short!) articles, one on each US movement, on the basis that after months and months of wrangling, and arguing, and RFCs, and proposed RFCs, and voting methods, and proposed voting methods, you still cannot even come up with a stable shortlist of proposed names for your two articles. The real policy-based reason for my opposition is WP:SOAP. Why can't the US abortion movements (and their authors here on Wikipedia) follow the principles of WP:SPLIT and only split out content when articles are too large to read comfortably? Why, when they already have two articles, is it necessary to go through all of this palaver of choosing the exact, best, most perfect name for each one? The only reason I can think of is that the soapbox, the battleground, the vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing (those are words from WP:SOAP) is spreading right here - that both of these movements want the best possible headline coverage for themselves, at the same time as the worst for their opponents, right here in WP's article titles. Of course I have no proof of what anybody wants, so I expect to be shot down, flamed up, pushed around and abused for even mentioning it, but I say this: If there is nothing to be gained from getting either side the best possible coverage in 24 pt type, then let's see everyone work collaboratively on one balanced NPOV article called something like "Abortion politics in the US" until it's too big, and then let's talk again about splitting it after a few years. --Nigelj (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Your input is entirely germane here, because this is a Wikipedia maintenance issue, not a US political debate, and Wikipedia is a global entity even when it covers regional topics. I do want to just put in, though, that our primary test for existence of an article on a particular topic is WP:NOTABILITY, not WP:SPLIT. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Premise 1 and Support Title Option 5 as option 5 matches the style guides used by standard sources. JJL (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject premises 1 and 2; Reject conclusion; Support title option 1, could live with title option 3, oppose all other title options. Both articles have unfortunately tended to be US-centric but this does not prove that they were (or are supposed/intended to be) limited in scope to the United States. Both movements exist on a worldwide basis, and just because they are arguably more active in the United States doesn't mean that these movements are American movements. As far as I know Wikipedia does not limit the scope of any comparable article to one particular country (except for cases where there is a worldwide article in addition to the country-specific article, or cases such as separatist movements which are by definition concentrated in one area) and there is absolutely no reason why things should be different here. Title option 1 respects the right of both movements to self-identify, uses commonly-used names for both sides, and does not recognize one (or only one) side as promoting a right. — ABCXYZ (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse 6. Reject others. "Choice" deemed euphemistic for woman who chose (on average) 100 times to engage in unprotected sex. "Right to Life" includes clear-cut support, not only for pre-natal babies, but right to life for the elderly, opposition to war and opposition to capital punishment. Across the board npov accuracy, not a polite euphemism. Student7 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is all quite convoluted, but I support Title option 1. It's very difficult to discuss the issue in completely neutral language, but these are broadly accepted terms and a common way of framing the debate. Quibbles about their accuracy usually come from partisans who want to make themselves sound better or the other guy sound worse. As for the geographic scope, as far as I know, Americans get pretty uniquely worked up about abortion, so I think it's appropriate for these articles to be US-centric (Compare to the awkward redirect Fraternities and sororities). If we can expand them to the point where US material is spun out, then that's great too. --BDD (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Title Options 1 & 3 (Support Title Options 2 & 4 as second choices); Oppose Title Options 5 & 7 The terms "pro-life movement" and "pro-choice movement" are the most notable ones used today and are the designations which people who favour or oppose these positions employ in common and professional speech and writing. The same cannot be said of "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion". I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:37, 6 November 2012 (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.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4