Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-22/Abortion-rights movement

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleAbortion-rights movement
StatusClosed
Request date22:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Requesting party-- Eraserhead1 <talk>
Parties involvedEraserhead1, Anthony Appleyard, Roscelese, HuskyHuskie, NYyankees51, Andrew c, CWenger, among others
Mediator(s)User:Steven Zhang, User:NickDupree
CommentClosed by The Cavalry (Message me) 22:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mediator Status

Offline (see editing hist)
Local time: 12:54 am, 28 April 2024 Australian Eastern Standard Time

Request details[edit]

Where is the dispute?[edit]

Talk:Abortion-rights movement#Move?, but previous discussion has occurred on the other article talk pages.

Who is involved?[edit]

Acceptance of Mediation[edit]

Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:

  • -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept, but we need to invite more involved people - see here. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept, and as one of the main users involved in starting the last few move discussions, I would be happy to provide background on my motivations for doing so. Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs) 05:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • –CWenger (^ • @) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeCausa (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • LedRush LedRush (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh look... Another pro-life move discussion! Well, it's not like I have a Wikiproject to run, or a portal to get to Featured, or anything like that. Sign me up! I really have nothing better to do. Maybe we can get a couple hundred more editors signed up and bring the whole Pedia to a standstill. – Lionel (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added myself. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added myself, too, en passantbecause I wasn't sure I had to. PhGustaf (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept, and hope this discussion can be without the hyperbole brought by a few editors from both sides. Dave Dial (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I so often do, I've arrived late to the party, but am glad to be here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better late than never. - Haymaker (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have much online time... but I'll do what I can.-Andrew c [talk] 14:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added myself. --Jp07 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrewa (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the invitation but I am trying my best to stay away from disputed hot topics. Especially those that involve religion, politics and sex. It costed me allready an infinite ban in the italian language wikipedia and loosing my administrator priviliges in the sicilian language wikipedia (which I don't regret given the administrators and bureaucrats involved) over the "Catholic sex abuse cases". Have fun and let's try to enjoy the nice sides of life. Cheers. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerned about undue intellectual elitism.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the dispute?[edit]

The issue is that the Abortion articles have become confused, we can't decide what the best title for the pro-life and pro-choice articles are, and whether they should actually be merged into Abortion Debate. Move requests have been made but have failed to be closed promptly and haven't been conducted particularly well.

What would you like to change about this?[edit]

I would like the discussion to come to a sensible conclusion so we can decide how to structure the content in a way that everyone is happy with.

How do you think we can help?[edit]

Help us work out what the best way of structuring the content is, possibly with some less conventional methods of figuring out the best solution (e.g. straw polling). Some outside eyes would be useful here.

I'm closing this discussion as an uninvolved, but experienced administrator - not as an arbitrator. I will recuse myself should this ever get to ArbCom. However, I have spent the past few days watching this debate unfold, and the past few hours reading it in full. The abortion debate is a very tricky issue, but, when discounting those who have been unable to put aside their political leanings, and instead relying on those who were able to debate using sensible interpretations derived from policy, the consensus is relatively clear. The articles will be moved in line with Steven Zhang's suggestion, to 'Opposition to/Support for legalized abortion'. While policy around common names etc. on this issue can be debated, I think the debate has come down firmly on the side of neutrality, and the arguments supported by COMMONNAME do not stand up to scrutiny, as the common name for the phenomenon varies so wildly over the English-speaking world that it cannot be pinned down with any accuracy. We should also be aware that neutrality - not COMMONNAME - is one of the Five Pillars of the project. I understand that this is not a perfect solution - there are some who have raised concerns about the word 'legal' as opposed to 'elective', or the US/UK spelling differences. Those are small problems however, and can, I feel, be ironed out with further discussion in a suitable forum. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:28, 31 July 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.

Mediator notes[edit]

Notes by Steven Zhang[edit]

Taking case. Will have a look over discussions then post my thoughts. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done a lot of reading of the discussions, and have a few points to make. For the side of the debate in favour of pro-life/pro-choice, people have stated it is in common use on the internet, that they are parallel terms which don't present either subject in a more favourable light. Opposition to this name state that these terms are ambiguous, propagandist, loaded, and not of a neutral way that can be used on Wikipedia. There was also the issue that Pro-life is not a specific term, and that it could also refer to other topics.

The other side of the debate, which is accepting of the Abortion-rights/Anti-abortion state that the term is clear and encyclopedic and of a neutral point of view, with the main objection being that it presents one side of the debate (Abortion-rights) in a positive light with the other side (Anti-abortion) in a negative light.

This is a contentious topic, and opinions are clearly split pretty much down the middle. This one is going to require a compromise, and I don't think it's going to involve either of the names. We need to agree on two different names, that neutrally describe the articles. While one term might be clean and encyclopedic, with the other being commonly used, simply restating it here over and over again won't get us anywhere. Something needs to be done to stop these constant move discussions.

After doing some thought, I've thought of 2 possible names that the respective articles can be moved to. While not in common use, they are encyclopedic, and factual, and don't present either in a more positive light to the other.

Proposed:

These are not commonly used terms, however I feel is a reasonable compromise I feel we could agree to. The discussions have been going on for too long, and this a contentious dispute where real-life opinions weigh in. This isn't a case where discussions will change opinions of appropriate page names to be used (for the names that have been discussed). I feel the names I've proposed should work, not because they're in common use by RS, which generally is needed, but because they're neutral and factual descriptions of the articles, without any of the discussed issues associated with them. Sometimes we need to IAR in order to come up with a good solution. Let me know what you think of this proposal, but at the moment these discussions have been a tug-of-war, and I hope this proposal cuts the rope. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush- You say that one of these names has a tinge of non-neutrality. Could you clarify which one, and why you feel that way, as I am unclear as to how the names I've proposed could not be neutral. Simply put, both articles discuss the topic of legalized abortion, with one being in support of the idea, the other being opposed to the idea. These proposed names state basic facts, the article contains information on the viewpoints, whether in support or opposition, on the matter of legalized abortion. I'm not sure how more neutral we can get there, but if you feel there's a way we could improve this, please let me know. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush- It depends on how you look at it. It's more about the context of how it's used. Personally, I don't see "support of legalized abortion" more favourable than "opposition to legalized abortion". They're facts. Some people support the idea of legalized abortion, and some do not. The title isn't there to convey a viewpoint as much is it's to describe the content in the article. I agree it might not be a page name that ticks all the boxes for common usage as such, but it accurately conveys the topic of the article. The lead of the article can clarify commonly used names, but I feel this title would be the best compromise possible in this case. Steven ZhangThe clock is ticking.... 03:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyyankee- From my reading and review of the discussions, there's no clear consensus for either article name. In the most recent discussion, opinions are split quite evenly, with reasonable arguments for both sides. From my reading of the discussions, an alternative article name is required, one that all can agree to. Hence why I've proposed this. Disruptive or not, an article name all can agree to is necessary, and from my assessment as a mediator, a change is needed. Simply discussing over and over the current article names has clearly not accomplished anything, and I think this will solve the issues. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionelt - As for your edit summary, it should end here. I'd like to point to my original comment, this dispute involves real-life opinions. We need to push these aside. Whether people who edit the article support or oppose abortion isirrelevant, and should not be reflected in the article title. Changing the title to what I've proposed would do that, and would end this debate, if all will agree to it. See my comments above. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the issue of how a consensus here would be implemented, it's quite simple. If there is a consensus to implement the changes I have proposed, I will make them, citing this mediation case. A requested move will not be required, as consensus will already have been made. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 07:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TheFreeloader - Sometimes we need to IAR in order to have a complex dispute resolved. This has been discussed ad nauseaum, and no consensus has been reached. This is a solution that still accurately describes the subject of the article. As for common usage, of course there's going to be more usage for pro-life and pro-choice, most sources here come from the US, but this article covers the issue at large. I've thought of this for a long time, because nothing else has worked in the long discussions that have occured on the talk page. You (all parties) can either decide to continue this tug-of-war forever, or agree to cut your losses and come up with a compromise. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionel- I don't think speaking for everyone here is wise, as it seems there is a lot of people involved in this dispute, with varying opinions. I'd like to direct you to my previous comments, all of you. This dispute has absolutely nothing to do with how you feel about the subject of abortion in real life, which it is quite evident that it is. Stuff like common name, use in RS etc, is generally relevant and in any other situation I wouldn't propose this sort of compromise, but it's been going on for ages. Please consider a compromise here, as it is evident nothing else here will work. Regardless of your opinion, you have to acknowledge that the proposed article names on the talk page have had no consensus, so something else does need to be done. I hope we can work out something here. A compromise would suit everyone. The administrator that closed the discussion has also acknowledged that the debate is split down the middle, and that a compromise is required. Please consider my suggestion, otherwise I don't know how we can proceed from here.

@TheFreeloader - I've spoken with a few of my colleagues on Wikipedia who also do dispute resolution about this, and in a normal situation ignoring policies is not something I'd advise against in a normal situation, but in this instance, there is a lot of dispute over the name of the article, and in situations like this, we agree that this would be a situation where invoking IAR would be appropriate. That said, there seems to be dispute about which is a common name (with pro-life/pro-choice being primarily used in the United States), but abortion-rights/anti-abortion used commonly elsewhere. I'm from Australia, and I've never heard anyone use the terms pro-life, or pro-choice, when the subject of abortion comes up, we simply support it or oppose it. Maintaining a worldwide view of the subject is important, and at present these articles seem to heavily emphasise discussion of the subject in an American view. Of course a simple majority of the sources are going to use pro-life or pro-choice. Most sources used on Wikipedia are from an American origin, and systematic bias is common. I don't feel it's appropriate in this instance to name the articles based on common name, mainly because the name appears to be most common in the States, therefore somewhat not presenting a worldwide view of the subject. As the names of the article have been in dispute for a long time, and the same reasons for each name have been repeated over and over, I don't see it wise to keep with the status quo. This is why I've proposed these two names, they're factual, accurately describe the subject of article, and are neutral, and myself and my colleagues feel it's the best way to move forward here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyyankee - I don't think that your assessment to keep the article names as they are is a good one. The move discussion was for both proposals, either a move to pro-life/pro choice or to abortion-rights/anti-abortion. As neither option has a consensus, both should be thrown out of the window and two new titles should be worked on as a compromise. Otherwise, merely keeping the status quo in effect would defeat the purpose of the move discussion, and one option would be selected regardless of the fact there was no consensus for the option, which would simply cause move discussions to happen, over and over again. Please consider my proposal, as I feel it's somewhat of a middle ground. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@All Parties - I'd like to remind you all that while Abortion is a very contentious topic, that your opinion of abortion in real life, should have no effect on articles on Wikipedia, whatsoever, and I have noticed that this is the case in this dispute. Please ensure that you are considering the interests of the encyclopedia above your own opinions. Consider the fact that the names of these articles have been under dispute for a long time, and that without a resolution all will agree to, these discussions will just continue on forever. Some of you support abortion, some of you do not. Wikipedia isn't going to change that, but you shouldn't change Wikipedia because of it. From the most recent move discussion, it is evident that there is no consensus for either the current names of the article, or any of the names that were proposed in that discussion. Discussing it again will not change that. Merely keeping the status quo (the articles as they presently are) would defeat the purpose of consensus and discussions on Wikipedia, as the move discussions were for both options. This is why I feel coming to a compromise, such as the one I've proposed, would be the best way to move forward. Sure, the names I've proposed aren't perfect, but I feel in a situation like this one it's the best option there is to take, which would hopefully put this dispute on article naming, to rest. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyyankee - No. There was no consensus for either the current option or proposed options, so neither should be used, and a new proposal should be made. Otherwise, we're stuck in the status quo, which has the least support out of any proposal. What I've proposed is a middle ground. Simply repeating that because the move discussion did not form a consensus does not mean that what is currently the case in terms of naming should stay, and a change needs to be made. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@All Parties - I've been approached by a user, NickDupree (talk · contribs) who has an interest into getting into dispute resolution. I've added him as a co-mediator to the case, and he will at times make comments or give suggestions. Cheers. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 12:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyyankee, HuskyHuskie - Agreed, this needs a lot of discussion from a lot of users involved in the dispute. Time isn't an issue here, but I would think more than a few months would a bit long. There's a fine line between giving time for discussion, and postponing implementing a proposal due to users doing a silent veto of a discussion. Things are slow right now, which may partly be due to the discussion at the Abortion talk page, but it seems that dispute to an extent is working itself out, so I see no need, at least for the time being, to interfere with that. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenatipo - You say the titles should be named pro-life and pro-choice, but then say you want the status quo to remain, which is actually Abortion-rights/Pro-life. Additionally, these titles are not that commonly used anymore, refer to comments by NickDupree below. I don't really see how "Support of legalized abortion" and "Opposition to legalized abortion" casts one in a more positive light to another. These are basic facts, and can't get any more factual than that. I disagree that people don't care about the names, otherwise it would not have been discussed ad nauseum. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans Adler - My thoughts exactly. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@All Parties - I've archived and collapsed discussions that are not getting us anywhere. Additionally, added an alternative to the proposal, namely Support for the legalisation of abortion, and Opposition to the legalisation of abortion. This discussion is not just about my proposals, it's about coming up with names for both articles that will end this dispute. All I ask is that you consider the amount of discussions these articles have had, and the amount of discussions there will be if something isn't changed. Additionally, the idea of "I like the names as they are, let's move protect them for a year" or comments to that effect, will not work, and is not supported under the protection policy. Let's try to work together here. Try to put your feelings aside (though difficult) in the interests of Wikipedia. Some of you feel abortion-rights/anti-abortion is the best names for the articles. Some of you feel pro-life/pro-choice is the best names. Agree to disagree, and come up with a name that may not be ideal, you may not love, but can agree to. That's the only way that some disputes, like this one, can be resolved. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@All Parties - Still watching and reading the discussion, but I see little to add at present except to allow discussion to continue. Please try to keep discussions as brief as possible, as there's still 21 days to go until this discussion is closed. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 07:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status check[edit]

So, we're about halfway through the time that this discussion will be open. I see a lot of discussion, with a significant amount of opposition to a lot of the proposals, but not much suggestion of alternatives. The end result of this mediation doesn't really phase me, my role here is to only facilitate discussion and offer suggestions and advice. If they don't work or if a compromise cannot be agreed to, then that's really not my fault or my problem, but I'd note this. The discussions on page names cannot continue forever. Some have suggested "locking down the pages for a year". No admin would ever do that, so forget that idea, It completely goes against the idea of consensus. No resolution from here would probably send the case to ArbCom. Perhaps my proposal isn't the way to go, but it's pretty evident neither pro-life/pro choice or abortion-rights/anti-abortion is either. You can all play tug-of-war over this forever if that's really what you want to do, but each side is as strong as each other, and you'll end up pulling on that rope for eternity. I feel that the best solution, as I've said before, is to come up with a compromise that isn't ideal, but you can all agree to. I'm still seeing a lot of "I'm right, your idea is wrong" and it's getting nowhere fast. Each of you needs to decide whether you really want to argue about this forever. Sometimes you need to give a little to get a little. Just muse over what I've said and consider what you each want to do from here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by Nick Dupree[edit]

@All Parties - Stepping in, I would like to urge all sides to reconsider a rename to solve the dispute.
Please understand that we must comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, especially where article titles are concerned. NPOV means all sides must be given "a fair shake" in Wikipedia's coverage of disputed and controversial issues; the term "pro-life" is inherently POV because it implies that opponents are anti-life, and by the same token, the term "pro-choice" implies that opponents are anti-choice, and both political slants are againstWP:NPOV. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here, as these terms have been avoided in the American press for years: the AP calls for the term “anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice” in its Stylebook (see pg 9 of the AP Stylebook). U.S. media has moved past the editorial spin of both labels years ago, even the magazine Christianity Today uses the AP Stylebook-recommended "anti-abortion" term now (seeGetReligion.org: Style choices on abortion talk. The New York Times uses "abortion opponents" and "advocates for abortion rights." Every day parlance outside the United States (i.e. UK, Canada, Australia) has already abandoned these polarizing labels. Wikipedia's Manual of Style may reflect that soon anyhow.
Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are inherently POV statements and should be avoided in the titles of encyclopedia entries. The old terminology, however, will get a fair shake, remaining as explanatory within the articles' content, and as redirect names under Wikipedia's WP:RNEUTRAL policy. Please consider renaming options. NickDupree (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sven_Manguard and Chzz

You guys have both cited pro-life/pro-choice as the terms commonly used "in the media." A friendly reminder: They aren't anymore. For the last 15-20 years, the AP Stylebook calls for the term “anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice” (see pg 9 of the AP Stylebook). The bulk of print media and much of the TV news outlets in the United States require AP Style. The New York Times has its own Stylebook that uses "abortion opponents" and "advocates for abortion rights." Each year pro-life/pro-choice are less and less the WP:COMMONNAME, as usage among English-speaking populations outside the United States (i.e. UK, Canada, Australia) has never feverishly clung to these polarizing labels and even the American press has avoided them for years: they are terms that reflect an entrenched POV and the derogatory labeling of the other side (the term "pro-life" implying that opponents are anti-life, and on the other side, the term "pro-choice" implying that opponents are anti-choice). Pro-life/pro-choice are prescriptive labels entrenched in (mostly American) ideological battles, and it is Wikipedia's role to be descriptive, not prescriptive. We should cling to WP:NPOV and WP:Worldwide here, and avoid political slants like pro-life/pro-choice. If we can move beyond inherently POV titling and consensus can coalesce around the less inflammatory terms Support for legalized abortion and Opposition of legalized abortion that describe the battle instead of engaging in it, all the better for Wikipedia's content, and Wikipedia's coverage of heated topics. NickDupree (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notes on Nick's notes[edit]

Nick, I have to dispute your assertion on which expression is more common regarding pro-life vs anti-abortion. In the past 11 and 1/2 years, according to a Google News search, "pro-life" is 3 times 67% more frequent than "anti-abortion". See [1] below. (As I've said, I have no interest in the name of the pro-choice article). --Kenatipo speak! 04:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying was proven per Dave Dial. Please remember this isn't about beliefs, politics or ideological battles, it is solely about what article titles better comply with WP:NPOV and WP:Worldwide policies. NickDupree (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Dial hasn't proven squat! And all you've proven is that you don't understand WP:COMMONNAME. Apparently this discussion isn't about following policy, either. --Kenatipo speak! 00:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kenatipo - you've littered your comments with political remarks; you might want to tone that down if you want people to believe you're following NPOV. If you want to follow COMMONNAME (and WP:AT in general), you should look at this:
In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals.
As you know very well, major English-language media outlets - CNN, CBS, NYT, Washington Post, AP, Philadelphia Inquirer, NPR etc, specifically exclude "Pro-life" (and "Pro-choice") on the grounds of non-neutrality. A wikipedian, who must take a lead from RS, cannot claim Pro-life is not problematic. If you want to pursue "pro-life" and still keep your wikipedia hat on, you have to go to the grounds for using non-neutral terms (WP:POVTITLE) - which is where
a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name
which is obviously not the case, given the policy of the organisations noted above and in spite of your own attempts at searching (where you confuse majority and plurality, and simply ignore the word "significant"). You've claimed that we cannot "invent" titles - but if you look at WP:NDESC which is part of the same policy, it says clearly
Some topics are best entitled using a descriptive phrase (e.g., Population of Canada by year). Descriptive titles are often the invention of Wikipedia editors, and so should reflect a neutral point of view. The title chosen should be worded so as to not insert, implicitly or explicitly, an editor's viewpoint about the topic. Where possible, judgmental and non-neutral words should be avoided.
This has been affirmed by ARBCOM here very recently. Descriptive titles are not the same as neologisms - you are confusing the two. Policy is being followed rather well. Can you explain how a term deliberately avoided by major media organisations on grounds of non-neutrality can pass as a title of a wikipedia article? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think its also worth pointing out that there are neutrality issues, raised by a large number of editors with the names 'anti-abortion' . -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point; ideally we could have real-world evidence of it being rejected for that view to have greater weight. My view on "Pro-life" is that if it's ruled out as non-neutral by manuals of style in major media organisations, it's pretty much dead in the water as passing NPOV for wikipedia. One editor has objected to "opposition to" as too negative, but "opposition to slavery", for example, sounds perfectly positive to me. I think that's just pretending in order to keep Pro-life.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nick's argument is this: since the NYT and AP have decided to re-name the Pro-life movement, we should follow them, even if it means ignoring our own policies. And I respond: thanks, but no thanks. All the reasons why and how COMMONNAME does apply here have already been stated; I will not repeat them here. Please stop trying to implement some liberal newspaper's agenda, and keep the status quo. --Kenatipo speak! 16:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nick's argument is perfectly correct. Alas for your pretty open agenda, Wikipedia takes all those news organisations as (very good) RS, and COMMONNAME expressly states we follow such organisations' lead on usage. I had no idea the Associated Press was part of a liberal conspiracy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, what Vsevolod has consistently ignored is that despite the decree of a few RSs, the vast majority of RSs still use the other naming convention. Providing a list of the minority RSs is interesting, but not particularly useful here. COMMONNAME is pretty clear here, and the protestations don't ever address that core fact.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME refers to "major" news organisations, not to any news organisation. Google searches are there to help us establish usage - but we already have it as chapter and verse from the AP manual of style. You're going off the deep end if you think that NYT, AP, CBS, CNN, Washington Post etc etc are "minor". What's "major" for you?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, it is best that you not distort or misquote others' ideas, and then argue against that distortion. I said a minority of RSs, not minor RSs.LedRush (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You actually said "minority RS", not "minority of RS" - but I'm happy to take your clarification in good faith. So what's a majority? Let's look at List of newspapers in the United States by circulation.
1. the Wall Street Journal - which advises that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are loaded terms to be avoided - and notes that antiabortion is OK. The Wall Street Journal is also not an editorially "liberal" newspaper.
2. USA Today. I can't find anything on their stylebook, but a search of their website on "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" produces an 816 vs 3,530 hit result. On the first few pages of hits for "pro-life" they are almost entirely references to titles of groups or direct quotations from people - which don't count.
3. New York Times - covered; NYT does not use "pro life" or "pro choice" as descriptors as they are not neutral.
4. Los Angeles Times is so zealous (and has been for a couple of decades) about not using "pro-life" in descriptors it's at least once altered letters from readers and has even mistakenly changed the description of an opera as "pro-life" to "anti-abortion".)
5. San Jose Mercury News - I can't find any definitive statement on their policy, but searches produces similar results to USA Today - very highly in favour of "anti-abortion". "Pro life" appears in quotes and titles of groups, anti-abortion as a descriptor.
6. Washington Post - covered. Pro-life is not neutral, and not used as a descriptor.
7. New York Daily News - can't get hit count from their search engine, and articles are behind a paywall. Google news site-limited search gives anti-abortion twice the hits of pro-life.
8. New York Post (drum roll...) gets a slightly higher number of hits for pro-life (392 to 338), but sampling from the first few pages of hits, it looks like around a third of pro-life hits are not descriptors, but quotes and titles - or not about abortion. I'll be kind and call it a dead heat.
9. Chicago Tribune, much like the LA Times, has even edited letters to take out pro-life, because it is against the stylebook.
10. Chicago Sun-Times has an execrable site search facility. A google news site-limited search yields 8 hits for "pro-life", and 8 "anti-abortion" each. We'll have to call that one a washout; the newspaper hates the internet.
I could go on, but let's be honest, I think we know what the pattern is going to be. These are the major news organisations, and their stylebooks recommend omitting Pro-life from descriptors because it is not neutral. Another thing is clear - of those broad google news searches people are doing, they need to discount the occurrences of "pro life" in group titles and quotations (same goes for anti-abortion, but it's not as prevalent a phenomenon). I even found that writers at Christianity Today favour anti-abortion when talking about abortion alone; pro-life is for wider issues, including stemcell research and so on. Although you personally don't think "pro-life" is POV, surely you can see that Wikipedia has to have a problem with it if this much leading RS considers it non-neutral. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to agree with VsevolodKrolikov on this one. It's quite clear to me that according to WP:COMMONNAME we should not treat all reliable sources equal. Rather we should go with what the most respected sources aimed at a general audience uses, as Wikipedia itself in turn aims to be such a resource. So when a clear majority of major news organizations choose to limit their use of "pro-life" and "pro-choice", Wikipedia should try to do the same thing. I don't however think that that means we should come up with our own terms to use. Rather we should go with whatever terms high quality sources choose to use instead, which seems to be "anti-abortion" and (pro)"abortion rights".TheFreeloader (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that a substantial proportion of the community won't agree to that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have been over this many times by now, and you probably know my response to this. As I read it, the spirit of WP:POVTITLE tells us that we should not let the community decide on such things. Rather we should blindly rely on what's common usage by reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and just because some quite vocal participants are more concerned with how their personal views are presented than with following Wikipedia policy, that doesn't mean the policies don't still stand.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (indent)Comment quoting: In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias
Doing a very cursory search at the United Nations site, I found about 30 hits for "anti-abortion" and about 95 for "Pro-Life".
Encyclopedia Britannica uses pro-life
The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology has a single article entitled "Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Movements" ... there are no articles entitled "Anti-Abortion". It looks to be a reliable source, but I am not 100% sure of this. Also, it looks to be an American source, so this could also be something to consider.
In the end, I will simply state that labeling a movement as "pro-life" is in fact biased, but not any more biased than "anti-abortion". One carries a positive connotation, the other a negative connotation, so using WP:NPOV to defend/attack either side is, IMO, not going to work. Going the route of WP:COMMONNAME might be able to solve this one way or the other, but I think as I have pointed out, this is far from a black-and-white slam dunk either way. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the fundamental reason why we are having this mediation is that both pro-life and anti-abortion are bias. That's why we need to go for something else which is neutral - like Steven's suggestion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, calling something "support for ...." and "opposition to ...." is as fundamentally POV as saying something is "pro-" or "anti-" ... there is just a swapping of synonymous terminology. One side of this argument is saying this, while the other is saying "there's nothing POV about saying "support" or "opposition" .... the other side is saying "pro-life" might imply in some people's minds that the other side is "pro-death". One is overtly POV, one could be seen as covertly POV. I'll side with the less overt POV. LonelyBeacon (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way you can put the "POV" of saying someone supports or opposes something in anywhere near the same category as reliable sources avoiding a term in their stylebook's. The comparison is illegitimate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LonelyBeacon: I think you're overlooking something: the defining characteristic of people who identify as "pro-life" is not that they are pro "life" (many anti-abortion activists - notably a lot of fundamentalist protestants on the American right - support the death penalty, and are military hawks), but that they oppose abortion being legal. Similarly, people who are "pro-choice" are not more pro "choice" (they can be anti-capitalist, anti-market), they are defined by their support for abortion being legal. Indeed, the arguments for and against legal abortion go beyond the concepts of choice and life; these are simply American framings. In the UK the argument for legal abortion was dominated not by the right to choose, but by the consequences (backstreet abortions) of keeping abortion illegal - which is how some religious figures ended up supporting the legalisation of abortion while not having to compromise on their view that abortion is a mortal sin. Pro-life and Pro-choice are not "covertly" POV, they are pretty overtly POV: they're rhetorical devices. The proposal is descriptive and as neutral as we're going to get.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are getting at, but I don't agree with it. There are some people who claim to be "pro-life", but aren't the fundamentalist types you are describing. Likewise, I could claim that some of the people who claim to be "pro-choice" aren't really pro-choice, as they could be in favor of abortion for reasons other than those related to supporting a woman's right to choose what to do with her body (they may be interested in population control, eugenics, etc). I also disagree that any one of these terms is any more neutral. I hear you saying it, but simply saying that one is more neutral does not make it so. I am claiming that there are no neutral options here, and that any argument based on WP:NPOV is not sounding convincing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear - when I talk about the "proposal", I'm talking about the move to "Opposition to legal abortion" and "Support for legal abortion". How are these not more neutral than pro-choice and pro-life? They dispense with trying to capture the reasons for support and opposition, which is where the POV creeps in. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Initial responses to Steve's proposal[edit]

The last move request is unfortunately going to be extremely difficult to close. I did push quite hard to argue no-consensus so we could come back to it later, but its quite clear that noone else really agrees with me. This way hopefully we can look at all the options, including moving the articles back to where they started, or merging them, or moving them to abortion-rights/anti-abortion. The reason I've asked for mediation is to help solve this dispute. I'm not particularly interested in which way its solved, but I feel this is a better approach than letting the current move discussion run on for two months and then get closed unsatisfactorily to quite a few people like the last ones have. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven, that sounds great. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven, Gordian Knot. Totally support your proposal. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I also like Steven's suggestion. The alternatives we've tried are weighty, imprecise, or both — these are clear. I'm sure some won't be happy with them, but I suggest they consider the amount of futile struggle this issue has caused and think hard before starting it up again. PhGustaf (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can get behind this too. The names are virtually never used but they are most definitely neutral. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The names are not commonly used, and one still has the tinge of non-neutrality, but I'll sign up to end this never-ending dramafest. A solution could be much worse than this, and Steven is to be commended for thinking outside of where we all were.LedRush (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve: Well, the clear improvement would be to keep things the way they are or use pro-life movement and pro-choice movement. These are well used, have established meanings, and are self identifiers. As with anti-abortion rights, there is generally a little negativity associated with an "anti" position (or an opposition). Sure, opposition to slavery and Hitler is all peaches and rainbows, but it is generally considered better to be for something than against it. For example, I would doubt that many people would prefer to be called the "opposition to fetal rights movement". However, your solution sucks less than the endless wikilawyering going on here but a few entrenched editors and their POV terms, so that's why I reluctantly agree.LedRush (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve's solution would be a good one, but it's not needed - consensus in 'two discussions with a wide range of editors was clear not to move pro-life, and there was no consensus to move pro-choice. A few editors are being disruptive by making a new move request every month because they don't like the results of the others. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Zhang compromise suggestion of Support for legalized abortion and Opposition to legalized abortion is inspired. I think it should be implemented. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more with NYY. The proposal to "move pro-life to anti-abortion" has failed at pro-life repeatedly. Now the strategy seems to be start a discussion to move pro-life in every venue except pro-life. In the last month or so there have been discussions at Abortion, Abortion-rights, user:Eraserhead, and now here. Yes, you read that correctly: they started a discussion at a user talk page, closed it as "Support", and them merged the article. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious. Dozens of editors have been wasting away with this issue all year instead of improving the pedia. Why can't the pro-abortioners just give it up??? 05:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs)
I am so sick of this canard that everyone who does not want "Pro-life" to be the title is pro-abortion. I for one, am passionately opposed to this holocaust, but I am also capable of thinking along neutral lines. You're right that too much time has been wasted on this, but at least part of the reason is that some of us believe that the pro-life and pro-choice titles violate WP:NPOV. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a totally non-involved editor, I have to say this seems an eminently sensible solution that Steve has proposed, and one which you guys should all go for. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would we go about adopting this solution anyway? I assume this would have to be presented as a normal move request and gain consensus like any other? –CWenger (^ •@) 05:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume Steven will tell us in due course, but everyone who was listed on the talk page has been informed, so I don't know if its necessary to do a move request if a consensus is found here. -- Eraserhead1<talk> 07:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not find Steve's idea "inspired". Hyperbole, to say the least. But I do consider it to be superior to the POV "pro-" titles, and it is certainly (because of its parallel nature) better than the status quo. I would be willing to support it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Binksternet. The Zhang compromise provides the reader (and editors) a clear understanding of what the articles are specifically about and a better indication of the topics addressed by each. --ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick that both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are unacceptable as article titles, for just the reasons he gave. But the phrases "abortion-rights movement" and "anti-abortion movement" aren't completely entrenched, so I find Steve's suggestion acceptable. However, "opposition to legalized abortion" does have the problem of not being entirely accurate: I rather doubt that opponents would find abortion acceptable as long as it was technically illegal. "Opposition to abortion" would be better IMO. As for people complaining that the word "opposition" paints them in a bad light, come on. Death-penalty opponents don't go around demanding that they be called "pro-life". "Opposition movement" is not a negative term. —kwami (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the opposition title. I also agree that "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are inappropriate; I would never let these run in my publication. They are only appropriate in quotes... if that quote is absolutely necessary. I tend to have traditionalist leanings -- I'm willing to change as appropriate -- but I do like what the Associated Press has laid forth with "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights." I suppose I understand the sentiment that "anti-abortion" portrays that movement in a negative light... but I really don't think there is a better solution, and I think it's an accurate description. Although if we do try to go with something longer like Zhang suggested, we need to decide how we're going to refer to the movements within copy because his titles would become very cumbersome in prose.--Jp07 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this from the lead of Roe v. Wade: "Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides." you could change it to "Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into groups supporting and opposing legalised abortion, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.", which actually seems better. --Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant paraphrase, not change, if the quote is not essential. I don't think it's questionable to change vocabulary in a paraphrase... because otherwise you have a quote. Meaning needs to be sustained; vocabulary does not necessarily need to be maintained unless it is within a direct quote. I have not extensively studied abortion, but I do believe that the nation was much less polarized on this topic during the time of that trial; since that time, the rhetoric has festered to the point that people can't even discuss it without bickering. Now we are overly sensitive on this topic, and people are more careful about how they discuss it.--Jp07 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the debate, which is being covered in the articles, is about whether or not to legalize abortion. It's not about whether or not abortions are acceptable in legal system which allows it. Also, if you are that sensitive to language, you must be able to see that "opposition to abortion" isn't a neutral term, as it kinda implies that the other side is "for abortions", which I very much doubt is how they would characterize themselves.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement: It's not about whether or not abortions are acceptable in legal system which allows it. Is not true, since there are all sorts of strategies used to discourage women from having abortions from protesting abortion clinics to helping women through their pregnancies and finding adoptive parents. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:POVTITLE[edit]

I don't think ignoring WP:COMMONNAME is a good solution at all. WP:POVTITLE clearly states that common name overrides concerns about neutrality. I don't think we as editors have any right to be the judge over whether or not Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are appropriate names for these movements. Reliable sources have already made that choice for us. The main objective of Wikipedia should be to describe things the way they are described by reliable sources, not to make normative judgments about how things should be described.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What have reliable sources chosen? To my eyes reliable sources use both terms - the numbers using pro-life certainly isn't significantly higher enough to definitely require using that if you feel anti-abortion is more neutral - thus you will have an endless discussion - and thus why Steven's compromise is required. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about just looking at Google books hits which shows about a four or five to one ratio in favor of pro life[2]. Google news archives shows about the same ratio[3][4]. To me that looks like pro life is pretty clearly the common name.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience the ratio usually drops quite a lot when you put quotes around both statements, but fundamentally it doesn't really matter, what counts is that the ratio is small enough that a significant number of people argue the point that anti-abortion is a better title on the ground of supposed neutrality and that its usage isn't that much less. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve But the problem is that the compromise you have proposed does not take WP:UCN into concern, which is my main concern. To me this is a discussion of common name versus neutrality, and you have chosen to completely side with neutrality. That to me isn't much of a compromise. Although I think compromises are rarely to be found in general in naming debates, as WP:TITLECHANGES also points out.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven I guess that if your proposal is the only way to get back to parallel titles, then that is probably more important than using common names for now.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking for everyone, and I think that I can, the only issue here is Pro-life. Noone cares what the pro-abortion article is called. Pro-abortion, pro-choice, abortion rights. Who cares? No one cares. That article was moved, renamed, merged, and 2 maybe 3 people objected. But try to move Po-life and as Bette said "It's gonna be a bumpy night." All year Pro-life has been the target of intense move efforts and the only inroad was to add "movement." Proponents of moving Pro-life have invented all manner of schemes to eradicate it, this latest one included. We need to call a spade a spade. This discussion really is about excising a term highly objectionable to Pro-abortionists: "pro-life." Yea. I said it. This is a scheme to get rid of pro-life, part of a larger war of attrition, of ad nauseaum discussion. Well, it aint going down like dat.– Lionel (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for everyone, and I think that I can. Boy, I sure hope that's meant to be facetious, because if it's not it's offensive. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Pro-life is just a name for one particular group. It's not an umbrella term for all anti-abortion groups. In order to cover the entire movement, you have to have an umbrella name for it, and not just a (possibly) US-centric one. No reason at all why "Pro-Life" can't have its own headed section, giving the history etc. of that one group, within the general 'Against legalising abortion' article. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, pro-life is the umbrella group and "anti-abortion" would be under it. But really, trying to distinguish the two is pretty pointless.LedRush (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? There are many anti-abortionists in the world who don't use the term "pro-life" (and similarly for "pro-choice") - these are labels that some people (mainly in the US, I think) have adopted for themselves.--Kotniski(talk) 17:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionel: Noone cares what the pro-abortion article is called. Pro-abortion, pro-choice, abortion rights. Who cares? No one cares. Sorry to disagree with you, Lionel, but I care. I despise the deceptive name "pro-choice". It's one thing to be vague, like "pro-life" is, but "pro-choice" is patently offensive because it frames the discussion on the ability to kill another person in terms of the most American principle of all: Freedom. They make it sound like they're a "pro-freedom" group when they are actually "pro-murder". Now mind you, I realize that a substantial number of them do not actually believe that it is murder that they support. But that's not the point--they chose the term "pro-choice" because it sounds eminently American. No one cares? Bullshit. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles should be named Pro-life movement and Pro-choice movement, per TheFreeloader, as COMMONNAME and POVTITLE apply. Don't see the need to make them any more "parallel" than that. Don't care for Steven Zhang's proposal because "supporting something legal" has positive connotations and "opposing something legal" has negative connotations. Also understand Lionel when he says no-one cares what the "Pro-choice" article is called (pace HuskyHuskie). (I know I don't care what they call themselves!) So, my vote is STATUS QUO, and please lock the damn current names in place for 1 year so we don't have to keep going through this nonsense every two or three months. --Kenatipo speak! 20:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you have the fundamental problem that the Status Quo is to keep Pro life at Pro life and the pro-choice is at abortion-rights movement.
Secondly if you read TheFreeloader's last comment he's said he accepts these titles as a way of returning the articles to parallel titles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again. The optimal naming is Pro-life movement and Pro-choice movement for reasons given. Second best is the status quo. Third best is Pro-life movement and whatever the pro-choicers want to call themselves. Parallel naming is important? We have parallel naming in the optimal scenario. You say prolife and prochoice don't work. But, since prolifers are happy to be so described and since we don't care what the prochoicers call themselves, the dissatisfaction must be coming from the prochoice side because they don't like the term "Pro-Life". And, I thought IDONTLIKEIT was a bad reason around here for changing things! --Kenatipo speak! 23:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will say it again (albeit with less vehemence, this time): You err, Kenatipo, just as did Lionel, in speaking that "we" don't care what the pro-choicers call themselves. I have been pro-life since before Roe v. Wade, and I don't care whatwe are called (be it pro-life, anti-abortion, whatever). I only care that the pro-abortionists are not called given the false appellation of "pro-choice". Furthermore, I have never in my life met another pro-lifer who objected to being called "anti-abortion". I'm sure that some of the organizational heads don't prefer it, but the man on the street has no problem with being called "anti-abortion". HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Husky, telling another group what they should call themselves is urinating into the wind. When I hear the phrase "pro-choice", I always say to myself "some choice for the baby"! Of course that term is a lie. In this venue, though, it's better just to defend "Pro-life movement" and not let them re-name us. --Kenatipo speak! 15:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-life is 3 times more 67% more frequent than anti-abortion in a Google News search starting in 2000. See details below CarolMoore's comment following. --Kenatipo speak! 05:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, and the reason for that is because Google News starts picking up feeds from online outlets like "Christian Today", "Catholic Culture" and "LifeNews.com". As has been proved before, news sites like the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, Reuters, NPR, and the AP use the term "anti-abortion" far more frequently than "pro-life", and in fact only use "pro-life" when quoting. Dave Dial (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, verily, it is refreshing to learn that Google has begun to search outside the liberal bubble! Thank you for that information; I now distrust them a little less. --Kenatipo speak! 15:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-abortion/abortion-rights more frequently used in News searches[edit]

I agree with the common name protocol. I'd like to point out that in news searches (which are far more neutral than web or book searches which include a lot of outright propaganda) "anti-abortion" (177,000) is more frequently used than "pro-life" (167,000). (Abortion rights is 372,000 vs. Pro-choice 116,000. Note also there is a problem with the fact that the intro to Pro-life movement doesn't specify it is not entirely right to life - at least on the death penalty issue. That's mentioned way down in the article. Has anyone done only this specific search before in this discussion??CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life 3 times more frequent than Anti-abortion per Google News searches[edit]
Hi, Carol. I opened the links you created and found something interesting: when I confine the Google news search to the last 11 and a half years, 2000 - 2011, I get 99,200 hits for "pro-life" and 32,600 hits for "anti-abortion". What am I doing wrong? (Something funny is going on, though. If I keep clicking on the Go button I can make the numbers change. I guess I just don't trust Google!) If you look at the blue bar graphs for your numbers for these two terms, you can see that "pro-life" has a lot more hits than "anti-abortion" in the last 11 and a half years. --Kenatipo speak! 04:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-life 67% more frequent than Anti-abortion per Google News searches[edit]
As I mentioned yesterday, there was something funny going on because when I clicked on the Go button I could get the number to change. Today the number for "anti-abortion" is showing 59,200 occurences and it's not changing when I click GO, so maybe it's the better number. Still, "pro-life", which isn't changing at 99,200, still gets significantly more hits. --Kenatipo speak! 16:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, and the reason for that is because Google News starts picking up feeds from online outlets like "Christian Today", "Catholic Culture" and "LifeNews.com", after 2003 or so. As has been proved before, news sites like the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, Reuters, NPR, and the AP use the term "anti-abortion" far more frequently than "pro-life", and in fact only use "pro-life" when quoting. Dave Dial (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, verily, it is refreshing to learn that Google has begun to search outside the liberal bubble! Thank you for that information; I now distrust them a little less. --Kenatipo speak! 15:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kenatipo, you're doing it wrong. You need to show that pro-life gets a significant majority use not just against one other version, but against all other major versions. Add in "opposition to abortion" (38,800), "opposed to abortion" (28,500) "against abortion" (17,900) and so on, and pro-life doesn't command a majority at all, let alone a significant one. Compare this to "Bill Clinton" and the alternative "William Jefferson Clinton" and variations thererof, which is given as an example of commonname policy. The difference is a factor of more than ten. Pro-life doesn't pass the significant majority test. Hope this helps. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite mistaken, VsevolodKrolikov. The choices here are "pro-life", "anti-abortion" and "opposition to legal abortion" (or some such). "Pro-life" is the COMMONNAME, used significantly more often than "anti-abortion". Your interpretation of COMMONNAME is also incorrect. POV terms are used in article titles if that's what reliable sources use (and because that's what reliable sources use). A Google News Archive search (recommended by WP:AT itself!) shows that since 2000, "pro-life" has been used 67% more often than "anti-abortion" and that is significantly more often. COMMONNAME also says don't invent article titles as a compromise between two sides. Have Zhang and Dupree addressed that glaring contradiction in their approach? We really need to stop this nonsense by locking down the status quo for a year. --Kenatipo speak! 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its nowhere near enough for WP:COMMONNAME to apply. 67% more is not really significantly more, it means that the other name is used 37% of the time. Additionally WP:COMMONNAME doesn't override WP:NPOV. --Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant 33%, not 37%. And being used twice as much seems like a butload to me. Add in that that pro-life is more NPOV than anti-abortion, and you have a slam dunk against this proposal and that name.LedRush(talk) 18:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Actually, LedRush, Eraserhead's 37% is correct: you have to add the two together to get a denominator, then divide the numerators by it: 99.200 + 59,200 = 158,400. 59,200/158,400 = 37.3%. But I agree with you that these numbers show that pro-life is significantly more common than anti-abortion). --Kenatipo speak! 14:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not actually that much more because if you gather the statistics in a different way you get a lead for the other side. If I search every English language source in the world I'm hardly likely to get a lead for William Jefferson Clinton over Bill Clinton. It may be clear enough for you, but it isn't clear cut enough to convince everyone else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In US election terms, it's a landslide! 63% to 37%. --Kenatipo speak! 20:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a landslide if you count the data in a certain way. That's not the standard that WP:COMMONNAME is held to. Go through the examples on the list and find one that has a similar ratio to this one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common name...where?[edit]

For those who advocate "pro-life" and "pro-choice" because they are WP:COMMON-english, I would ask that you consider the following countries, where English is an official/de-facto language:


  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Australia
  • Bahamas, The
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belize
  • Botswana
  • Cameroon
  • Canada
  • Dominica
  • Federated States of Micronesia
  • Fiji
  • Ghana
  • Grenada
  • Guyana
  • India
  • Ireland
  • Jamaica
  • Jordan
  • Kenya
  • Kiribati
  • Lesotho
  • Liberia
  • Malawi
  • Malta
  • Marshall Islands
  • Mauritius
  • Namibia
  • Nauru
  • New Zealand
  • Nigeria
  • Pakistan
  • Palau
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Philippines
  • Rwanda
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Samoa
  • Seychelles
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Solomon Islands
  • South Africa
  • South Sudan
  • Sudan
  • Swaziland
  • Tanzania
  • The Gambia
  • Tonga
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Tuvalu
  • Uganda
  • United Kingdom
  • United States of America
  • Vanuatu
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

Are "pro-choice" and "pro-life" really the common terms used in all the aforementioned countries? —Safety Cap (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which countries a Google News Archive search includes beyond the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa and Tuvalu. --Kenatipo speak! 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus on the actual discussions below, this is not getting us anywhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Was consensus ever achieved?[edit]

Another problem - if you're against legalizing abortion, you're probably against abortion in general, legal or not, so it would have to be "opposition to abortion". The best solution is to keep everything at pro-life and pro-choice. Anything else would be a victory for the disruptive minority who has been keeping this fight going despite clear consensus. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This "clear consensus" isn't clear to me - if there's one thing we don't seem to have it's consensus, and therefore it's perfectly in order to keep the "fight" (i.e. discussion) going until we do.--Kotniski (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear consensus, which is why we are here. There is no "disruptive minority fighting to keep this going", just the majority who wish to maintain a neutral tone on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that consensus was clear against every proposal, meaning what was the status quo (pro-life/pro-choice) should remain. A move requires clear consensus to move. Pro-life had clear consensus to keep, and pro-choice had no clear consensus, meaning it should have stayed pro-choice. Those who don't like the consensus on pro-life and the lack thereof on pro-choice are going to keep proposing moves until they get their preference. Changing anything would be a victory for them, the disruptive. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly pro-life wasn't closed with a "clear consensus to keep" it was closed as "no consensus". The two are fundamentally different - the former implies there weren't any substantial support arguments at all for the move, which was clearly false. Secondly regardless of the merits of the close pro-choice was closed as a move request. As far as that is concerned what is done is done, and trying to complain about it now is counter-productive to the process of moving forward from where we are now. Fundamentally as shown in the previous move request about half the community think pro-life/pro-choice are the better names and half think that anti-abortion/abortion rights are the better names. The fair and sensible way forward is to split the difference and go for something like Steven has proposed here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no consensus for a change the status quo should remain. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that what is being called "consensus" really refers to the "status quo" which came into existence because there was a lack of a consensus. If true consensus was ever achieved, can anyone point me to it? I realize I may be mistaken (I haven't been around this discussion near as long as many of you). HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was clear here to keep pro-life; note that this was the largest discussion of all of them. There was no consensus at pro-choicehere, but it was closed anyway with a questionable-at-best rationale. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link shows a large discussion that went into tangents (as usual) but the arguments for each side were just as strong as each other. There was no consensus at that discussion. It was never closed as showing consensus.Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@NYYif you're against legalizing abortion, you're probably against abortion in general, legal or not, so it would have to be opposition to abortion. That's a good observation and point of logic, Yankee, but I don't agree with your next conclusion about this rendering "pro-life" and "pro-choice" the proper titles. Don't see the connection at all. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largely arbitrary break[edit]

That's a very good suggestion Steven Zhang, and I agree with several other editors here that the naming you propose is acceptable. On another note, I would just like to say that most of the comments on this page are very helpful and in the spirit of mediation. A sure way to avoid this process from devolving into another ideological fight is to not respond, or ignore, to obvious attempts to bait users into conflicts. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

  1. Mediation can't just start from the point of "well, moving 'pro-life movement' to 'anti-abortion movement' is out of the question." The move discussion which supposedly implemented this rock-solid consensus to keep "pro-life" where it is was flawed in many ways, particularly compared to the "pro-choice" move. We've got to look at the discussions that got us here and address the long-standing problems with those - namely, as Andrew C has pointed out, the fact that the admin who closed one discussion was involved while the other was not, and that the different admins applied a different standard to the closes which, if the same standard had been applied to both, would have resulted in a status-quo other than the one we have now.
  2. Keeping the status-quo for lack of a consensus for either of the other options is an extremely poor idea. There's a strong consensus that the titles should be parallel; there was no consensus to keep the status-quo in a discussion where it was presented as an option alongside several other options. The status-quo enjoys less support than almost any other option, and particularly because of the sketchy way we got here, keeping it is a poor idea.
  3. It would be lovely if other users would stop the smokescreen that claims it's about users' political opinions rather than the best way to title the articles. Perhaps you view Wikipedia as a tool for promoting your own political views, but most of us do not.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ 1) and 2) Fundamentally if you have different people making the decision they are going to come to different conclusions. Additionally Anthony hadn't been involved in the discussion until the original move was carried out, so possibly it wasn't a perfect move, but ultimately that's life. You probably can legitimately argue that the escalation process for moves is broken, but frankly I think the move processes are in significantly better shape than some other admin processes and solving that issue is significantly outside the scope of the case. @ 3) Fair point, but there is still an issue that we cannot settle on appropriate titles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a number of editors above that Support for legalized abortion and Opposition to legalized abortion are good article titles and the best way forward yet proposed. They should be adopted, and the current article content and page histories moved to them.

I'd also like to disagree with the main argument above that they are not common. Just the opposite. I think that they are by far the most common names for the topics they describe.

There's a subtle topic shift whatever the name. Pro-life movement for example commonly means those who choose to be known as "pro-life" while Anti-abortion movement means those identified by promoters of liberal abortion laws as their opposition. The difference is subtle but significant, and the content if we get it right should reflect this focus (it probably won't ever do so accurately with any of the previously proposed titles but it should). Support for legalized abortion is a different focus again. I particularly note the term legalized not liberal, which is a very significant difference and a very good one. It covers the same material exactly but provides a far better focus.

Similarly for the other article.

When I say material I mean the relevant verifiable facts. In the case of these articles and the various proposed names, these facts are the same whichever name is chosen. Focus is reflected in the way this material is presented. Both influence the text and any other content. Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of current impasse[edit]

I found it interesting, in making all the posts to the editors with a possible interest, that the past year has seen most of the energies spent on these articles directed, not toward the improvement of the articles themselves, but rather, debating the names. Since July 1, 2010, there have been a total of 499 edits on these these two articles, but an incredible 1351 edits on their talk pages. And well over half of that--perhaps as much as 80-90% of it, has been spent on the arguments over the name. Whatever arguments we may have for our preferred choice, this issue is not helping improve the encyclopedia, and we need to seriously consider ending the fight (for it is that, I'm afraid) here and now.HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but perhaps the impact is not so great as it might appear.
While wanting to assume good faith I think we need to recognise that many, probably most, of the contributors have strong feelings on the subject. I certainly do. And it's difficult to be objective, but I don't think that any attempt to disqualify all of us with these strong feelings from participating on COI or similar grounds will be workable.
One consequence of this is that we can't assume that all the energy that goes into this debate is being diverted from improving Wikipedia in other ways. Most of it probably isn't. Some of it is, notably that of the mediator!Andrewa (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status check on Steve's proposal[edit]

It's not looking like this mediation is doing any good. I think the only solution is to start from scratch with a centralized discussion and notify everyone who was involved with the regular two, have a big discussion, and see if we can find any sort of consensus. This mediation involves only a fraction of the users who were originally involved. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think good discussion is occurring here, and that this mediation can be conclusive. There's no need to start yet another process when this one can be successful. Nothing is stopping more folks from discussing. Binksternet(talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion here has been highly productive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that if people are unhappy with Steven's suggestion that they should suggest something of their own beyond doing a straight move of the articles to pro-life/pro-choice. -- Eraserhead1<talk> 21:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I think it's WAY premature to write this off. Part of the problem is that we need much more participation, and that takes time. The usual procedures for determining consensus in 5 or 7 days is completely bogus here. I would personally reject calling this consensus right now if the "vote" was 14-2 in favor, because we need to have a lot of people chiming in on this. I'd say we should leave this proposal open for a minimum of 30 days, and I'd really recommend three months. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I was under the impression that this wouldn't last long. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think 30 days sounds good. That's the standard RfC length. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New responses following July 4 talk page notifications[edit]

  • These restrictions on discussion IMO appear designed to produce a predetermined result. – Lionel (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you see it that way, that certainly was not the intent. However, I will acknowledge was that it was an attempt to keep this from disintegrating into a complete repeat of what has already been done ad nauseum on the articles' respective talk pages. If all we did hear was to restate why you feel that "pro-life" is the appropriate choice, or why I feel that "anti-abortion movement" is the best choice, we might as well not be here. Of course, the minority of editors (and make no mistake, you do constitute a minority) who favor maintaining the status quo, would probably love to see just that--an unfocused, never-ending debate. But that's not what this page was created for. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Lionel, I agree with Husky here - we need some fresh input and that's what we're getting now. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal to move to Support for / Opposition to legalized abortion seems fine to me. This is not primarily a US topic, so the US-only POV terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are out. I don't think there are internationalcommon names for these movements, so that leaves us with descriptive titles. These two seem perfectly fine. There is a small amount of ambiguity here. (Support for / opposition to making or keeping abortion legal, or for / to actually following the law where it is legal?) Both interpretations are notable aspects of the topic, so this ambiguity is a good thing. Hans Adler 22:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I wasn't part of the initial discussion (and have no idea how I got on the mass mailing) I'm just going to say that I'm in favor of using Pro-life and Pro-choice, because those are the names the movements have adopted, the names the media have adopted, and the names that have become standard colloquialism. I think it's the best option in light of those facts. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sven, for joining us. After you posted your comments, I placed the guideline for this discussion above. I hope that you can give us some more input. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support keeping the current names, and adding as many redirects for other names as seems prudent. Groups are generally allowed to choose their own names - political, religious and economic. In the case at hand, such terms are now commonplace in the US - just like "Democrat" and "Republican" and no one would deem those names to be so far outdated that they should be changed to "left of center US party" and "right of center US party", I trust. In addition, the terms "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" are, if anything, more simplistic that the other terms <g>. Most people in either camp see exceptions to their own absolute positions implied by such terms. Therefore, the least damage is done by retaining the s\current titles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, I'm slightly confused. I thought the preferred names of the two sides were "pro-life" and "pro-choice". But the "current" names are "pro-life" and "abortion rights". Which do you prefer? HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I first commented before the new redirect, the article name as "Pro-Choice" - I think "abortion rights movement" is a weaker title. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" titles because pro-life and pro-choice cover many other topics, such as euthanasia, poitics, feminism etc. I strongly oppose the "pro-life movement" title because so-called "Pro-lifers" are hypocritical and contradictory because their stance encourages deadly pregnancies and deadly (backdoor) amateur abortions. But i don't mind the new proposal of "Support/oppose for legalized abortion" Pass a Method talk 23:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need a better argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Two points: (1) I dispute that "pro-life" is a US-only term: cf. the British Life charity, which uses it: [5]. (2) The "Pro-life movement" is concerned with euthanasia and other matters of medical ethics as well as abortion, and the article and its title should not be limited to abortion. Best wishes. -- Chonak (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Hans Adler above. In light of lack of a universal common name, Support for legalized abortion and Opposition to legalized abortion seem like good, neutral titles that accurately describe the content. I might suggest removing the word "legalized" from these titles, since it seems that these viewpoints are for or against abortion itself, and they just want the law to enforce their opinion. Do not title the articles pro-life and pro-choice, since that implies that pro-life supporters are anti-choice and pro-choice supporters are anti-life; this is certainly not NPOV, even though those are the most common names for the viewpoints in the United States. I do not know whether or not they are common elsewhere. If they are the most common names internationally, then WP:COMMONNAME would have the articles named that. However, this would cause a dilemma of COMMONNAME vs. NPOV. One could also argue that it is a POV that pro-life and pro-choice are POV.
Here it is in short if that was too long: If the terms pro-life and pro-choice are the most common internationally and consensus determines that these don't violate NPOV, then call the articles that. Otherwise, call the articles Support for abortion and Opposition to abortion. Even if it isn't chosen, pro-life and pro-choice should be redirects to the respective articles, and the articles should be move-protected to enforce whatever consensus arises from this. --Nat682 (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen this particular take from another editor up the thread. So let me take your reasons for being against "pro-choice" and "pro-life" and apply them to the modified proposals you are making here. Naming the articles "opposition to abortion" and "support for abortion", without the "legalized" caveat has the same problems. There are many people who are for legalized abortions being available, but against abortions in general. So they definitely would not consider themselves in a article labeled "support for abortion" in any way. In fact, the great majority of people would not fall into that title. Dave Dial (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is the way that the 'pro-life' movement characterises itself, I don't see why there is even a discussion. Certainly those on the opposite side of the issue should be free to call themselves 'pro-choice', or whatever name they wish to use, without Wikipedia editors upbraiding them for their choice? I wasn't aware that this was our job. I would further suggest that the articles should remain separate, with re-directs added for cross-referencing, as this is such a volatile topic, and POV would be difficult to avoid with strong advocates of both sides editing the combined article(with a better chance of maintaining civility between editors).Lyricmac (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But these terms are mainly used in the United States, and not universally used elsewhere. It seems that anti-abortion/abortion-rights has also been used quite a bit, rendering common name hard to use, as both names are quite commonly used. Hence why I've suggested a compromise. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm can't accept the use of "legalized". The problem I see there is that from the days of the Comstock Law and the original bull of papal infallibility, there was a highly injurious and largely successful effort to suppress awareness of the widespread use of birth control and abortion throughout previous millennia of history - an effort so pervasive that some of the greatest all-around medical authors like Dioscorides and Celsus are still little known in the Western world, because any book containing even a passing mention of how to do an abortion was suppressed. Therefore, this title, "legalized" abortion, strikes a nerve, because it seems to exude a POV that abortion was something illegal and unknown which only recently has come to have an air of legitimacy. I would be happy with pro-life, anti-abortion, pro-choice, pro-abortion, etc. in favor to these terms. However, if the title said "legal abortion", I wouldn't mind it so much. Wnt (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here after being notified. May I suggest a tweak? Support for the legalization of abortion and opposition to the legalization of abortion. This removes any nuance that those supporting the legalization of abortion necessarily support people actually having abortions. From a British perspective, this is important, as the dominant argument has not typically been the right to choose but the safety of the mother and the minimisation of harm. In general I think moving away from what are very much America-centric terms (where it has been a particularly divisive issue) is a good idea.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify:Strong support. A few things are clear. "Pro-life" is categorically NOT neutral or justified by COMMONNAME or POVTITLE. The policies are quite clear that a common name, to overcome neutrality concerns, must enjoy "significant majority" usage, which "Pro-life" doesn't, even in reliable US sources. In fact, along with "pro-choice", it is expressly considered non-neutral by the New York Times, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Associated Press, NPR and other major media outlets, who specifically exclude it from their manual of style. WP:COMMONNAME makes it clear we should take our lead from such organisations. We can't ignore that and just rely on gut feeling. Opposers need to do more than make handwavy claims about common usage. (And a few opposers who have made open political statements on this page really need to have a look at themselves.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stumbled upon this notification on someone else's talk page, and I support the proposal to move both articles to neutral titles. Support for legalized abortion and Opposition to legalized abortion seem as non-POV as you can get with such an inflammatory issue, and while I believe that no proposal will satisfy everyone, this one has the air of being the most fair to all involved. I would also support any minor tweaks to the above titles if they reflected consensus.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the proposal to move to Support for legalized abortion and Opposition to legalized abortion, and don't think that it contravenes the principle of using common names. See my post above. I would not object to minor tweaks to the general idea, just so long as they don't distract us and prevent it actually happening. Andrewa (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like a reasonable way to resolve the impasse.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the proposed change, but agree with User:VsevolodKrolikov that "Support for the legalization of abortion" and "Opposition to the legalization of abortion" is better wording. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are definitely POV, are not descriptive, and to me identify those who associate themselves with movements by those names in the U.S. Those terms fail to adequately cover the situation international nor describe the privately held feelings of individuals in the U.S. who are not vocal on this issue. Bdentremont (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mildly support the proposal. Wasbeer 01:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the mediator's version of support for/opposition to legalized abortion. I do not think Wnt's suggestion of changing it to "legal abortion" is good because an opposition to legal abortion could include the unlikely support for illegal abortion. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting out from under the highly politicized terms is a positive, and the argument against US-centricity is reasonably compelling, so I mostly support this proposal. However, I would like to see the word "legal" rather than "legalized", i.e. "Support for legal abortion" and "Opposition to legal abortion". "Legalized" addresses process rather than state, implies that the natural state of affairs is for abortion to be illegal, and frames the debate in terms which are nonsensical in any jurisdiction where abortion has never been illegal. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I will support, per Roscelese, any naming convention that restores parallel naming to the articles: pro-life/pro-choice, abortion-rights movement/anti-abortion movement, what-have-you. If pro-life and pro-choice are US-centric, then this may be solved by writing in those articles about the US movements that describe themselves with those terms and writing separate article(s) that cover the abortion debate from a global perspective. The only thing intolerable about the current situation is the polemicization of Wikipedia via asymmetric naming. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking into consideration the well-reasoned and consensus-supported injunction in WP:TITLECHANGES not to make up new, unrelated-to-anything-people-actually-say titles for articles as a way of compromising between POVs, I have revised my position and oppose this proposal; in this light, I think the only acceptable namings are Pro-life and Pro-choice, Pro-life movement and Pro-choice movement, or Anti-abortion movement and Abortion-rights movement. Any of these would be acceptable, but they must be parallel. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is the only way out of the deadlock, then I Support it, but I have to say those two titles sounded really clunky when I first read them. But if all of the more common titles redirect there, I could get used to it. By the way, I disagree with whoever suggested "Support for the legalization of abortion" and "Opposition to the legalization of abortion", because abortion is already legal in most of the industrialized world. And I oppose the use of any American terminology for the titles ("pro-life" and "pro-choice"), per WP:WORLDWIDE. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent response At the very least, I would like to say that any proposed solution should adhere to WP:SLASH (e.g. no pro-life/right-to-life/anti-abortion movement.) As far as I'm aware, the wings in this debate generally refer to themselves as "pro-life" and "pro-choice", so WP:COMMON would dictate that these names be used. "Right to life" and "abortion rights" are less common names that still have some currency, but as best as I can tell, the current names are as good as you're going to get. Regarding folding them into the larger article on abortion debate, that seems like a disservice as there are categories named after either side and a hierarchy of information about those movements--there is enough material on either to warrant a separate article, so combining them does not solve the problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is twofold with the current names. First of all, they are terms within the American political discourse, rather than a worldwide one ("Pro-choice" basically comes out of the US supreme court decision of Roe vs Wade). Secondly, there are many on each wing within that discourse that find the other wing's choice of name deeply problematic, if not offensive.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for "Support for / opposition to (legalizing / legalised / legal) abortion". I am completely uninvolved in the abortion debate itself, and take no side on the issue here, so am really, genuinely a 'neutral' editor. That choice gives us parallel titles without any bias towards any particular country, any particular political stance, or any ambiguity. It's just plain sensible. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot answer this question as it's phrased, because I don't care what the titles are as long as they're parallel; my "opponents," such as they are, are those who seek to keep a propaganda title for one article and a neutral title for the other. I'm happy with "pro-life"/"pro-choice" (with or without "movement"), "abortion rights movement"/"anti-abortion movement," "support for/opposition to legalized abortion," whatever. Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs) 05:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mediator's proposal (primarily per Wikipedia:WORLDWIDE) with one qualification: change "legalized" to "legal" (per Chaos5023's comment above). To date, I have been 100% uninvolved with any articles connected with the topic of abortion. I'm jumping in here primarily because I think it's an interesting and worthwhile application of IAR (even if it probably could be done without IAR). Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO REAL OBJECTION. However, I note that a number of months ago, in the Talk:Abortion Debate page, I suggested some titles that were immediately dissed as being "too wordy". One of them was also somewhat POV-oriented, but an alternative was quickly offered to replace it. The two (wordy) suggested titles were "Pro Abortion Rights" and "Pro Fetal Rights". The titles proposed on this mediation page are wordier still! That doesn't bother me, but I suppose it would bother anyone who objected to the wordi-ness of the proposed titles I've copied to this paragraph. V (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change. (Previously uninvolved; stumbled in here). Per Sven Manguard; ie the widely adopted name from many media sources is fine. It seems to me that there is no consensus for a change, so the status quo should remain. Add a nice clear note on top of the talk pointing to this discussion (which will hopefully show consensus), and thus try to side-step any further debates that don't add anything new to the table. And remember that an article name is just a name (yeah;Gdańsk, etc, I know, but...) and we have redirects - so I hope this enormous time/effort spent debating could be diverted to improving the article. (If there's large support for the change - that's fine too. I mostly just hope consensus can be established here, without too much further pointless repetitive verbiage). People who DO vehemently support changing it...I ask you one, simple question: would you really not know what the phrase "Pro-life movement" refers to? So...can't we move along? After all, a rose by any other name is still full of pricks.  Chzz  ►  05:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. Kudos to Steven Zhang for coming up with a neat attempt at a compromise though; I don't want to belittle that - just, I don't agree with it.  Chzz  ►  05:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the status quo, one POV is given its US-politics propaganda name while the other is saddled with a semi-hostile descriptive term. Is this not a blatant polemicization of Wikipedia? How can we possibly allow that to stand?—chaos5023 (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change--Keep current names. Current names are used for self-identification, and are also used by reliable sources. Readers coming to Wikipedia will seach for "pro-life." Steven's effort is a solution in search of a problem. The objection to "pro-life" is ideological on behalf of pro-abortion people.– Lionel (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you're familiar with the debate. For example, you use the term "pro-abortion", which a lot of people find objectionable. (If you are familiar with the debate, then you're just ignoring NPOV). Most of the common names used have been employed as rhetoric, not as a neutral description. Who isn't for choice and for life? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Lionel, I can't know for certain whether or not you've read my earlier replies to that line of thinking (one example). But you need to know, not all people opposing "pro-life" are pro-abortion. I am a hardcore anti-abortionist (by which I mean, I think it's still unacceptable to get an abortion with the rape and incest excuse), and yet I think that "pro-life" violates WP:NPOV. I do acknowledge that honest people can disagree about this matter, but what honest people cannot disagree about is that there are some pro-lifers who disagree with your position. Frankly, I'm getting really, really tired of hearing this notion that everyone who opposes you has a pro-abortion agenda. Furthermore, your line about this being a solution in search of a problem is belied not only by the large participation on this page, but also by the ceaseless bickering on the talk pages. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HuskyHuskie's argument about pro-choice being bad because it implies abortion is about freedom is extremely strong. Under any reasonable standards if abortion is just about choice then it should be legal right?
Personally I am pro legalised abortion, but I feel extremely uncomfortable about abortions only used to select a babies gender (as happens regularly in Asia). I also believe that abortion should be legal because in my view it is better than the alternatives - i.e. unwanted babies or babies the mother isn't capable of looking after being born, or people being forced into dangerous backstreet abortions.
By making it an issue of freedom then it makes it very all-or-nothing, and pro-choice doesn't include my view because I don't feel its an acceptable choice with regards to gender and other such trivialities; in contrast I do believe it should be legal for socio-economic reasons, rape, maternal life, health, mental health, fetal defects, and/or socioeconomic factors, so you can't really claim I'm pro-life. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Roscelese said, at the very minimum we need equivalent titles, not for one POV to be represented using its self-chosen propaganda name (and certainly "pro-choice" is as propagandist as "pro-life") and the other with semi-hostile descriptive terminology. The status quo permits the use of Wikipedia as a polemic and that's intolerable. The problem with going back to "pro-life" and "pro-choice", though, is the excellent point made above about those being US-local terms and seriously failing WP:WORLDWIDE. Your concern about readers arriving to look for the term "pro-life" is trivially addressed using a redirect. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came here expecting to disagree with a new naming convention, I don't see why we should prescribe, rather than describe. We already do that too much elsewhere in wikipedia e.g. video gaming consoles generation. However, having read the proposal, and with my recollection of the heated debate over POV titles, I have to say that the descriptive, non-POV titles are not only correct and reasonable, but so bloody obvious that I wish I'd though of them. I whole-heartedly agree with the suggestion. WormTT · (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the proposed move to descriptive neutral titles. WP:NPOV has to trump WP:COMMONNAME, especially as in this case the "common" names aren't really that common worldwide, or indeed amongst the members of the opposing group. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are very value laden terms and should be avoided IMHO. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • support the proposed move to descriptive neutral titles. WP:NPOV has to trump WP:COMMONNAME, moreover is it NPOV given that there is no agreement on when life beings (and no guarantee that any pregnancy will run to full term. As such they are anti-abortion. As to pro-Choice, sorry but at least two parties in any abortion debate have no choice, so they are pro-abortion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (to both of the above) WP:POVTITLE clearly states that WP:COMMONNAME trumps NPOV concerns. Wikipedia should describe things as reliable source describe them. We should not insert our own opinion about how we think things should be described.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To TheFreeloader: Read POVTITLE more carefully - you'll see it does not apply here. POVTITLE operates when "a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name" That clearly does not apply to Pro-Life. It's not a significant majority; it competes with "anti-abortion", and probably loses out to it. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still, I think the principle that POVTITLE builds on still works here. True neutrality is to not make any judgments over what reliable sources choose to call a subject, but rather just relay it faithfully.TheFreeloader(talk) 10:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The participants here are welcome to agree to whatever works, just don't make the mistake in thinking that this is going to permanently resolve anything (which is what this appears to be trying to do). It looks as though this mediation has an outside shot at allowing this particular coterie of editors to resolve their differences, but that's the extent of it's reach. Mediation can't possibly resolve national and international hot button political issues such as this to the satisfaction of every possible editor. Regardless of the outcome here, either or both pages can and will be subject to changes in their article titles at a later date. All of that being said, I personally believe that the article titles should be "pro-life" and "pro-choice", per WP:COMMONNAME, and for the same reasons that Sven outlined above. Concerns about neutrality are largely misplaced, for the reasons outlined at Wikipedia:Article titles. I encourage everyone involved here to become well acquainted with the article titles policy, since that is what predominantly governs these issues.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Politely oppose - I give HuskyHuskie and Steven Zhang props. The problem I see is that these new names are no more (and no less) POV than the current titles. I think we need to realize that in this debate there will be no neutral names. I think the current names are fine. I'm not sure that I buy the argument of "Pro-life" being NPOV because it forces the implication that anyone in opposition is "pro-death" ... there is an "Animal rights movement" which I generally oppose, but that doesn't mean that I am against rights for animals, and I don't think that most people imply that. I wouldn't feel offense or that it was non-neutral to call one side of this argument "Pro-choice" (even though there might exist in some peoples' minds the idea that people in opposition were somehow "anti-freedom to make choices"). I appreciate the mediation ... and I hate to sound unappreciative, but I am not sure there is a solution to the problem of creating titles that are neutral enough to either side of this debate. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. My first choice would been to call them either "pro-life" and "pro-choice" or "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion", whichever would turn out to be the most common. But seeing as people, coming here with an axe to grind, are blocking getting an consensus based on Wikipedia policy(WP:COMMONNAME), I guess we will have to ignore that rule for now, and just give the articles descriptive names, just to somehow get back to parallel titles, which after all is the most important concern here.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- COMMONNAME applies here. No consensus means the status quo reigns. If you can't live without "parallelism", then change it back to "Pro-choice movement". I agree with Lionel that the agitation here is coming from the pro-choice side because they don't like the term "Pro-life". I'm disturbed to see that proposer Steven Chang doesn't see the positive connotation of one term and the negative connotation of the other, but I'm sure all of us have our blind spots. Also concerning is Nick Dupree's approval of the "NPOV" terms used by the US media. Nick, those folks, including the Associated Press, are not objective; they are liberal players promoting a liberal agenda that approves of abortion on demand. News organizations in the US are overwhelmingly staffed by liberal Democrats and it's embarrassingly evident in the way they promote their agenda, even in news articles and what they decide is news. (No conspiracy there, just a shared mindset). In conclusion, leave the names as they are and lock them down for a year. --Kenatipo speak! 16:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are you going to get a consensus to move Abortion rights movement back? I doubt you can even get 51%, and to do such a move request with a straw poll would require some sort of mediation. -- Eraserhead1<talk> 17:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, I don't care what the abortion "rights" people call themselves. --Kenatipo speak! 20:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its also worth pointing out that if this mediation closes as "no consensus" I am going to escalate it. Having the issues left around essentially unresolved doesn't do anyone any good and while it might quieten the page down for a time someone will bring it up again sooner or later given the consensus would be so weak and we'll get to have this fun all over again.
  • If this closes positively in any direction there is a much stronger case against anyone who brings it up again in the future.
  • Additionally if it goes to further mediation there is always a risk that they choose to do a straw poll and then anti-abortion/abortion-rights get picked (or vice versa), or we just waste a bunch more time and land up with a solution exactly like the one proposed here.
  • With regards to Ohm's law pointing out that it will be bought up again, if this mediation returns a positive result I'm sure it will be easy to persuade Arbcom to issue a statement on the matter supporting the cabal position if it gets bought up again in the future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just peaking back in here to see what's been said since my earlier reply. If that's representative of how everyone feels (and, from skimming over the rest of the discussion above it seems that it is), then quit wasting time and go try to get arbcom to hear a case about this now. I doubt that they'll take any case (arbcom deals with behavioral issues, they don't decide content issues), but who knows, they might. Regardless, there doesn't appear to be much commitment to this mediation. Going to RFAR now will either get them involved now and quit wasting everyone's time on a process that won't be accepted by the participants, or at least make it clear that arbitration isn't a solution (barring some severe misbehavior on the part of some participants). It looks to me as though the direct participants to this mediation are under the misaprehension that something binding and at least semi-permanent will come from it (something that can be imposed on others), which is silly. If people here want this to go to arbitration though, I can't think of a better way to get the committee involved then attempting to wield any result of this process as a club against other editors.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The arbitration committee won't accept the case until all previous dispute resolution has failed. There is no evidence that that point has been reached yet, and if this case is successful that point won't be reached until someone seriously challenges the consensus agreed here.
    There is quite a bit of commitment to the case from the people who were initially involved. HuskyHuskie invited another 100 people to join the discussion, you are hardly going to get all of them to immediately agree. There's plenty of opportunity for people to change their minds within this process. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the keeping of the current title pro-life, as this title is buttressed by reliable sources and is the most familiar one in vogue today. The opposition has misinterpretedWP:POVTITLE in order to support a renaming. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the below section about POVTITLE about why that isn't really obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: The compromise names seem acceptable to me, but the current names aren't bad and pro-life/pro-choice movement would be even better. No alternative satisfies all the relevant naming policies so it is just a matter of what is most important to you at WP:AT#Deciding on an article title. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME I feel the use of Pro-life and the parallel name of Pro-choice is the best and only option. However I can see the "this may be the only solution that can gain some sort of consensus" side of things to.Marauder40 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am changing my ambivalent response above to an oppose. The best option would be pro-choice movement and pro-life movement as they are the most used terms both in the US and throughout the world, they are the most NPOV and they are accurate. The current option isn't bad either, as abortion-rights movement is at least NPOV, even if it is far less used. However, this constant gaiming of the system and wiki-lawyering by a small group of advocates for abortion-rights is tiring. How many move requests and different options need to be shut down before they just accept reality. Giving in now is an endorsement of unacceptable behavior, and it makes Wikipedia worse both in terms of the policy and in terms of the product to which the readers have access.LedRush (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is very sad to hear. Frankly I think that would have been a good option, but when I suggested it - and I pushed pretty hard for it - it got rejected overwhelmingly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>18:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to renaming and merging. This is simply per WP:Common name. I would not mind moving one of the articles back to "pro-choice", per "common name" ( Commenting in response to posting at my talk page and as someone uninvolved previously in these discussions. Biophys (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support something similar. I don't so much like "legalized" or "legalization" (or their British spellings) because they appear to imply an event at a time other than the present; that is, they appear to be about when abortion was legalized or about when abortion should be legalized. Do we really need to take a view in the title as to where and whether abortion has been legal in the past, or will be in the future? The word "legal" removes the element of time, so I support Support for legal abortion and Opposition to legal abortion. Also, I don't consider "opposition" to be a negative word. For instance, if an article were entitled "Opposition to pedophilia", I would feel that the title fully and respectfully represented my point of view. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree with the current phrasing. It is rather neutral and more adequate for a very controversial matter.Mistico (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Short thoughts, as I've heard some sad news and I have many, many other things I'd rather be doing. No matter what choice is made, the terms will be loaded. This is a feature, not a bug. The pro-life movement calls itself the pro-life movement because it is making a statement about what it claims to be doing. The pro-choice movement does the same. To lable them something less-loaded may seem neutral, but it isn't, because it reduces accuracy and places Wikipedia's viewpoint on the authenticity of the movement's to their monikers. The movement membership, by and large, views themselves this way, holds themselves out to the public this way, and so forth.
Compare, if you will, changing "Christian" to "people who claim to follow Christ." or "support of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God." These changes are less loaded in the sense that we not be subtly implying that those who call themselves Christian are in fact, followers of a messianic being that exists, but by doing so, we add our own viewpoint. The tl;dr version is this: go with what the movements call themselves, insofar as mainstream sources also call them that.--Tznkai (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, no one can predict which argument or even mere comment can affect the way one will see an issue. I'm not saying that User:Tznkai has said anything new or original, all I know is that his/her comments have given me pause, and have hit me like nothing else anyone else has said. I'm reconsidering my position now. We've got several more weeks before this is settled, so I'm going to hold off at least a week on the post so that I can give it time to settle in, but I'm really on the fence right now.HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference with Christians is that no-one apart from possibly a few religious nutters has an issue with the term Christian being used to describe Christians - certainly calling Christians anything other than Christians is WP:FRINGE. No stylebook for a major media source has an issue with the term Christian being used to describe Christians, no scientific sources would use another term etc. etc.
If Pro-life was used to refer to people who oppose abortion to anywhere close to the same extent that Christians is to describe "people who claim to follow Christ." then it would be legitimate to use Pro-life to refer to them per WP:POVTITLE. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a comparison should be made a legitimate article to compare to is something like Climategate, which is not at that title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion: Maternal rights and Abortion: Fetal rights: balanced, neutral, unambiguous. Bielle (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Qualified SupportToday, being unaware of this forum and the formality of the issue, I inserted the term "anti-abortion" and language to indicate that abortion, not "life," is the issue at the heart of the article. A participant here and the article Discussion page accused me of violating reference rules, incorrectly I believe, and ordered me to revert. This indicates that proponents of the title of the article may be engaged in spin. Because the "Pro-Life" movement exists by that title in the tangible world, on principle, I agree that title ought to stay, but spin/POV behavior adds a note of ambivalence to the issue. Suggest leaving the tile for now, but watching the behavior of those who identify as "pro-life"--if they edit the page as their spin platform, change the titleTapered (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose among other reasons, pro-lifers oppose abortion, not just its legality. Where legal, they still oppose it, where illegal, they still work against it happening illegally. Concurrently, pro-choicers do not just work to make abortion legal. In nations where legal they work to expand access to it/subsidies it. Henry Morgentaler committed thousands of abortions while they were illegal and is hailed as the hero of the pro-choice movement. You cannot look at the current fight in the US gov. about funding of abortion and assign one side the label "supports legalized abortion" and the other "opposes legalized abortion". - Haymaker (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what do you propose instead? Half the community is unhappy with pro-life due to its POV nature so what would you pick? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with WP:POVTITLE[edit]

There is a fundamental misreading of WP:POVTITLE going on above. POVTITLE states: "When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." - given that a significant number of media sources use anti-abortion instead of pro-life that doesn't obviously apply. If you feel that anti-abortion and abortion-rights are the more neutral than pro-life/pro-choice then you have a case, and one that really can't be refuted. Likewise if you feel pro-life/pro-choice are more neutral or are equally neutral then you have a case that can't really be refuted to have the articles at those locations.

Now another possible solution to this would be to say that WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:NPOV but you have to get a majority of people to sign up on that, and you can't just assert WP:COMMONNAME trumps all without getting people's agreement that we are going to allow WP:COMMONNAME to trump WP:NPOV.

Additionally there are strong clarity issues especially with pro-choice. How do you know they aren't describing someone as pro-choice with regards to healthcare or education - especially for non-US sources where everyone cares significantly less about abortion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of this is Climategate which is actually located at Climatic Research Unit email controversy - I'm sure the number of sources using Climategate is much higher than the number using pro-life/pro-choice here. --Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting tidbit from WP:COMMONNAME: [6] "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." There's even a note for you in that section, Eraserhead1: "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged." And finally, per COMMONNAME, article titles can use "NPOV" names and that's OK because we are using what reliable sources use, not something wiki-editors invented. (Therefore, COMMONNAME trumps NPOV). --Kenatipo speak! 21:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that reliable sources don't just use pro-life/pro-choice, they use anti-abortion/abortion rights as well, they may do so less frequently, but not significantly less frequently, for example on the BBCpro life gets 1,560 hits and anti abortion gets 1,200 hits. That means on the BBC pro life gets 55% of the usage out of the two terms - that's definitely not significantly more. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I don't see anywhere that just because there is more than one somewhat common name means that we should throw away WP:COMMONNAME. Rather we should find out which of the common names is the most commonly used and use that. Also as Kenatipo pointed out, I think the passage about not inventing new names get a compromise is relevant here.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common name isn't the only naming policy you have to follow, names also have to be neutral. That's why we are stuck, because half the community thinks pro-life is more neutral and half the community thinks anti-aboriton is more neutral.
And lets not forget the next section in that policy WP:NDESC which is what Steven is essentially proposing we do instead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, descriptive titles are only to be used for when there are no obvious common names to choose from. Not when there is more than one common name from which to choose. I think that is part of what WP:POVTITLE is about too. We should not discard common names just because they aren't neutral in the eyes of some. We should not let editors (i.e. community) decide whether or not names commonly used by reliable sources are neutral.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you propose picking between pro-life/pro-choice and anti-abortion/abortion rights? Frankly there is no obvious one to use as the community has issues with both of them. -- Eraserhead1<talk> 22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it should not be for the community to decide if they are appropriate. Rather we should pick between the options in the way suggested by WP:UCN, which is to make a general survey of major news outlets, encyclopedias, scientific papers and other reliable sources to decide on which of the options is more commonly used.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its the opposite approach from Steven's but its probably worth a try. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I would also argue that we should probably go with Steven's approach at first to get back to parallel titles more quickly. Finding out what is actually the more common option can probably take some time.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the best way forward as if the WP:UCN search is inconclusive we have something good to stick with. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to mention again that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" reflect systemic bias and are resticted to the abortion debates going on in the U.S., and by exension sometimes the UK. It therefore leaves out the abortion debates in the entire rest of the world. Since I presume the two articles seek to cover the issue throughout the world, then we must by definition not use the two self-created American terms (at least one of which in and of itself is confusing and non-specific). Moreover, we've covered all this POV vs. COMMONNAME in the two endless debates which sparked the need for this mediation. Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV is more important than COMMONNAME or other titling guidelines, as it is explicitly an expression of one of the WP:pillars of wikipedia; it even says in the policy that "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." That seems a pretty clear basis on which to reject COMMONNAME if there are no common names which meet NPOV. (I note that several of the people above objecting to a change actually do so from an explicit POV (it's just pro-abortionists etc.). We can't be having that sort of thing here. Stick to principles, not politics, please.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @VsevolodKrolikov, as I said above, I still think WP:POVTITLE's definition of neutrality works here. True neutrality is to not make any judgments over how reliable sources describe things.TheFreeloader (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @softlavender, I don't think the terms violate WP:WORLDWIDE if they are still used by English-speaking sources to describe the debate where ever it may take place. I think it's a only natural that we have a bias towards describing things as English speaking sources do it, seeing as this is an English encyclopedia. But, of course if it can be shown that the terms are only used by English speaking sources when talking about the debate in the US, and some other terms are used in other instance, then you might have a case.TheFreeloader (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheFreeloader: WP:POVTITLE is not a definition of neutrality, it presents a threshold where neutrality concerns may be overridden. The threshold in this case is clearly, unequivocally not met. It's really as simple as that.WP:NPOV is our guideline for neutrality, and it explicitly takes precedence over any policy not directly derived from the pillars. We can only use another policy on neutrality as a commentary on NPOV, not to challenge it. Again, that's pretty clear. We're not talking about spirits or ambiguities here. As for WP:WORLDWIDE, you can refer to the British national corpus, one of the best available arbiters of British English usage where searches for various phrases such as "opposed to abortion" (6 hits), "opposition to abortion" (8 hits) or "against abortion" (16 hits) feature more largely than "Pro life" which features only twice, one of which is a reference to the US. Compare that with theCorpus of Contemporary American English where Pro life outdoes each of these phrases. These corpuses are not ideal, because they do not distinguish between more and less reliable sources (they feature conversations as well as print sources, particularly COCA), but the differences are pretty clear - "pro-life" is really something still very much about American debates. I would hope that you would now accept that there is an issue with worldwide usage. (As a general aside, I think it's particularly important in resolving disputes that people look to policy for guidance rather than justification.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Two issues here: first, Wikipedia:Article titles, which the WP:COMMONNAME shortcut is a section of, is a policy not a guideline. It is true that the article titles policy is not a pillar of Wikipedia, but the attempt here to characterize it as being relatively unimportant is clearly self-serving and deceptive. I can assure everyone involved here that the arbitration committee will not disavow any part of article titles based on appeals to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Which brings us to the second point, regarding neutrality. It's not up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to make decisions on the appropriateness of possible titles. Attempting to force editors to make a decision about a title based on arguments appealing to moral values and social moires is the antithesis of neutrality. The idea that we should dump COMMONNAME and POVTITLE, at a point where they are needed the most, is a fairly transparent partisan political maneuver to steer the discussion in a certain direction, which is something that is at least mildly disruptive behavior in my view.
    All of that being said, looking at the British National Corpus (BNC) and the American National Corpus (ANC) is an excellent idea. Intentionally choosing one over the other is not a solution to anything, but using them to inform editors opinions here is something that could be very beneficial. Everyone who is involved in this should really take a breath, set aside their personal feelings on the issues, and attempt to make a rational group decision about all of this. So far it's clear that a majority of the most heavily involved editors are unwilling or unable to come off of their personal positions, which means that this is nowhere near any sort of resolution.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohm's Law, please don't caricature, it undermines your attempts to appear above the fray. I am not saying dump policy, I am protesting the misuse of it. Look at POVTITLE. It requires a "significant majority" of reliable English sources to use a specific term for that term to be used in the presence of NPOV concerns. No one has produced any such evidence of a significant majority of reliable English sources for "pro-life". Ergo, POVTITLE is irrelevant here. What is happening is that there are people arguing that because NPOV is sometimes skirted by POVTITLE, that some kind of balance of evidence/bare majority usage can sway matters - in other words, using an impressionistic interpretation of POVTITLE to weaken NPOV.That's a political maneuver, and I would hazard a guess that ARBCOM would like that rather less than anything I have written.
So, let's look at COMMONNAME. Like POVTITLE it also has a condition for "significant majority" usage, but that simply doesn't apply here. Instead, while asking us to follow NPOV, it lays out other conditions for choosing names among many. It says it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. Let's look at what major English-language media outlets use - that seems the most appropriate one to consider. The NPR ombudsman discusses NPR's rejection of pro-life and pro-choice as non-neutral terms andnotes that:
I checked with NBC, CBS, CNN, the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer and not one of them uses the terms "pro-choice" or "pro-life."
"We call them pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights because it's the right to abortion that we're talking about," said Linda Mason, CBS senior vice president of news and in charge of standards. "What does pro-life mean? That leaves people scratching their heads."
So it's pretty clear that many major media establishements in the country where "pro-life" is used most do not consider it a neutral term (along with "pro-choice"), and at least two consider it unhelpfully unclear. Surely this is enough evidence for anyone to accept that "Pro-life" is not a neutral term, at least not in the sense that Wikipedia can adopt it. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it can be shown "pro-life" and "pro-choice" aren't the most commonly used names by high quality sources for these movements, then there really is no reason to discuss further whether or not they should be used per WP:POVTITLE. POVTITLE is, by any reading, really only about names which qualify as the most common under WP:COMMONNAME. But that however doesn't mean we should go with descriptive titles, rather we should find out what else then are the names most commonly used for these movements, and use that.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that they're not most commonly used, they're not NPOV. Expressly so, given their deliberate exclusion by media style guides. I'm not sure there are good titles that qualify under COMMONNAME. There are cases where we cobble together a simple descriptive NPOV title where no "common" title satisfies NPOV (and what's left after doesn't really qualify under COMMONNAME); what I don't understand is exactly what the damage would be to the encyclopedia by having all commonish names as redirects to the proposals above. (Before you say "otherstuffexists", I point these out not as precedents, but as parallel examples of when policies like COMMONNAME don't produce suitable titles; they seem a good way forward). I can't think of any damage, and although there will always be POV warriors on this subject, I can see a name change at least ridding us of a few drive-bys. The proposal in no way favours either side of the real-world political debate, and reflects the views of the CBS spokeswoman above.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see anywhere in WP:AT where it says we should take into consideration whether we find common names used by reliable sources are neutral. On the contrary WP:AT's interpretation of WP:NPOV is that neutrality comes from not inserting our opinion on that matter. But on whether or not "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the common names, I think that if major news organizations do not use the words, then that speaks for that they are not common names among high quality reliable sources, which are what we should primarily go by.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth mentioning Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Proposed decision here, due to the similarities with respect to handling article titles. There are obviously issues inherent to that case which are not applicable here, but the broad principles are the same.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent find. I'm basically arguing in accordance with the section detailing "neologisms": In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
My own concern is this: using a formulation such as "anti abortion rights" has some basis under common name status, but there have been coherent and consistent real world objections on the part of groups opposed to legal abortion to using this as opposed to "pro-life". As a result I feel it carries the real-world nuance of deliberately not saying "pro-life". I understand attempts to move "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" have not been welcomed on wikipedia by certain people. (And I can empathise with not wanting the words "anti" and "rights" too close to each other.) There is also the parallel unease of having "pro-abortion" as part of the title of the other side, if we are to have mirroring titles (there is quite a difference between believing legalisation is better public policy, and personally being pro-abortion). I (and many others it seems) think Steve Zhang's suggestion is excellent in avoiding these pitfalls. How about this: Would those supporting "Pro-life" as a title, as a second choice, prefer "anti abortion rights movement" or "opposition to legal abortion"?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It now seems appropriate to once again present these two possible titles: "Pro Abortion Rights" and "Pro Fetal Rights" --both are about being "for rights", so nobody who debates these matters needs to feel snubbed. The difference, of course, is that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. It's pretty logical: If the fetus has rights, then abortion can't be a right; if the fetus has no rights, then abortion is not a problem. Currently/legally, in many places, the fetus doesn't have rights --while prohibition of abortion in some places basically means, regardless of whether or not it is spelled out in the laws, that those places grant rights to the fetus. Personally, I think the entire debate can focus on WHY a fetus should or should not have rights. In the seemingly unlikely event that that particular debate could reach a consensus/conclusion, then the way the Law should be written would become obvious. V (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pro abortion rights is descriptive, while "pro-foetal rights" goes beyond description into the rationale. It also overlooks that in discussions of how late a termination may be legally done, people talk of a balancing of the rights of the mother and of the foetus. So it misrepresents too. What is wrong with the proposal as is?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first the question of whether or not the fetus should have rights needs to be addressed, before worrying about when. And the only thing wrong with the main proposal on this mediation page is the fact that a lot of people seem to oppose it. Implying something else needs to be proposed. I now quote (using braces as delimiters) what I originally posted at Talk:Abortion Debate: {In view of the fact that much of the debate is more about whether or not there should be a "right" to have an abortion, rather than about abortion itself, why not use the descriptions "pro abortion rights" and "anti abortion rights"?} Well, nobody wants to be identified with "anti rights", and so, soon afterward, the phrase "pro fetal rights" was posted. I admit there can be other reasons to oppose abortion (for example, some excessively selfish man wants to pass his genes on, even if it means degrading women to the status of brood-mares), but most of the arguments that have actually been presented over the years have focused on the notion that it is a bad thing to kill a fetus. Which means, whether it has been spelled out or not, that the abortion opponents mostly think that the fetus has (or should have) rights. So, it seems to me that if we can get them to focus on why the fetus has rights (because --hey!, per Wikipedia's rules!-- mere unsupported claims are usually worthless), then (perhaps!) either they can sway abortion-rights advocates to their position, or fatal flaws in their arguments might be found. V (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as a bit of debate on Abortion itself, which isn't an appropriate discussion to have on Wikipedia. We're not here to discuss the issues themselves, just the coverage of them, you know?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs)
We are here to discuss/debate the titles of the sections of Wikipedia that are devoted to describing the two major sides of abortion debate. I've already indicated that the titles proposed when this Mediation Page was started are acceptable to me. But it is also apparent to me that those titles are not receiving enough support to get implemented. So I mentioned some alternatives, and presented a rationale for them. If you don't like the rationale, that's one thing. But what about the titles? V (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went and counted up the comments on each side and there are 26 people in favour versus 12 opposed - of which at one explicitly thinks that WP:NPOV shouldn't apply, which is nonsense given its a pillar. That gives a 70% majority for the proposal.
You aren't going to get a majority higher than that for somewhere where the whole community has been asked to comment on, especially for something controversial.
If you required even 55% of the vote to be US president since the 1948 US election there would have only been a US president 5 times (1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984), and the highest majority was 61% for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. --Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another place to count other than the "Since July 4th" place? From there I get 11 opposed, 15 support, and 5 uncertain.LedRush (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole discussion is what counts, there's been a fair amount of double voting from before July 4 as well in the post July 4 section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To expand I think judging it by vote is reasonable here.
If you want to check consensus a lot of those opposing rely on WP:COMMONNAME which isn't particularly clear about what that means in this case and anyway WP:NPOV is a pillar and has to take priority over WP:COMMONNAME which is just a guideline, as significant POV issues have been raised about both pro-life/pro-choice and anti-abortion/abortion-rights I don't think sticking with those really follows the general standards of the project.
I do respect your point that there has been wiki-lawyering and pushing by some editors (including myself), but unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't do a great job of solving its more difficult issues without lots of escalation. --Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't see a POV issue here, and I think that the RSs, common sense, and WP policy bear this out. Commonname is pretty explicit, and I haven't read a convincing argument of how it doesn't apply to use the common names in this case. It also seems pretty convincing that the proposed solution is explicitly frowned upon by the policies. I think a lot of the support for this proposal is not based on any wikipedia policy, but by the exasperation of having to have this dicussion non-stop for about 7 months now.LedRush (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME is a section of the WP:AT policy. There is no conflict whatsoever with NPOV because when we use a "POV" term like "pro-life" in an article title, we are only reflecting what is found in reliable sources, and that's what the policy very clearly says. --Kenatipo speak! 20:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental issue you are missing is that a whole bunch of reliable source avoid using pro-life on grounds of POV. WP:COMMONNAME is designed for cases like Bill Clinton, where literally no-one uses his full name, or North Korea, where only one reliable source (Xinhua) uses its official name of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't you expect the names of 2 parties opposed to each other (over a contentious issue like abortion) to tell you, in some manner, what their POV is? The names are necessarily POV; if they weren't POV they'd be useless. Or do you mean "too" POV? --Kenatipo speak! 01:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steven's suggestion manages to be neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the name for a POV is itself necessarily POV, does that mean that the word "coffee" is drinkable and bitter, and that the word "silent" can never be heard? This is like a parody of pre-renaissance theological debate. Here are some neutral terms for POVs on one or other side of a debate: atheism, logical positivism, Sunni Islam, Opposition to slavery. If abortion is a bad thing, then "opposition to" would be a badge of honour. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prediction: next change to The New York Times style manual -- don't refer to people as Christians; the name is misleading as none of them is perfect as Jesus Christ was perfect; use a descriptive name instead, like 'people who claim to be followers of Christ'. (Thanks, Tznkai). --Kenatipo speak! 14:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be hyperbolic. They aren't remotely equivalent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental issue, Eraserhead, is that many reliably liberal sources avoid it because they DONTLIKEIT. Where in the world do they get off deciding what a movement can call itself? Nevertheless, despite their efforts over the past 15-20 years, the COMMONNAME is still "Pro-life", and our own policies tell us that's what we should use. --Kenatipo speak! 15:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...perhaps they don't want to use it for a different reason, actually. Are you aware that there is one argument in the abortion debate that equates "pro-life" with "pro-genocide"? Here's how: Requiring all pregnancies to result in birth forces the human race to reach Malthusian Catastrophe proportions even faster than it is heading for it now. And it is well-documented (even for humans; see Easter Island) that when a Malthusian Castrophe happens, 99% of the population dies. Therefore, logically, by focusing on the short-term idea of "pro-life", the members of that movement (mostly without even realizing it!) are actually long-term focused on the genocide of 99% of all of humanity. Therefore the title 'pro-life' is actually a big lie, and should not be used by anyone in the abortion debate, and Wikipedia needs a different title to describe that political movement! 208.103.154.94 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stand by, 208.103, I think RaskolnikovStrelnikov is about to lecture you on "parodies of pre-renaissance theological debates". --Kenatipo speak! 21:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was odd, 208.103. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do they get off deciding what the Democratic People's Republic of Korea can call itself? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er...THEYDONTLIKEIT? Kenatipo, are you now claiming that New York Times and Associated Press are of the same status as anonymous wikipedia editors, and subject to wikipedia policy?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shorthand, VK, shorthand. One reason prolife is still the commonname is because it's convenient shorthand. Just like IDONTLIKEIT is convenient shorthand we all understand. --Kenatipo speak! 16:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - is that "commonname" in wikipedia terms, or did you omit pressing the spacebar because of your gadabout modern lifestyle? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current names[edit]

For clarity, the current names are 'abortion-rights movement' and 'pro-life movement' ; these current names aren't consistent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the hyphen in "abortion-rights" is unnecessary. —SW— confess 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Snotty! Type abortion rights movement in the search box (without the hyphen) and see where it takes you. Or just click on the link. --Kenatipo speak! 00:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that one. I'll go through and sort them out later as I created the mess in the first place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the obvious ones. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK! --Kenatipo speak! 16:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Legalized" vs. "Elective" vs. "Optional"[edit]

Without expessing any opinion for/against renaming, I'd like to amend the original mediator's proposal. Several colleagues pointed out that the axe to grind is not legalization per se (eg it icludes moral, health, etc. issues). For example, if I am not mistaken, anti-abortionists (exept for fanatic hardcore) would not object the abortion if the mother is about to die.

Therefore I would suggest to discuss the names to Support for elective abortion and Opposition to elective abortion instead, if I am correctly understanding the English medical term "wikt:elective", as in "elective surgery", i.e., scheduled without medical emergency.

However I feel that even more correct term would be "optional abortion", since "elective" is mostly about scheduling in advance, rather than by choice, hence: Support for optional abortion and Opposition to optional abortion.

Any better terminology I am not aware of? Such as "non-therapeutic abortion"? Lovok Sovok (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the article names Support for elective abortion and Opposition to elective abortion. These are a reasonable alternative to Zhang's suggested titles. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is yet farther into the territory of "making up titles to compromise between POVs" that WP:TITLECHANGES deprecates, and it does a worse job of summarizing the respective positions than prior proposals. (Those with an anti-abortion stance are commonly opposed to all abortion [this is an argument against "Opposition to legal abortion" as well, incidentally], and those with a pro-abortion-rights stance may only support abortion identified as a medical necessity.) I increasingly think the correct titles are Pro-life and Pro-choice, with global perspective issues addressed by separate articles. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I disagree with Chaos5023 on one point, when you say Those with an anti-abortion stance are commonly opposed to all abortion ... I think that you will find that like any group there are gradations ... while there are undoubtedly some who oppose abortion in any circumstance, I think you will also find that there are those who support allowances for some situations. This is why "opposition to abortion", "opposition to legal abortion", "anti-abortion rights", etc. are all misnomers. In disagreeing with you, I support your stance that the better title is to go with "pro-life", at least as it applies to abortion. Likewise, the "pro-choice" lobby doesn't have a unified "a woman should have the choice to do with her fetus whatever she wants." I would bet many in the pro-choice lobby are content with restrictions like "not after the second trimester" (as an example). I would also bet that many in the pro-choice movement don't support universal choice for everyone on anything (education, buying bottled water, serving happy meals to kids ... this is why I don't buy into the argument about "it can't be called pro life, because some pro life people support the death penalty). In the end there is no NPOV title, and we need to get over the idea that we are going to find one. It simply does not exist. While some news sources have a preference, that preference is not universal, and I have demonstrated a few exceptions way above (the U.N. seems to use pro-life more often than anti-abortion, though I cannot be 100% sure. That being said, I cannot support the change to something that is claimed to be less POV when it is equally POV, and I haven't seen any strong arguments for a change under any other guideline. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I phrased that badly. I should've said "it's common for those with an anti-abortion stance to be opposed to all abortion". The way I said it made it sound like a much more sweeping statement than I meant it to be. Either way, a meaningful representation for the position in the movement (I do not believe it to be either a minimally represented extremist position or a predominant one) helps illustrate the non-functionality of the "elective" titles. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to claim that all other possible titles are just as POV as "pro-life" is just trying to keep the article at that title at all costs. Its also total nonsense. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this sort of makes it sound like pro-lifers support forced abortion. I don't support anything other that keeping the titles pro-life and pro-choice, but if we're going this route, it should simply be support for abortion and opposition to abortion. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • People who support abortion rights don't necessarily support abortion. That said "opposition to abortion" sounds like a good title for the "pro-life" article and we could keep "abortion-rights movement" for the "pro-choice" article. Its also significantly less POV than "pro-life". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abortion-rights is just as POV because it implies that abortion is a legitimate right - that's very much up for debate. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why not go for "support for legal abortion" then as Steve has suggested? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Abortion rights" is not skewed in favor of rights; the term questions whether rights are to be granted, not that rights are inherent or legitimate. All topics about various rights are the same in that regard: gun rights, free speech rights, jury trial rights... All of these are debatable, not granted by God. They are granted by law, and laws can be changed. Free access to elective abortion is merely one of the possible rights that can be granted by law. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; this is why the phrase "pro abortion rights" is an exactly accurate proposed title. And it is another reason why "pro fetal rights" can be a better title than "pro-life" -- there certainly is not, anywhere in Nature, a "right to life". V (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Abortion rights" is a standard term in many RS newspaper style books. Ideally, editors should form an opinion about what is POV based on RS, not on their own instincts. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry[edit]

For the sake of neutrality, whatever names are chosen should have symmetry. One cannot be "pro" and the other "anti" (there's usually a connotation that it's better to be for something than against something). Likewise, one name cannot suggest support for rights while the other doesn't (there's usually a connotation that it's good to be for rights). The usual pro-life and pro-choice labels satisy these requirements, but many suggestions here would not, and these two usual labels also have the advantages of brevity, self-identification and of being well-known. But if we want something more descriptive, then something like Right to Abort, and Right to Not Be Aborted might work.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you think of "pro abortion rights" and "pro fetal rights", then? V (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "fetal rights" seems too narrow, because the fetal stage is only one stage of prenatal development (another is the embryonic stage).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Symmetry is not neutral if reliable sources are choosing asymmetric terms.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. For example, Wikipedia policy seems to pretty sternly frown on weasel words, peacock words, euphemisms, and various other types of terminology, regardless of whether those kinds of terms are used by reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to keep my comment short. We need to choose titles within the range of options that are rather widely used in reliable sources, but we have to apply the relevant policies (that would be WP:NPOV, primarily) in making the specific choice. I live in a country where abortion is called "Schwangerschaftabbruch" (termination of pregnancy), so debates in the U.S. on these issues occasionally appear rather odd to me.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations[edit]

Would the persons who favor Pro-life and Pro-choice accept "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" as titles? And is that even (from a technical standpoint) possible on Wikipedia? HuskyHuskie (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, all I really ask is that the titles be parallel, so yeah, I suppose I'd accept it, even if it seems pretty bad. It's technically possible, though note that WP:TITLEFORMAT has nothing good to say about it. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Along with the POV title box stays at the top of Pro-life I'd have no issue with that as the title in exchange - as that's basically doing the same job - but I see no reason not to keep "Pro choice" at Abortion-rights movement which is more neutral and no-one seems to have an issue with. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has an issue with it? Plenty do. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's kinda why this case is at mediation, because there are issues all over the place. As to using quotations in titles, in theory it's technically possible, but in practice it's never done. I don't think this is the solution we're looking for. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 19:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it was an odd idea. But it would allow those who believe PL and PC meet WP:COMMONNAME to be happy, while giving a bit of a nod to those of us who disapprove of the euphamistic nature of those names.
Having said all that, I remain moved by the words of User:Tznkai, and will accept Pro-life and Pro-choice if consensus for nothing else is reached. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's still 9 days left in the discussion, so we will see what happens. I'll keep my cards close to my chest until then. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Unscintillating[edit]

The Google snippet for prolife.com states, "Christian group that argues against abortion and premarital sex."

The current Pro-life movement article covers many other topics.  The words "premarital sex" don't even appear in the article.  The article connection that prolife.com is a Christian group gets lost amidst text about Islam women and Hinduism. The point is that pro-life.com needs a standalone article:

There is yet a third point here, a possible article title:

  • Arguments against abortion

When I first starting reading the talk:pro-life page, I assumed that pro-life and pro-choice were parallel terms.  I now know that they are not.  I favor a multiple article approach and I don't require obviously parallel terms.  For example:

  • Pro-choice
  • Support for legalized abortion
  • Abortion
  • Arguments against abortion
  • Pro-life (group)

Unscintillating (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a group "Pro-choice"? There seems no reason to keep any article there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you positing that "Pro-choice" fails WP:Notability?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I don't actually think anybody cares what the pro-choice article is called - its just used as a cover to attempt to avoid moving pro-life to a more sensible title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time, E, this is not true. I am a pro-lifer, and I objected to the POV nature of both titles. I loathe the euphemistic term "pro-choice"--in fact, to call it a euphemism is to accord it more respect than it deserves, it is a lie. Please stop repeating this bullshit that this is nothing more than an attempt to stop "pro-life" from being called that, because that is not the motivation of this editor, and there is no evidence (that I have seen) that that has been the motivation of anyone else; it is just supposition. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what I mean to say is that no-one appears to be pushing for the "pro-choice" article to be at "pro-choice" - your argument that its non-neutral is very strong and no-one has counter argued it. I believe from the above discussion that the people who want to see "pro-choice" at "pro-choice" are just saying that so they can keep "pro-life" where it is. If that wasn't the case there would have been some strong arguments made against your point about pro-choice's non-neutrality. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Ok, E, thanks for clarifying that.HuskyHuskie (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I now read E's first comment in this section as a Reductio ad absurdum, in which E felt that this following set of titles would both be a reasonable extension of the original proposal and at the same time be absurd:
  • Support for legalized abortion
  • Abortion
  • Arguments against abortion
  • Pro-life (group)
The problem becomes that since this set of titles does not pass the smell test, it is not therefore a reasonable extension of the original, and E has neither refuted the original proposal nor made a proposal to improve the original proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
E, "pro-choice" is the only option if we want to maintain both parallel titles and NPOV. (Obviously I object to "choice" because it's an awful euphemism, but for Wikipedia purposes it works.) There are no other options yet proposed that do both. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are going to refute HuskyHuskies argument I don't think you can claim pro choice meets WP:NPOV. Pro-life is more acceptable than that and I'm not convinced it is neutral - but the case against it isn't as strong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies to anyone's sensibilities, I am utterly baffled by anyone maintaining that there is little or nothing wrong with wikipedia using pro-choice/pro-life. As I think I showed pretty conclusively above, top level mainstream print media (judged by prestige and sales) in the US do not use the terms explicitly because they are not neutral. This discussion has been far too much about personal opinions and hunches and prejudices. That's not our job here. Whatever we decide, we can't use these terms. It also seems to me that no one has offered a serious argument against the proposals here save for tweaks.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone proposed "Abortion: Maternal rights" and "Abortion: Fetal rights", and I proposed "pro abortion rights" and "pro fetal rights". How do those rate on that "smell test"? V (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible. This conversation needs to stop involving making things up. The choice is between the naming schemes broadly used in reliable sources. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They pass the smell test just fine, and a Google search shows the terms being used.  But, "pro fetal rights" comes across as a neologism; it would not cover the topic Pro-life (group) that being a Christian group that makes arguments against premarital sex; and also it is unclear, is this going to be an article about the right of fetuses to infant baptism and/or their right to a drug-free mother?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smells terrible. Defines the issue as a conflict between rights of two entities, which is already controversial. In addition, it defines the rights of the woman as that of a mother. This proposal also does not follow the stylistic and other policies and guidelines with regard to titles. I fully support Chaos5023's advice not to make any proposals that are not being widely used in reliable sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:12, 31 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-06-22/Abortion-rights_movement&oldid=1142595247"