Talk:Anti-abortion movements/Archive 3

Edit request
Remove sentence 'Due to the conservative prime minister, Canada has put the debate of abortion on hold.' The current prime minister of canada is not a current member of the conservative party of canada. 125.238.46.1 (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, plus some info was updated with the year (2013) and the name of the conservative PM added. Thank you for your input!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 13:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Pro-life/anti-abortion name for article - can we add a FAQ to this Talk page so people don't keep asking the same question?
Maybe we should put this in the FAQ section of these two articles so people don't repeatedly re-ask these same questions, similar to the FAQ at the Talk:Abortion article? Maybe editors  and  who are familiar with the previous discussions could also include links to previous discussions/RfC's ?

Here is the best description I've seen as to why we use these names, from user:NightHeron (Thank you!) (Slightly re-ordered). This is my suggested FAQ wording, but could be improved of course.

The fact that the two sides officially call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is not a reason for Wikipedia to prefer those terms, since neither is neutral. [or accurately describes their positions]

''This was discussed at length in June 2018, when the titles of both articles were changed to neutral titles: pro-life movement --> anti-abortion movement and pro-choice movement --> abortion-rights movement. The former group of people is unambiguously opposed to abortion, so there's nothing misleading about the name. It's a neutral name, which should not offend anyone who truly believes that abortion is wrong. The term pro-life is a political spin term that does not reflect reality. For example, the Catholic Church is anti-abortion even in cases (such as ectopic pregnancy or pregnancy of a child victim of rape or pregnancy of a woman with very high blood pressure) where continuation of the pregnancy would risk the death of the woman. [And many "pro-life" people support the death penalty, and might support euthanasia.]''

''Similarly, pro-choice is political spin, because it disguises the fact that people are talking about abortion. They are not talking about your right to vote in an election. The most neutral term (according to consensus in 2018) is the abortion-rights movement, because its advocates unambiguously believe that a woman has a right to have an abortion, subject only to the usual restrictions based on trimester. It would be wrong to call it a pro-abortion movement, since typically the spokespeople for the movement strongly advocate for better availability of inexpensive contraceptives, along with sex education, in large part in order to reduce the number of abortions. Generally, abortion-rights people want to discourage women from using abortion as a routine method of birth control.''

--- Avatar317 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting an explanation on FAQ is a good idea. Thank you. Your modifications are fine, except that I'd suggest dropping the reference to euthanasia, because at least the Catholic anti-abortion people are also against euthanasia. If you want another area where anti-abortion people are often not pro-life, you could mention that they often support wars. But I think the most important example of the inconsistency is that they support continuation of the pregnancy even in cases where the medical professionals warns that no successful childbirth is possible and death of the woman is likely (e.g., an ectopic pregnancy). Here's a link to the main move debate, which occurred between 19 May and 6 June 2018: . NightHeron (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Done. Feel free to edit the wording. Guy (help!) 07:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand why the editors on wiki made this compromise, given how much this is contested and there is a wish to try to find neutral grounds... however, I argue that this is inconsistent with wiki's own practice. There are thousands of political/religious/ideological movements in existence that refer to themselves by names that are not widely accepted as reflecting what they actually stand for. However, on Wikipedia we still use the names that they refer to themselves by because this is an encyclopedia that is referencing what they are referred to in the real world. The Nazi party is the German acronym for the 'German Nationalist Socialist Party', but many people would not consider them socialist... do we insist on wiki that they cannot be called the Nazi party anymore because we reject the idea that the acronym that forms their name reflects what they really are? 'Islam' means 'submission to God', but there are tons of people who don't believe they truly submit to God... should we change this name as well to reflect the fact not all people believe that Islam is truly submission to God? The name 'Zionism' can be seen to imply that those fighting for the state of Israel are fighting on behalf of the Jewish people... something not all Jews accept. The examples that we could go through here are endless....but the point is that using the common name that a movement uses for itself does not imply that wiki endorses anything about whether the name correctly or incorrectly reflects the nature of the movement. Furthermore, the 'pro-life movement' also includes people fighting against legalized doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia, which the same organizations also protest and publish against; the pro-life organizations and their media write against these things as part of their own ideological umbrella, however, by referring to it as 'anti-abortion' for neutrality's sake and implying that their sole ideological concern is being against abortion, we seem to be forgetting about this. 'Abortion rights' also can interpreted to imply that we are saying that the advocates for legalized abortion are fighting for what is someone's right to have; a more neutral term would have been 'advocates for legalized abortion'. I, however, would vote for the pro-choice page being called 'pro-choice' movement and this page being called 'pro-life' movement, since we don't follow this practice where we have to require the names of movements to be accepted as being accurate for what they stand for by everyone for almost all other social movements. While I do understand why the editors may want to take this kind of course for neutrality, nevertheless I believe we are applying a double standard here. Reesorville (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed at length, and a consensus was reached in support of the neutral names that are now being used, see . Note that the names of both sides were changed at the same time; there was no double standard. Your analogies don't hold up -- both pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi people use the term Nazi, but the political-spin term "pro-life movement" is not generally used except by its advocates (and the same holds for the term "pro-choice movement"). NightHeron (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I think what you are saying is that you believe that 'pro-life' is only a term used by people in the pro-life movement and not by the public in general when referring to this movement and therefore we shouldn't use this term... have I understood you correctly? If that is the case, I would point out that the term 'pro-life' is used quite widely by many people in the public, including people who are against the movement. If you just type in 'pro-life' in a google news search, you can find tons of media sources that are not necessarily supporting the movement that use the term, although they may perhaps do it by writing it in 'quotes' or in italics or something like this. Many sources refer to them as 'anti-abortion' only as well, but I don't think this is an accurate term and we shouldn't use it here: because we are basically then saying that this movement is solely focused on abortion, when in fact it isn't; the same groups, organizations and protestors are also out there picketing against euthanasia, etc. as part of the same ideology that inspires them to fight against abortion. I'm sure there is a way to use the term without having to do it in a way that says that we endorse the position, just as we do with thousands of other social movements on wiki... Reesorville (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If I can just add in an example to show my point. Look at this article that is linked on wiki's front page today Belarusian democracy movement... do you think the whole world agrees that this movement is fighting for democracy? Obviously not... I'm sure that newsmedia in Belarus, Russia or China is probably calling them other names too... but there is a way to write an article on the movement while keeping the name it is using for itself without actually endorsing it. Reesorville (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Belarusian democracy movement is a loose affiliation of people pushing for democratic government in Belarus. Of course Lukashenko disputes this, but we don't care because reliable sources all describe the protests as being pro-democracy. We are entitled to ignore the views of grifters with a dog in the fight.
 * We have an article on people who are genuinely pro-life, rather than anti-abortion: it's consistent life ethic. As long as a substantial number of supposedly "pro-life" people continue to support racist policing, the death penalty (which is applied far more to Black Americans than white), and to support restrictions on healthcare that lead to some of the highest ratews of maternal and neonatal death in the developed world, we cannot, per NPOV, describe them using their preferred marketing term.
 * To use your example, for sure, the right wing media bubble will call them pro-life, just as Lukashenko and Putin describe the Belarusian protests as sedition and anarchy. But we are entitled to ignore grifters with a dog in the fight. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wiki doesn't take sides. It is an encyclopedia. We present information from a neutral perspective. If we use a term like 'pro-democracy movement' this isn't because we believe that that movement is fighting for freedom and those against them are in favour of tyranny, but rather we use the term in a way just to reference the movement because that is the word commonly used by many sources to describe it without making a judgment about whether or not they are truly fighting for freedom or not. Some editors might feel strongly that one side is in the right and the other side is just putting out propaganda, but on wiki we don't take one side over the other. Similarly, you may feel strongly that the 'pro-life movement' is not truly pro-life and as a individual I can understand why you feel strongly about this, but if we are going to say that they can't use the term just because we disagree that they are truly pro-life, then I think this is bad reasoning and a double standard... we don't do this with all the other social movements on wiki where we may privately hold an opinion where we think that their name doesn't really reflect who they are. I really so no reason why we can't respect wiki's rules regarding neutrality by just using the name and putting it in quotations or italics or using 'so-called pro-life movement' or 'this is the name that the movement describes itself with' or any other tool like this. consistent life ethic appears to be related to the 'pro-life movement' but I think it is not exactly the same thing. The former is describing an ideological/theological philosophical position that is theoretically concerned with all issues in defence of human life, whereas the latter is talking about an actual social movement that exists and is trying to affect laws with protests or demonstrations... which may not be consistently fighting for all issues to defend human life, but which nevertheless in practice is in fact fighting for more issues than abortion only. Maybe they are not so concerned with racism or war or the death penalty, etc. and therefore we don't think they are really 'pro-life'.... but really that doesn't matter... wiki often uses names commonly used for different social movements that we don't take a position on regarding whether the name is accurately reflecting what they truly are or not. We find ways to do it effectively while preserving neutrality with other articles, why can't we do it with this?Reesorville (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, this has already been discussed at length and resolved. You are not bringing in any new arguments that haven't been debated before. The current article names are clearly NPOV-compliant. They use accurate terms rather than political-spin terms. There is no need to continue with an endless debate on this. NightHeron (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * there isn't a time limit on when editors can re-open debates on things other editors have previously debated about and I think I'm free to bring up this issue on the talk page of this article to discuss again regardless of what other have said before. If you have already made up your minds and won't listen to anything else, I cannot change that obviously, but this talk page remains here for editors who are still interested in discussing. May I propose a possible solution to part of the problem I am identifying though: the 'pro-life movement' page we change it to a disambiguation page with a link to this article on the 'anti-abortion movement' but also include a brief paragraph that details that the movement that refers to itself as the pro-life movement is also engaged in political action to fight against legalized euthanasia and sometimes other things as well? Reesorville (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No time limit, but if you don't have anything new, then re-debating the issue is just a waste of everyone's time. If you have RS describing anti-euthanasia activity that's organized through the anti-abortion movement, you can suggest adding it at an appropriate place in this article. However, there's no "problem" with the naming, and there's no need for a disambiguation page. There's a redirect to Anti-abortion movement from "pro-life movement", so that anyone, including an anti-abortion reader who uses the term "pro-life", can find what they're looking for. NightHeron (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to add the anti-euthanasia activity to this article... it is just that I am wondering, wouldn't it make more sense to just turn 'pro-life movement' from a redirect into a disambiguation with a paragraph or two to explain and then just link it to this article for the anti-abortion activity, which I agree forms the major part of the pro-life movement? That way we don't end up having anti-euthanasia activity under an article that is already entitled 'anti-abortion movement'?Reesorville (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's hard to discuss a hypothetical RS documenting anti-euthanasia activity conducted by anti-abortion groups if I haven't seen this hypothetical RS, but most likely you're right that it would look out of place in this article. In that case it might fit better in one of the articles Euthanasia, Assisted suicide, Euthanasia in the United States, Assisted suicide in the United States, etc. The first two of these articles already have a section on religious opposition, if that's what you're thinking of. NightHeron (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, that's exactly my point. What I am proposing is that 'pro-life movement' could be changed to a disambiguation link that includes links to all those pages, including this one as well as a short description to explain... wouldn't that make sense? If someone types is 'pro-life movement' right now, it automatically comes to this page, when in fact the movement that calls itself by that name in actual practice in the real world covers those issues as well. Furthermore, I am sure that this would also effectively put an end to whatever debate you may have wanted to finish about keeping the name of this article as 'anti-abortion movement' rather than people arguing that it should be changed back to 'pro-life movement' since you could then point out that this page is only concerning opposition to abortion only and not the movement that refers to itself as the 'pro-life movement' generally. Reesorville (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The term "pro-life" movement is widely accepted to be the name that the anti-abortion movement calls itself. To suggest otherwise would be misleading, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Of course, the anti-abortion movement might overlap with or collaborate with other movements. Similarly, the abortion rights movement collaborates with efforts to improve prenatal counseling, efforts to improve access to contraceptives, etc. But still the "pro-choice" movement means the same as the abortion rights movement, and there is no need to act as if there's a meaningful distinction. NightHeron (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the anti-abortion movement refers to itself as the pro-life movement, but the pro-life movement is not a movement concerned exclusively with abortion. To make 'pro-life movement' into a redirect that goes to 'anti-abortion movement' without any further explanation regarding the fact that the movement that calls itself by that name is not concerned solely with abortion is exactly what is misleading here. The people who go out and picket against embryonic stem cell research or against euthanasia describe themselves and what they are doing in those actions as the 'pro-life movement'. I'm not sure how much you really know about this movement, but evidence for what I am saying is enormous, here are some examples: https://prolifecampaign.ie/euthanasia/    https://studentsforlife.org/euthanasia-and-end-of-life-issues/   https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/euthanasia-debate/122462731/protesters-in-christchurch-march-against-euthanasia-referendum     Thus if you have an article on Wikipedia about the 'pro-life movement', it should include information about the fact that movement that goes by this name covers more than just abortion. I can certainly add it into this article if you want this to be the article on the 'pro-life movement', but I think it is a bit out of place given that the title here is already 'anti-abortion movement', which is why I think a disambiguation page would make more sense. Reesorville (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not Wikipedia's job to assist the anti-abortion movement in its public relations and rebranding efforts. For example, the anti-abortion "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" (whose name is already misleading) were rebranded as "Pregnancy Resource Centers" and as "Pregnancy Help Centers". None of that changes the fact that their purpose is to do whatever they deem necessary -- such as dispensing false medical information about abortion -- to scare women into continuing with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. Similarly, by participating in other campaigns (such as opposition to euthanasia), anti-abortionists hope to make the political-spin term "pro-life" appear a little less absurd. But a movement that condoned the murder of Dr. Tiller and opposes abortion even to save the life of the pregnant woman (as in ectopic pregancy or pregnancy of a child rape victim) cannot be accurately described as "pro-life". NightHeron (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is Wikipedia's job to publish accurate information. To claim that pro-life groups are solely concerned only with abortion is not an accurate claim. It is our responsibility to report the fact that pro-life does deal with other issues than only anti-abortion. If you have evidence from reliable sources that demonstrates that pro-life groups concern themselves with other issues because they are trying 'make their political-spin term appear less absurd' as opposed to an actual ideological belief driving them then you should write that evidence alongside of whatever is written about this. But I think the point is crystal clear that wiki ought to cover this fact that the term 'pro-life' in practice is dealing with more than only abortion, even though that remains its principal focus.Reesorville (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that the activities of anti-abortionists in opposition to euthanasia should not be covered. In fact, I suggested articles such as Euthanasia and Assisted suicide where it would probably fit. The fact remains that "pro-life" is a political spin term. As is typical of the extremist rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement, it suggests that people who disagree are "anti-life". The term is also inappropriate for the anti-euthanasia people. There's a legitimate debate about euthanasia and assisted suicide, which are difficult and complex issues. Different cultures, different religious faiths, and even different states in the US have different viewpoints. But it is totally against WP:NPOV to suggest that one position on the issue is "pro-life" and the other is "anti-life". Thus, neither the anti-abortion movement nor the opposition to euthanasia should be called "pro-life" on Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are not fully understanding what I am saying. People in society use the term 'pro-life' to refer to this movement and for that reason the term can be used on Wikipedia to refer to this movement. Wikipedia should, however, use this term in the same way that we use all the other terms that different social movements give to themselves, which is simply just in order to reference them rather than to say that we agree that they are indeed truly 'pro-life'. Using the term to reference does not mean that we agree that the term is 'the truth'. To give an example, look at this article: Unequal treaty. These treaties from Chinese history are called 'unequal treaties' by historians because that is the name they are remembered by, but on wiki we don't actually make a value judgment on whether or not the treaties were equal. The editors of wiki accomplish this by having the first line of the article simply and plainly read: 'Unequal treaty is the name given by the Chinese to a series of treaties signed between the Qing dynasty and various Western powers'. I can't see any reason why we couldn't do exactly the same thing with 'pro-life movement' with a sentence at the beginning that goes something like 'pro-life is the term that various groups apply to themselves who are opposed to legalized abortion and other particular issues'. There is no problem with NPOV in that... that is exactly what we do in thousands of other articles on wiki... but we appear to have a completely standard which we are applying to this specific topic and changing it to the name 'anti-abortion' which actually does not accurately encompass the whole of the movement as it uses this name. Reesorville (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again you're making an invalid analogy. The consensus among historians, whatever their views on various matters, is that unequal treaties is an acceptable term. Similarly with your earlier analogy with the term Nazi, which is not only the term they used about themselves but also the term that anti-Nazis use. In contrast, people who support abortion rights find the term pro-life for anti-abortionists to be offensive, not only because it is inaccurate, but also because it suggests that abortion rights advocates are anti-life. Similarly, people who support physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia find the term pro-life for the opponents to be offensive for the same reason.
 * Note that Wikipedia is even-handed about this, because the term pro-choice for abortion rights advocates is also misleading. It's true that abortion rights advocates are often involved in advocating a type of freedom of choice in other matters, such as access to contraceptives. But it's still misleading to suggest that anti-abortionists are generally opposed to freedom of choice. They do not object to freedom of choice in matters that they do not find morally objectionable. If one seriously believes that destroying a zygote is murder, then one does not believe that "choice" is a relevant concept. NightHeron (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Using 'pro-life' as a term does not mean that you accept that the term is an accurate one. People that use the term 'unequal treaty' do not necessarily accept that they believe the treaties were unequal; historians don't make consensuses about the 'morality' of things in the past.... I really don't know how to convince you of this... wiki's practice everywhere except here is that we use the widely-used names for things regardless of whether or not we accept them to be accurate to what they are. When a name is controversial we always use methods like putting it in 'quotes' or italics or saying 'self-proclaimed' or something like this in order to protect NPOV... but we nevertheless use the same name. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - as another example- this name is considered offensive by many Muslims who reject the idea that ISIS was an 'Islamic state' and in the Arab world many Arabic-speaking people call it 'Daesh' as a derogatory slur and refuse to call it ISIL... nevertheless we use the name on English wiki, not because we believe ISIL is a 'true form' of Islam, but because that name is widely used to refer to the group.... there is absolutely nothing even-handed about demanding that 'pro-life' cannot be used for this movement when our normal practice on wiki is to allow the use of the names that groups assign to themselves, regardless of whether or not we agree with whether or not they are 'the truth'. 'Anti-abortion movement' and 'pro-life movement' are not actually the same thing, because the latter encompasses more than the former, but we are insisting here that anyone who types in 'pro-life movement' has to come to this page. Reesorville (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , we can, but we don't, because it violates WP:NPOV. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am quoting this directly from WP:NPOV: "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. "Reesorville (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as WP:NPOV says, neutral terms are generally preferable. As you say, there are exceptions when the non-neutral term is used by almost all RS and there is no easily recognizable neutral alternative. Your invalid analogies are all in that category: Nazi (when the German acronym implies that it has something to do with socialism), unequal treaty (implying a judgment that the treaty was unfair), Islamic State (implying a judgment that it's really Islamic), and one could add United States of America (implying a judgment that the states are really united, rather than bitterly divided between red and blue states). In the case of the so-called "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" movements, there are fortunately acceptable neutral alternatives, and to be NPOV-compliant those are used here. NightHeron (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll quote the particular line here that is of interest in the policy: "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. " The fact remains true that 'pro-life' is a social movement that is focused on abortion, but also fights against other issues as well... using the term 'anti-abortion' to stand in for pro-life, is not balanced against clarity, because it leaves people with the misunderstanding that 'pro-life' and 'anti-abortion' are identical. 'pro-life' is a social ideology, the movement has a particular ideological history to it, it is inspired by particular leaders and influences, and there is no harm to use this name in referring to this particular movement to distinguish it within its own place in history just as we do for other social movements; we just use the term in a way that doesn't condone that we agree with it. I've already tried to explain why 'anti-abortion' is not a good term for this. I'll reiterate and elaborate more: Anti-abortion means to be against abortion; it is not 100% interchangeable with 'pro-life'. I could take writers or religions from thousands of years ago who wrote that abortion was immoral because of reasons that were entirely different than a desire to protect foetal life... these people were certainly anti-abortion but to say that those people were 'pro-life' as though anti-abortion and 'pro-life' were the same thing, would be confusing a modern ideology with something entirely different. Some Buddhists for example may teach against abortion for the same reason that they teach against eating meat... but that has nothing to do with the ideological underpinnings of the people who are standing with signs outside of abortion clinics and yelling 'baby killer' at the doctor who works there. Likewise, as I keep mentioning, the people who are protesting laws that permit assisted suicide describe what they are doing by the term 'pro-life'. I'll concede to you that a neutral term is preferable to using 'pro-life' as the policy states, but as the policy states it must balanced against clarity, which 'anti-abortion' is not. I think we should use the term this movement uses for itself, just as we do for other social movements. Reesorville (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because some people in a few other campaigns (against euthanasia and against stem cell research mainly) have adopted some of the rhetoric of the anti-abortionists, that does not justify creating a separate article titled "pro-life movement". To do so would be the opposite of clarity, since the term pro-life movement is widely recognized by the public and the media to be a synonym for anti-abortion movement. NightHeron (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * anti-abortion and pro-life, can be used interchangeably by many people, but an encyclopedia is striving for accuracy, and the truth is that the two terms are not 100% interchangeable. I don't think you've answered my points. Reesorville (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Anti-abortion movement → Anti-abortion movements – Pluralization of "movement". As stated in the lede, this article is about a series of movements, not one single movement. Also, the related Abortion-rights movements uses the plural form. I think the two should match. 24.228.128.119 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support right there in the lede; well-documented. Nothing stands in the way of this move. Elizium23 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - The article covers many separate movements in many different countries. --- Avatar317 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as clearly appropriate change. NightHeron (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not a single movement. Dimadick (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


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

Edit Request France
The French section still has Jean Le Pen as leader of the Front National, when it is Marie Le Pen and Le Pen supports keeping abortion legal, but other members of the party disagree. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Section for France needs to be fixed. It currently operates on what the party was back in 2002 "10%" of the electorate when it has grown much more. Plus it uses extreme right-wing when rightwing- to far-right is more accurate. Finally as said before the Le Pen herself supports keeping abortion legal while others in the rank and file disagree. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you provide any links (to Reliable Sources WP:RS) to support these contentions of yours? If so, than the article can be changed based on what those sources say.  Until then, we say what the sources we have say. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well on the Wiki page for the National Rally it uses far-right not extreme right, in the 2017 elections they got 22 then 33% percent of the vote as opposed too `10% and Le Pen's page says she supports keeping abortion legal. Basically what I want is to remove language that seems loaded and not accurate and instead just the facts. This would be mentioning that Jean Le Pen supports banning abortion, but his daughter does not, however there is a wide variety of views within the party. Also I would I think that there should be more mentions of other political groups that are anti-abortion/pro-life in the country or at least contain factions that are. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you just ignore comments other people make? How about you re-read what I said above.  (Just in case you don't know this: other Wikipedia articles are NEVER acceptable sources.  Sources in those articles can be used, but we don't use one (possibly badly-written Wikipedia article) to source another.) --- Avatar317 (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Since apparently you want to split-hairs on something that in part has nothing to do with the page here. https://www.statista.com/statistics/887844/french-presidential-election-results/. Which shockingly is what the wiki article says. Here is one on the National rally and abortion which once again lines up with the wiki. Truly did not expect.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/06/marine-le-pen-niece-marion-clash-abortion-latest-far-right-family/. Given that I can not yet edit this page, I thought asking here would be good to start a discussion. One person made a rather biased and inaccurate addition to the page. So I brought it up. How about you cut the attitude and try to actually contribute. Also before this comes up the onus is on the person who made the edit to call the National Rally "extreme right", as opposed to just "far-right". 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What pro-life people identify as
Pro-life people identify as "pro-life," not as anti-abortion.

When someone identifies as a particular gender, Wikipedia's policy is to fully respect that. That Wikipedia does not respect pro-life peoples' desire to be called "pro-life" shows a decidedly non-neutral point of view on this issue. 2601:281:D47F:AE60:AD44:5683:CA6B:7F7F (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed many times, and was resolved at an RfC in 2018. According to consensus, both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are political spin terms, and the accurate terms are the anti-abortion and abortion rights movements. It is not analogous to gender terms, which are not political spin terms. NightHeron (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * By its euphemistic nature, the word "abortion" itself has become a political spin term. It derives from the Latin word aboriri, to miscarry. The modern usage of "abortion" has had obvious success as a euphemism; people do not react as negatively to the word "abortion" as they do to reflecting on the violent reality of the act:  actively dismembering or otherwise killing the living body of a defenseless unborn girl or boy.  The euphemistic effect puts abortion more on par with the non-violent alternative, adoption.


 * When someone who is anatomically female identifies as male, or vice versa, it is definitely a political decision whether to respect their preferred pronoun. I am consistent: I respect Caitlin Jenner's desire to be referred to as "she," and I also respect pro-life individuals' desire to be referred to as "pro-life." 2601:281:D47F:AE60:1518:AD06:E6AD:FE73 (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No, use of the word "abortion" is not misleading, whereas the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are misleading. As mentioned, this has already been decided by consensus of editors. Your discussion of your person opinion of the word "abortion" is out of place here, per WP:NOTFORUM. NightHeron (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not use the word "misleading" to describe abortion, NightHeron. I used "euphemism" and "euphemistic," and the word is definitely a successful euphemism, for reasons described above. Your discomfort with a discussion of the reality of unborn girls and boys being dismembered, and your attempt to characterize reality as opinion, is additional evidence that the euphemism – "abortion" – is more palatable than the reality. 2601:281:D47F:AE60:1518:AD06:E6AD:FE73 (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To repeat: Per WP:NOTFORUM, this is not the place to get into an argument over abortion. The terminology in the article is compliant with WP:NPOV, so this discussion can come to an end. NightHeron (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't been arguing; I have simply been describing reality. Your perception that this constitutes "arguing" says a lot. 2601:281:D47F:AE60:8D49:1DDD:A87C:FF40 (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not for sharing your views about the topic. If you don't have a specific, actionable suggestion for improving the article, then we're done here. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2021
Pro-Life Movement should not be redirected to this page. While the Pro-Life movement includes being anti-abortion, the Pro-Life movement also advocates for being against Euthanasian, assisted suicide, death penalties, firearm use, and war. The Pro-Life movement also generally include being pro conservation, pro animal welfare, and Pro universal healthcare. Because of this there should be a separate entry for Pro-life that does not link to Anti-abortion. Bmuskie (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done. Those seem to be your own personal opinions, but that's not the common definition of pro-life; see, for example, dictionary.com. In common usage, pro-life is a euphemism (that is, a political-spin term) for anti-abortion. This issue has been discussed before, and the current redirect is supported by consensus of editors. NightHeron (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2021
Since 1998, Canadians have gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa every year (with the exception of 2020) to protest abortion. There have been two rallies that have gathered over 10,000 protesters at Parliament Hill. George Matthew Wendal (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless this is covered in a major way by reliable mainstream sources (the website of the march organizers doesn't count), it doesn't belong in the article, per WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done thanks for bringing this up. There is ample coverage in multiple WP:RS about the 30 years of protests, as any sane person would imagine. Elizium23 (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed undue coverage of Canada demos
First, the sentence stating in wikivoice that the demos were for "free speech" violates NPOV, since that was political spin, similarly to the way "pro-life" and for the other side "pro-choice" are political spin. Second, the fact that some priest got an award there and made a statement is not particularly notable. NightHeron (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Get over yourself, it's reported in multiple reliable secondary sources, I can supply plenty more if you believe that nobody is covering these protests, you're in a fool's paradise. Elizium23 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First, please observe WP:NPA. Suggesting that I'm not "sane" and that I need to "get over yourself" is uncalled for. Please stop the personal insults, which are disruptive, and discuss the matter civilly. Second, I did not remove coverage of the demonstrations that were in the stable version, but only what you added today. Per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, you're supposed to seek consensus before putting it back, rather than edit-warring.


 * I already explained why the "free speech" sentence you restored violates WP:NPOV. The sentence about the priest gives undue attention to him. The issue in WP:UNDUE is not reliability of sources, but rather the extent and nature of the coverage. Of your four sources, three are Catholic media. They're certainly reliable in the sense that they're not making it up. But they're not independent. It's similar to a university publication writing a feature piece about one of their professors. The fourth source is the Ottawa Citizen, which describes the priest as "a fixture in downtown Ottawa", that is, a local curiosity. None of these sources show extensive, independent coverage. Something might be locally newsworthy at the time, but not belong in a Wikipedia article, per WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , actually there is extensive, independent coverage, I do not know what could be more independent than secular news outlets such as CBC.CA and Ottawa Citizen, who are not affiliated with (1) the government (2) the Catholic Church (3) the pro-life movement or anything else. Father Van Hee protested for "free speech" plain and simple: that is what the protesters are celebrating; his initial 1998 protest never mentioned abortion at all: it mentioned "free speech". So I think it is worthwhile pointing that out in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC
Should coverage of the Parliament Hill protests and chief protester Van Hee and appropriate citations be added to the article? Elizium23 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No per WP:UNDUE. The stable version of the article already discussed the Parliament Hill demonstrations, and that's still there and is not in dispute. The OP today expanded that to include material about the priest Van Hee. The sources given are all either Catholic publications (references [27], [30], [31]) or else a local newspaper (reference [32]) describing the priest as a local curiosity ("a fixture in downtown Ottawa"). None of it is significant independent coverage. The added material about one eccentric priest who's popular in the anti-abortion movement (the OP calls him the chief protester, whatever that means) doesn't belong in the article.
 * Other than the undue attention to the priest, there's one other sentence that the OP wants to add. It states in wikivoice that the protesters were "celebrat[ing] the right to free speech." I objected per WP:NPOV, because "free speech" is a political spin slogan (like "pro-life") of the Canadian anti-abortion movement, just as "pro-choice" is a political spin term of the abortion rights movement. The issue is abortion, not "speech", "life", or "choice". NightHeron (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , why take it upon yourself to decide what "the issue" is? Why not summarize how WP:RS describe the issues? Free speech is a very real concern for the pro-life movement: just see how bubble zones have been used to suppress speech and crisis pregnancy centers are not allowed to tell their clients certain things, and abortion clinics are allowed to hide very real facts from theirs? Elizium23 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion and the spin the protesters sometimes adopt, but it doesn't belong in wikivoice. The central issue is obviously abortion -- that's not a judgment of mine. If the main issue weren't abortion, then the Parliament Hill demonstrations wouldn't belong in the article Anti-abortion movements at all. NightHeron (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's in the WP:RS and is not an opinion or judgement of mine. Please adhere to the analysis given by RS and not pooh-poohing things as "spin" just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Elizium23 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence is undue in any case, but if other editors want to keep it, then the part about "free speech" has to be attributed. An RS might refer to an anti-abortion demonstration as a "pro-life demonstration" or might refer to an abortion-rights demonstration as a "pro-choice demonstration", but that doesn't mean that wikivoice uses the political spin terms. NightHeron (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly invoked WP:UNDUE even as I added 6 WP:RS. You have repeatedly applied your personal reasoning to analyze the issues without any recourse to WP:RS. At this point we will ask you to put your money where your mouth is: furnish reliable secondary sources that identify "free speech" as a "political spin" or mere slogan that does not bear inclusion in a neutral article. You cannot continue to assert these things without evidence that someone who is qualified to make this analysis has already done it. Your word counts for nothing on Wikipedia, you are well aware of this policy, and you should know better than to try to pull this kind of thing. Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: The sentence about "free speech" that's in question is the following: At these protests, thousands gathered to celebrate the right to free speech. Two sources are given, both Catholic and hence anti-abortion. Those sources, while RS for some purposes, obviously have an anti-abortion POV. Just because they describe the protests using a political-spin term, that doesn't mean that we should do the same in wikivoice. Participants in this RfC should be aware of both the WP:UNDUE issue and the WP:NPOV issue in the content that the OP wants to add. NightHeron (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Waaaaait a minute here. You are trying to tell us that a source is not independent unless it is pro-abortion? WTF kind of reasoning is that? That is not how we determine WP:RS. Are you going to disqualify CNN and MSNBC from reporting on Joe Biden because they are Democratic/left-wing? Furthermore, it's your assumption that the sources in question are pro-life: you have shown no evidence, again, of your assumptions, so you have no basis in fact for these accusations except your own opinion, which is inadmissible on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are trying to tell us that a source is not independent unless it is pro-abortion? No, quite the contrary. If the publication of a feminist abortion-rights organization characterized the same march as "a bunch of misogynist extremists", it would be wrong to say that in wikivoice, citing that source. Your two sources for the sentence in question are The Catholic Register (published by the Archdiocese of Toronto) and Grandin Media (published by the Archdiocese of Edmonton). The Catholic Church takes a vehement stand against all abortion, including abortion to save the life of the woman and abortion in cases of child rape. In addition, regional branches of the Catholic Church (in Toronto or Edmonton) are obliged to follow the official doctrine. Those sources are not independent of the organized anti-abortion movement. NightHeron (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Without agreeing to your suppositions, we would like to ask if you would support inclusion of the attributed sentence: At these protests, thousands gathered to celebrate what they describe as their right to free speech. Elizium23 (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The trouble with that is that the sentence by itself leaves it completely unclear to the reader what the protesters think the connection is between "free speech" and abortion. Perhaps Canadians might understand. But I'm unaware of any country besides Canada where the anti-abortion movement has linked its cause with "free speech". In the US it's actually the abortion-rights movement that has raised the issue of free speech in connection with the laws in certain Republican-controlled states that require a physician to make certain untrue or exaggerated statements to any woman who desires an abortion. There the argument is that forcing physicians to make statements that conflict with their own professional knowledge and judgment is a violation of free speech. In principle I'm not opposed to giving a balanced, NPOV-compliant treatment of both the rationale for Canadian laws restricting medical statements that anti-abortion centers can make to women and the argument of those who believe those laws unduly restrict free speech. However, that would take quite a bit of space and probably be WP:UNDUE for a general article on Anti-abortion movements. Perhaps it could go in the article Abortion in Canada. Of course, it might not be easy to reach agreement about what "balanced, NPOV-compliant" means in this case. NightHeron (talk)
 * Comment: You should re-word the RfC, because it currently looks as if you are asking whether several references should be added to the article, not the text you are discussing. --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Partially No - A small statement about the priest who is using "free speech" as the first challenge to the protest-free-zone law would be acceptable, but for the rest of the statement about a priest being honored and a quote - No - because that is all sourced to Catholic sources, and WHEN CATHOLIC SOURCES REPORT ON ABORTION, I see their reporting as similar to think-tanks; they only publish things which support their agenda/beliefs; not that they publish lies, but that they only present one side of an issue...Catholic sources would not include quotes from abortion-rights activists, so using them as sources here would be WP:UNDUE.--- Avatar317 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you only knew. In 10 minutes, I found 6 quotes in 4 Catholic sources. Elizium23 (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , what is your opinion on the reliability of PinkNews and Gay Star News for LGBT topics? Elizium23 (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) How about providing LINKS to those quotes, with a short text from the quote so I can see what you're talking about. 2) LGBT topic question - I don't know, I've never looked at those sources. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No The stable version of the article already discusses the Parliament Hill protests in a neutral point of view. The change is no improvement. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Pro Life is not the same as anti-abortion
The Pro Life movement has a much broader focus than just advocating against abortions. Redirecting Pro Life to an article titled "anti-abortion" is misleading and inaccurate.

The Pro Life movement encompasses abortion, contraception, euthanasia and other aspects regarding the inviolability and sacredness of life.

This is a political op-ed, not a factual article.

Joseph L. Moore (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You are talking about Consistent life ethic, which is a very minor viewpoint. Only 8% of Americans are against both abortion and the death penalty under all circumstances. Few people who hold American "pro-life" positions are also against euthanasia. The great majority of American pro-life people are not worked up about euthanasia or the death penalty. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That is simply your opinion. Take a look at the Lutherans for Life website, for example. (https://lutheransforlife.org/about/) Abortion gets most the press, which distorts what the pro-life movement is about. This encyclopedia is to be as objective as possible. The redirect is not objective. CTSmithre (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "which distorts what the pro-life movement is about" What it is about is murder and violence. See Anti-abortion violence:


 * "According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded, 100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Between 1977 and 1990, 77 death threats were made, with 250 made between 1991 and 1999. Dimadick (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * CTSmithre, the distortion you observe in the press is what the rest of us call WP:WEIGHT, the relative importance given to a viewpoint in the published sources. Wikipedia follows this emphasis; Wikipedia does not try and correct the thing "which distorts" the topic.
 * The view that "pro-life" includes anti-euthanasia is a minor viewpoint. We are not going to shoehorn that viewpoint into the major position because a few people disagree. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That viewpoint misrepresents the understanding of the movement itself based upon the views of its opponents. That is a clear taking of sides, which is against the basic principles of wikipedia. There is plenty of room in the database to represent the movement on its own terms. I recommend an article on the pro-life movement that covers the full range of its advocacy, including opposition to abortion, euthanasia, many forms of contraception (and in Catholic based groups, all forms of contraception) and in some groups, capital punishment. Advocacy in these groups for immigrants (of all statuses), the poor, disabled and abused. CTSmithre (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are based on WP:SECONDARY sources. So far, you have not supplied any of those. The notional article that you suggest must have two or three such articles to serve as its foundation. See WP:GNG for what is required to start an article about some topic on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, 'pro-life movement' should have a separate article from 'anti-abortion'. Conflating 'pro-life' with 'anti-abortion' is not only failing to recognize that pro-life is also used a term to refer to other movements, but it is also totally ignoring the fact that anti-abortion movements can have no relation to a belief that the fetus is a human life. China, for example, is seeking to restrict abortion access right now in order to increase birth rates (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/29/abortion-pledge-adds-to-scepticism-over-womens-rights-in-china). Nazi Germany ran an anti-abortion campaign targeted with the intention of having more children with 'Aryan blood' while encouraging abortion at the same time for ethnic minorities. Reesorville (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

To properly represent what a group believes, it is only right to use primary sources. Opponents of the pro-life movement never refer to them as pro-life, yet advocate that they themselves are referred to as pro-choice. Only using sources that are proponents of the movement to convey what they stand for does not convey a neutral point of view and 2. is not marked in reality. This is the same for many groups. The anti-abortion movement refer to themselves as pro-life and should be referred to as such. Not doing so leads to a bias by accepting what the secular refer to themselves as but ignoring the identity of minority groups.

Where is the best information of what Extinction Rebellion stand for? Their own statement.

What is the best source for what BLM stand for? again their own manifesto.

Relying on a source that says what they said is less reliable than what the group themselves believe. TheeFactChecker (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, but it's not Wikipedia policy. Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are political spin terms that do not accurately describe the groups. The terms "anti-abortion" and "pro abortion rights" do adequately describe the groups. This was decided by consensus in June 2018, at which time the titles of both articles were changed from "pro-choice" and "pro-life" to the current titles. NightHeron (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @TheeFactChecker: That's not how we do things in Wikipedia, we use Independent Sources WP:IS to characterize an organization. As an easy extreme example, if a white supremacist organization's mission was to "Maintain the clearly proven scientific superiority of the white race above all other inferior races." do you think that should be included in Wikipedia? The way they characterize themselves is their own WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPS propaganda. That's why we use Independent Sources: Please read WP:IS. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nkshepard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JesShaker9. Peer reviewers: Mnmarkland.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition of a 'Movement'
I added some text about government policies in some countries (China and Romania) to restrict abortion for demographic reasons, but this was reverted by a user on grounds that a 'movement is not government policy'.

I want to discuss here what the definition of a movement is supposed to be. According to dictionary.com a movement is: "A: a group of people with a common ideology, esp a political or religious one or  B: the organized action of such a group"

I would define a movement as possibly including both governmental and non-governmental actors in it. For example, the pro-life movement in the United States would include protestors, websites or other media, church congregations... but it would also include state governors, certain presidents, other legislators, etc. who actually used their position to create policies to restrict abortion. This is reflected in the United_States_anti-abortion_movement article, which includes mentions of attempts by pro-life politicians to enact laws and policies alongside actions of non-governmental protestors and activists. A movement doesn't stop being a movement if the movement itself has control of policy-making in a state; in order to be a movement it simply just needs to have a common ideology and a wish to change something in the current society.

In certain countries, it is difficult to impossible to separate 'governmental and non-governmental actors', since for example, the communist party of China is not actually the same thing as the Chinese government, however, the government is ultimately so intertwined with the organization that you can't really have a movement that occurs in the party to change the society that isn't also being reflected in what is happening in the government. If a 'movement' has to be completely separate from the government, then all the attempts by the party to change the society of the country in the past 70 years cannot be counted as 'movements'. But people generally do use the term 'movement' to refer to those actions. For example, the wiki page on Cultural Revolution says in the first sentence "The Cultural Revolution, formally known as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, was a sociopolitical movement in China from 1966 until Mao Zedong's death in 1976". Reesorville (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * A "movement" in this context suggests a large mobilization of people, and the Cultural Revolution was certainly a movement as well as a government policy. It makes sense to include information about government policy in the context of a movement. For example, the sections on Russia and Canada do that. However, your edits on China and Romania only described government policy, apparently enacted purely for demographic reasons. Was there any mobilization of protestors in either country who demanded anti-abortion legislation? If not, there was no anti-abortion movement. NightHeron (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The main article on "movement" is social movement. Dimadick (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would it need to have protestors in order to be defined as a movement? The cultural revolution didn't have protestors going out to voice their criticism of government policy. But it did include people going out on the streets and doing things, rather than legislation only.
 * But if you're wondering whether or not this includes more than just legislation, then the answer is yes, and I could certainly add that. The communist party in China has had people openly calling for their members to have more kids and making propaganda through various media to voice its support for the policy direction. The party is not the same thing as the government, as joining the party doesn't mean you are part of the government, nor is everyone in the government a member of the party; despite how most foreigners understand it, it is technically a legally distinct organization from the Chinese government. Thus, this policy direction is indeed being accompanied by actions of non-state actors to press for the change in the society. Reesorville (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll need RS that explicitly describe an anti-abortion movement in China. Calling for people to have more children is not the same thing. NightHeron (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I did a quick search and located a number of articles in Chinese media supporting the government policy position. Is this sufficient, or do you need more than this? Reesorville (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Dimadick and NightHeron; a movement may generate government action, but government action alone does not show the existence of a movement. A dictator's actions (doesn't Putin also want Russians to have more kids?) doesn't mean there is "movemental" support behind such policies.  I agree, you should get sources that say a "movement" exists.--- Avatar317 (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * a movement can be from bottom up, it can also be from top down. The European reformation was a religious movement of the 16th century that was initially imposed by princes, monarchs and church leaders upon the population of certain nations, which changed their religious practices in response. It didn't involve people going out and picketing in popular protest events. I argue that a movement is simply when you have a group of people that share a common belief or ideology that are working to change something in society. If it meets that definition, then it is a movement, regardless of whether that word is used or not. Reesorville (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The existence of some media articles in China supporting the new government policy on abortion does not show that a popular "movement" exists. If such a movement does exist, it should be possible to find some coverage of it in the media or in academic sources outside China. If you think the word "movement" should be used when some journalists support the government policy, that's fine, but unless you have explicit sourcing that shows that that's a mainstream use of the term, it violates WP:SYNTH to put that in the article. NightHeron (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I can find a source that uses that word in or outside China to refer to this, however, if I do, then I'll put it in. The sources I put in already included media, academia and politics; I suspect can likely find other things as well if that is not enough. It fits the definition of what a movement is, being a group of people sharing a common belief to change something in the society, but if the consensus insists that I must find something that uses that specific term 'movement' （运动）, then I'll have to keep looking. I think WP:SYNTH is referring to the creation of conclusions not in the RS, but the RS would confirm that there is a movement here, since it confirms that there are different aspects of the society together calling for this change, even if it doesn't use that exact word to describe it; I don't need to synthesize anything in order to show that, one article that mentions the different aspects together is already enough to support it. I would also like to point here that some of the things already on the page like for Lichtenstein or Israel are implying there is an anti-abortion movement in either country on the basis of a single organization or a single act by a leader, and what I showed for China is actually much more detailed than that. Are we going to leave those parts in? Reesorville (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In the case of Israel, a major organization Efrat is mentioned briefly, with a link to the article Efrat. In the case of Lichtenstein you have a good point. No movement is mentioned. A popular vote occurred, split almost evenly on the issue. Perhaps that indicates that there was an active movement opposing abortion, but nothing is said about this. There's a good case for removing the section on Lichtenstein because it contains nothing about a movement.
 * Note that we are not saying that your edit doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We're just saying that it doesn't belong in this article, because it's off topic. You might consider other articles, such as Abortion in China and Abortion law. NightHeron (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But a single organization doesn't make a movement does it? And is there RS that refers to an Israeli anti-abortion movement? With regard to Liechtenstein, the term 'movement' implies societal change, that's why it is called a 'movement' rather than a 'standing still'. People rejecting to legalize abortion in a referendum when it is already illegal is not a 'movement'. Even if there were organizations and protestors or websites voicing their opinions against it, it is still not a 'movement', because it is only attempting to uphold the status quo.
 * I think there is valid reason for there to be somewhere in wikipedia where anti-abortion efforts are general are listed, not just for China, but for all places. If this article only wants to include things that are specifically called 'movements' in RS, that is essentially excluding a whole host of other things in different times and places in history when people attempted to outlaw or restrict abortion for whatever reason. Abortion law is only going to cover the legal aspects of this; I think going into a deeper discussion about the various ideologies and issues that prompted legislation might be off topic there. There are a couple of solutions I can see for this though. Solution 1) change your consensus and allow for things not specifically referred to as 'movements' into this article, Solution 2) rename this article into 'anti-abortion', so it can include that broader mandate, Solution 3) leave this article as it is and create a new article that includes that broader context. Reesorville (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the good thing about Wikipedia's policies are that if RS's don't call this a "movement" than we can't, and that means that we shouldn't argue over what is/isn't a "movement". But your three points are something to think about.....I don't have a good answer....There is for example, a Unionization in the tech sector, which talks about attempts (both successful and not) at unionization - so both existing changes, and attempts at changes....I understand what you are saying for your additions but I don't know a good solution.--- Avatar317 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Outdated aspects of the article and title
The article and the FAQ section at the top of the Talk page both state that the sole focus of the "pro-life" movement is opposition to abortion. This is notably incorrect in 2022. It was certainly true for the period roughly spanning 1970 to 1995. However, over the last 30 years and especially over the last decade, a lot of its energy and activism has been focused on opposition to the creation or expansion of euthanasia regimes in Western nations, especially the recent rapid shifts toward increased or faster-track access for the disabled and in cases of mental illness (for example, the many recent and current law projects of the Governments of Canada and the province of Quebec).

The redirect and/or the title should be edited to reflect current reality. I suppose the simplest edit might consist of modifying the title of the page to which it redirects to "Anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia movement." At some point, however, it might be simpler to state what it's for, rather than what it's against. Greenbough (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The movement is mainly associated with anti-abortion violence, "including kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder". They are certainly not "pro-life", but what euthanasia provider have they assaulted or murdered? Dimadick (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The movement is not mainly associated with anti-abortion violence. That is one aspect of many activities that are used in the movement, and the article itself reflects this in showing many other kinds of activities done in opposition to abortion. The consensus that arrived at a conclusion we shouldn't use 'pro-life' as the title of the page seems to be entirely based on the prejudices of people who are against this movement and hate the fact they use this term for themselves. I think it is not based on consideration for preserving accuracy in an encyclopedia, because 'pro-life' is not the same as anti-abortion, as the movement is also generally in opposition to euthanasia as part of its ideology, and movements that oppose abortion are not necessarily based on the 'pro-life' ideology found among Christians in western countries. Reesorville (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Change of Page Name
I am not sure anyone is reading the above discussion, so I just going to make this new heading to get more response.

Currently the consensus for the page is to only use items that have RS that specifically use the word 'movement' in them to describe the activities since the name of the page is 'anti-abortion movements'. I think this is unnecessarily limiting and therefore I would like to open a request to change the page to simply just 'anti-abortion' or something else like this that doesn't limit us to using only RS that use the word 'movement'.

Here is my basic argument for the change:

Anti-abortion activities occur around the world with linkages to different political and religious ideologies. Some of these are often described as 'movements' and others are not. You have 'pro-life movements' in western countries that try to outlaw or restrict abortion, you have forces within states that have abortion already illegal that work to keep the laws in place, you have communist countries with attempts to restrict abortion for demographic reasons, you have Muslim clerics who preach that abortion is a sin and against Islamic law, you have similar things in some parts of the world in relation to other religious traditions or cultural practices, etc. If the purpose of this article as to give an overview of people working against legalized abortion worldwide, then I think all of this has a place in the article, whether or not it specifically uses the word 'movement'.

Furthermore, even in countries where 'pro-life movement' or 'anti-abortion' movement are commonly used terminology, if we follow the consensus that the RS has to specifically use the word 'movement', then it will mean that any particular action whether by a politician, protestor, writer, media personality, etc. can only be used in this article if the RS actually links that action with something named as a 'movement' in RS. In other words, for example, if a US politician tried to pass laws to restrict abortion, unless the RS actually said this was part of a 'movement', then it would be inappropriate to place in this article according to our current consensus, even if most people would not disagree with the claim that this was part of the 'pro-life movement'. Reesorville (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Opposed. The title anti-abortion would be unclear and inaccurate, since this article treats just one aspect of that topic, namely mass movements against abortion. The term "movement" (or "popular movement" or "social movement") is clear. As Dimadick said in the above thread, its meaning is described in the article Social movement. An RS can be used even if it doesn't use the exact word movement, provided it describes what's commonly meant by the word. An RS talking about a government decision or an opinion column agreeing with a government decision (as in the sources you wanted to add about China and Romania) are not sources about movements. NightHeron (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already given sufficient argument above to explain why the communist movements are indeed movements; if a government decision or media is not assumed to be part of a movement there, even if it meets the dictionary definition, then I think either of those things alone can't be automatically concluded to be part of a movement in a western country either.
 * 'anti-abortion' currently redirects to this article. If this article is meant to be only about one specific aspect of anti-abortion (movements), would you agree to eliminating that redirect and then changing 'anti-abortion' into an article, then? Reesorville (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone wants information on government policies on abortion in country X, the best place to find it is in the article "Abortion in X"; for example, see the articles Abortion in China and Abortion in Romania. NightHeron (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not quite following your argument. If you want information on anti-abortion as a general phenomenon, and you don't want to check every page for every country, wouldn't a general article be useful? Why do we even have this article then... rather than just deleting it and leaving the user to check each individual page for each country to know about the anti-abortion movement in that country? Reesorville (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, there's no need to check each country's page. If a reader tries Abortion by country, they'll automatically be redirected to Abortion law, where they'll find world-wide data. NightHeron (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already wrote about this above; abortion law is dealing with abortion law, it is not dealing with the specific topic of 'anti-abortion'. Things that don't deal specifically with the topic of laws would be off topic there. If I wanted an article that talked about anti-abortion in general, the only one available appears to be this one... which apparently excludes anything anti-abortion in the world that doesn't use the word 'movement' in RS, and many of those things that don't use the word 'movement' are not simply just laws. Reesorville (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what content you want to add that won't fit into any existing articles. Both of your paragraphs that I reverted a week ago were about laws and government policies, which are covered in Abortion law. NightHeron (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of those fit into abortion law, because abortion law is focused on modern law and thus would exclude Romania's information and it is focused on 'abortion law', which would exclude China's information, since what I wrote is about a policy position (which hasn't yet become law) and various voices that are supporting the call to change the existing laws, whereas 'abortion law' is focused more on dealing with laws, and not really the debates or rationale behind them. But beyond this, I already wrote above about all the things that I think should be included in a broad coverage of anti-abortion activities around the world: "You have 'pro-life movements' in western countries that try to outlaw or restrict abortion, you have forces within states that have abortion already illegal that work to keep the laws in place, you have communist countries with attempts to restrict abortion for demographic reasons, you have Muslim clerics who preach that abortion is a sin and against Islamic law, you have similar things in some parts of the world in relation to other religious traditions or cultural practices, etc." Reesorville (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, even if there were things that could be used on other pages that deal with other topics that doesn't really answer this issue about why it is we can't have a general page that summarizes all anti-abortion activities in the world. Reesorville (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * History can certainly be added to Abortion law; it's already there for some countries, such as Canada. That article also has extensive links to articles about abortion in individual countries for readers who want more details.
 * Another problem with creating an article titled Anti-abortion is that it would likely become a POV fork, which is not permitted (see WP:POVFORK). The same would apply if someone wanted to create an article called Pro abortion rights. NightHeron (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am confused... how is creating an article title 'anti-abortion' a POV fork? What does 'pro abortion rights' have anything to do with this? If this article can only deal with things specifically called 'movements' then I really can't see what the case is for why we can't have an article about anti-abortion activities in general beyond those things tied to specifically-named 'movements'. A person who wants to know about anti-abortion in wikipedia will immediately get redirected this article if they search it, but the article as it stands is missing information on all the other ways that anti-abortion activities exist around the world other than those strictly limited to named pro-life movements in countries that have already legalized abortion. Reesorville (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason why WP:POVFORK is relevant is that an article with your proposed title would likely become a repository for listing people in various countries who've opposed abortion, along with quotes from them on the subject. In that way the article will effectively represent an anti-abortion POV. NightHeron (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am still not seeing the case here. Of course it would list people and groups who've opposed abortion ... just like this article does; why is that POV? A POV fork is when you create a duplicate article on the same subject when you disagree with how the first article is done. My case, which I think is quite reasonable, is that if this article can only deal with a specific part of this topic, but the topic itself is actually much broader than that specific aspect, why not have an article on that? On the other hand, if you wanted this article to be the one that would answer someone's questions about anti-abortion in general, then it needs to be changed to reflect that. Unless you can explain why a person who wants to learn about anti-abortion activities worldwide should not be allowed to learn about the things that aren't specifically linked to things that are named 'anti-abortion movements', then I really can't see any merit in this argument. Reesorville (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion is starting to repeat itself, so let's wait and see whether or not other editors like your proposal. NightHeron (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Well for the sake of non-duplication of content, the solution I support would be to include government regulation as well as proposed regulation (and the communist policies you mention) in the "Abortion law(s)" article(s), and leave the "movements" content here. There already are articles about specific religions and abortion (to my knowledge); there is a Catholic Church and abortion article, maybe that would be the appropriate place for religious cleric's statements.  I don't support a new article named "anti-abortion"; I agree with NightHeron's comment about that proposed article title.--- Avatar317 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if the idea of having an article covering all aspects of anti-abortion doesn't have support, I still say that the issue remains that a person looking up 'anti-abortion' is going to automatically end up here, and it is only talking about things that are specifically named as 'movements'. Could we perhaps solve this by changing 'anti-abortion' from a redirect into a disambiguation that simply just includes all of those things you just mentioned?
 * I am not going to try to convince the people who work on abortion law to include this material on the communist party policies, because I don't think it really fits there either, since the page isn't really devoted to providing the ideological rationale behind each country's particular attempts to restrict abortion; if a general article can't be made on the topic, then I think only the country pages will really work with providing these kinds of details about why different societies are attempting to restrict abortion, as inconvenient as it may be for looking them individually. Reesorville (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The content you recently tried to add belongs in Natalism or elsewhere. I don't think it fits in this article. If you can find some other sources not focused on government action, you might see if they will work for this article. Once I came across an article in the South China Morning Post about how in some rural mainland area the police station had been burned down after local officials attempted to enforce the law on the number of children per woman. There was no mention in the article that this was an anti-abortion movement. The amount of information of this sort which makes its way into English is necessarily limited. Abortion as a topic is considered a national security sensitive matter, organizations explicitly against it would not be legal organizations. Because of the restrictions on legal organizations in mainland China, I am willing to apply WP:BLUE to this--if it has the structure and functions of a movement, it can be included in this article. Mentioning the word "movement" is the rule, but I don't think this will be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS if the rule is broken here in order to achieve a geographical balance. This goes for China and for any areas not currently represented in the article.


 * Would you support moving it to "Anti-abortion movements and activities by country"? Just plain "Anti-abortion" to me seems better suited for either nothing at all or maybe a disambig page? (Even if it was moved, I would not support adding government laws and pronatalist policies to this article.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the policies and voices supporting the policies would belong in Natalism, however, I would also argue that they belong to 'anti-abortion' as well. So, therefore if the government of China and voices in China call for taking away a woman's right to an abortion for the purpose of promoting population growth, a person who searches for anti-abortion material on wikipedia ought to be able to find that. I should also point out that the page already has natalist content, look under 'Russia' and the linkage of the anti-abortion movement with attempts to increase population growth. Government policy is also mentioned on this page too in brief points.
 * I am wondering if perhaps an underlying issue here is that this page was perhaps meant to try to represent those movements traditionally understood as 'pro-life movements' in countries where abortion was legalized and some people were working to outlaw it again. However, 'anti-abortion' by definition means anyone working to outlaw or restrict rights to have an abortion, not just people doing it under one particular ideology. I wish what was possible is if we had a page that includes all the different ideologies, activities and movements around the world that are trying to work towards restricting abortion in their societies, whether from a pro-life ideology, a natalist ideology, a religiously-affiliated ideology or anything else; and including not just popular movements for change, but also government-backed movements for changes, as well as the ideological/religious forces at play in states that restrict liberalizing abortion, which may not be called movements. It seems though that I can't get any consensus on this, however, and there is no wish to change it as it is.
 * I already replied above to another user, but I think if there isn't support for changing this page to 'anti-abortion' or creating another article like I just described that summarizes all the different ways people around the world try to restrict abortion for whatever ideology, then changing the 'anti-abortion' redirect into a disambig page that links with all these other pages that would seem appropriate to me, so a person researching the topic isn't sent automatically here and left thinking this page accurately summarizes the whole topic. Reesorville (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I support creating another article, but I won't be obligated to do more than 1% of the labor involved. If you decide to write one, I suggest creating it as a userspace draft, and then to ping me just before you are ready to publish it in the main articlespace. (I cannot assure you that I will respond, but if I do I am capable of copy editing.) Because anti-abortion is controversial, it is easy to get derailed with a sort of online version of Zeno's paradox. Use scholarly articles and high quality tertiary sources as much as possible. To avoid it becoming a POV fork, use a distinct and specific name such as "a-a. philosophical/ideological/political groups". Then, when the new article is ready, this article can be renamed "Anti-abortion movements by country". You may get accusations that it is original research. Some on WP interpret it so broadly as to include anything which is not a summary of a specific secondary work. The good thing is that most won't do that. Using scholarly articles and academic thesis papers can help prevent that. If people disagree, they probably won't delete it outright but instead merge it into another article. This is why building it in draft is necessary; it allows you to develop it to a critical size and quality first to reduce this risk.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will do as you suggest to make a userspace draft, but I won't try this name changing, rather I'll simply just name in 'anti-abortion by country'. When I have something I will put a message back here for anyone to comment on it and unless there is further opposition at that point, I'll then attempt to publish it in the main space.
 * I think the 'anti-abortion' redirect can then be made to go that article if it gets published. Otherwise if it doesn't get published, I'm still in favour of finding something other solution than it automatically landing on this page if the consensus is sure that we only want this page to deal with things referred to as 'movements'. Reesorville (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether "Anti-abortion" should redirect to your article or maybe be a disambig depends on how complete your article is. If your article is larger than this one and of similar quality, I expect to support your plan to make it a redirect to your article. Other than that detail, I support your plan. The name doesn't have to be absolutely settled until it is time to move it to the article space; if you ever change your mind you can just change the name as you move it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In continuance with this discussion above, I've created this article and submitted it for review: User:Reesorville/sandbox/Anti-Abortion by CountryReesorville (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your article draft reads exactly like a POV fork, with sourcing mainly to anti-abortion publications, with extensive OR, and with exaggerations in wikivoice of anti-abortion sentiment in various countries. In your response to the draft's rejection at WP:Articles for creation you claimed that you needed to create a new article because some of what you wanted to add to Anti-abortion movements was rejected here since it did not relate specifically to movements (for example, how certain politicians stand on the question).  However, there are many other articles where some of that content might be appropriate, for example, the articles about abortion in specific countries. An article "Abortion in Country X" can include information about the views of various institutions and politicians. NightHeron (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You said: 'sourcing mainly to anti-abortion publications' - this statement is verifiably false. I don't think there is any OR or that is a POV fork; every claim on the page can be found in the sources that are linked, most of which are news sites. As you mentioned the draft was rejected by the editor because he said that this material belongs in this article.... which the consensus here has already decided it couldn't because this article doesn't deal with anti-abortion in general but only with 'movements'. I already explained before why it makes more sense for convenience in an encyclopedia to put this information in a single article rather than putting it into each individual country pages. Reesorville (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't get into a debate with you about this, but will just give two examples to show that I'm correct about the weak sourcing, OR, and non-neutrality.
 * Look at your section on Vietnam, which starts out with the following unsourced paragraph: Abortion is legal in Vietnam and not usually part of public debate, as the education system, media and government are controlled by the communist party of Vietnam. However, anti-abortion groups exist in Vietnam that have engaged in activities and called on the government to restrict abortion. The first sentence suggests that the situation described in the first part of the sentence wouldn't exist if it weren't for control by the communist party. This is pure OR. Outside of the Catholic minority in the southern part of the country, most of the population is either secular or influenced by the Buddhist tradition, and there's no more reason to expect a significant anti-abortion movement there than there is in other SE Asian Buddhist countries such as Thailand. You can blame the evil commies if you want, but the reason you give for the legality of abortion and relative absence of public debate about it in Vietnam is quite a stretch.
 * Look at your section on Mexico, which starts with the following unsourced sentence: Most Mexicans are part of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church in Mexico is staunchly opposed to abortion. The sentence is a false syllogism that misleadingly implies that most Mexicans are staunchly opposed to abortion. If such an implication were valid, then how does one explain France, Italy, or Ireland? Your section on Mexico has 3 sources, all of which are anti-abortion websites/newsletters/blogs. Meanwhile, the real news out of Mexico over recent decades has been a remarkable steady shift toward liberalization on the abortion issue, starting many years ago in Distrito Federal (containing Mexico City). NightHeron (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this isn't weak sourcing or OR. For your first example, there is really nothing outlandish about a claim that a country that only has state-controlled media and control over information doesn't usually have public debates about things which are already government policy. I didn't have that claim in the sources, but it easily backed up in RS if you really doubt or want to call into question whether public media in Vietnam or any communist state frequently has public debates about whether or not government policy is correct.
 * I think you are also drawing conclusions that I haven't made, and the sentence about Mexico does not imply most Mexicans are opposed to abortion; it merely implies that most Mexicans are influenced by an institution that condemns abortion as an evil and any RS on the topic will support the same when trying to explain the sources of anti-abortion sentiment in Mexico. The exact same thing is true in other Catholic countries where there is resistance to liberalizing abortion, including Italy, Ireland or France. I don't think I understand what the issue with this is, because the entry on Mexico actually does mention the context that abortion is becoming more liberalized in recent years in Mexico and the article is meant to be about the people who are opposing that liberalization, and why would you not mention the Catholic church when trying to explain that opposition in Mexico?
 * Your earlier statement was that 'most of the sources' were from anti-abortion sites. This was completely false. There are anti-abortion sites linked, and there also pro-choice sites linked, but most of the sources are not from anti-abortion sites. Reesorville (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sections of your draft on Vietnam and on Mexico both are written in a way to suggest in wikivoice that liberal abortion laws in those countries are unpopular, and that in the case of Vietnam the communists suppress this opposition. Neither the claim about Vietnam nor the claim about Mexico is supported by sources. In Vietnam at times there has been widespread criticism of government policies on other issues in the blogosphere and elsewhere, but as far as I'm aware never very rarely on abortion (for example, there were many angry attacks on the government for supposedly not taking a strong enough stand against China on the disputed islands). NightHeron (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your reading it in a way that was not intended. If you think the wording is unclear and lends itself to that interpretation, you could rephrase it if this becomes an article, I would have no objection to it. Neither section was meant to say that abortion policies were widely unpopular in either country.
 * The existence of criticism government policies by people in social media in China, Vietnam or other places under similar governments is not really the same thing as saying that the country is engaged in an open public debate as we would normally understand that to be. The regular news media, education system, etc. will only publish what is aligned with government policy; hence if abortion is government policy in those places, while it is possible you can find social media users commenting on it, you are almost never going to see editorials in newspapers criticizing it or news broadcasts interviewing people who are upset about it. The same is true of anything else which is an official state policy. With regard to the existence of discussion of abortion in Vietnam on social media, some of the examples I cited of anti-abortion activity in Vietnam in the article I think are in fact occurring on social media. Reesorville (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've corrected my edit (never -> very rarely). NightHeron (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Support I agree with idea of renaming this article. However I think it would be better to go with Preborn-Rights movement. I say this because it would be consistent. Cookiegator (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Consistent with what, exactly? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Consistent with this article. Cookiegator (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No. Inconsistent with WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

OP - if you are proposing to change the name of the article, what you're actually doing is proposing a page move. There is a process for that, which you should follow. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Anti-abortion by country into Anti-abortion movements. I think the content in Anti-abortion by country can easily be explained in the context of Anti-abortion movements (both have similar content structures), and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Anti-abortion movements. For now the two articles are confusing in their similarity and this article provides similar content with far better sourcing and links from related articles. Having Anti-abortion by country as a separate article is just confusing. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 20:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think a merger would be OK as long as we got rid of this consensus that the article can only list things that are called 'movements' in RS. Otherwise, the same problems I already mentioned above on this page are present. Reesorville (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, the content of the Anti-abortion by country is covered in Abortion law. The information in that article should be brought into this article and the Abortion law article where relevant. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of it is in abortion law, but abortion law is only about laws, it is not about the social attitudes or ideologies behind those laws, thus there is a need for an article that covers anti-abortion in general, as opposed to just the legal aspect. I earlier argued that this article could be made into an article about anti-abortion in general, but the consensus was that it should only be about popular movements (ie. things with protestors, demonstrations, etc.), which obviously excludes a great deal of material that could be said on the topic. If we change the consensus, it would be obvious why there should be a merger, but if this article is only going to focus just on that, then other than anti-abortion by country, we don't have an article on wiki that talks about anti-abortion in general. Reesorville (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, if your argument is that there should be two articles covering this topic globally — one for law, one for ideology — wouldn't those two articles be Anti-abortion movements and Abortion law? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This article covers ideology via verifiable actions in communities via movements, protests, social ideologies, etc. and Anti-abortion by country covers laws in a loosey-goosey way and uses broad, uncited statements to argue in wikivoice about how those laws stem from popular ideology. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. The consensus for this article was that it was only supposed to cover things that we have RS calling a 'movement'. In other words, anything that is anti-abortion that hasn't been called a movement isn't supposed to belong here. I am in favour of changing that consensus and doing as you suggest to just have two articles, but if we are going to keep that consensus, it would basically mean that all sorts of anti-abortion material can't be cited here, since there isn't any RS calling it a movement. On the 'anti-abortion by country' article, a lot of that stuff about social attitudes in Africa/Islamic world/Catholic countries that have long banned abortion, natalist policies by governments boosting birthrates, religious and ideological teachings in countries that have long banned abortion to justify their bans, etc. would not be allowed in this article according to that consensus. Reesorville (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I misunderstand; and it's worth mentioning that those contentions about religion are contrived via WP:SYNTHESIS across the article and not supported by WP:RS.
 * I'm not sure which thing specifically you mean, but I think they are covered by RS. There are articles quoted on the page that mention religion in the question of why stigma exists against abortion in various countries. That is not synthesis, the texts themselves make those conclusions. For example, on the part for the Philippines it says: " Crispin Varquez, Bishop of Borongan, said in a radio interview that the decision, which was announced on the Catholic feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was 'enlightened by the Holy Spirit'" - and the text of this is found right there in the article that is linked.
 * Your misunderstanding is that you seem to think this article is a place where material related to anti-abortion ideology in general can all be placed. However, according to the consensus it is not. For example, I attempted to put China's natalist moves to limit and prohibit abortion on this page before, but it was rejected by consensus on grounds that RS didn't call this a 'movement', when it is clearly an attempt to restrict abortion in a very notable way for 20% of the world's population. There is lots of stuff on that page which doesn't have RS calling it a 'movement', thus it can't be put here, unless the consensus is changed. Reesorville (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your first example is a great case of WP:UNDUE to imply common opinion in the article; and the second example is content well-suited for and already covered in the article Abortion in China. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be put in Abortion in China, but why should a user need to go to the page of each country to find this information? Is there something wrong with having them on the same page so a user can find that information without having to go to each individual country?
 * with regard to undue, this is from wiki policy's page on undue: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" - a Bishop is a prominent adherent of Catholic viewpoints in the Philippines. Reesorville (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you oppose calling the article Abortion by country (which, in fact, is a redirect to "Abortion law" already) rather than Anti-abortion by country, then? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I oppose, because the article is about opposition to abortion, not just abortion in general. Would you oppose changing the name of this article from 'anti-abortion movements' to just 'anti-abortion' and make it into general article for the topic so the merger could occur? Reesorville (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

By framing the article topic as "anti-abortion" you are pushing fringe opinions without the full context of citations in use -- none of them exclusively cover "anti-abortion", but the topic generally. The topic "Anti-abortion movements" is notable: Clearly supported by strong cites whose primary topic matches that of the article. There is a reason we have individual articles "Abortion in COUNTRY/CONTINENT" and not two articles, e.g. "Abortion in COUNTRY/CONTINENT" and "Anti-abortion in COUNTRY/CONTINENT". The article topic "Anti-abortion by country" just doesn't pass basic GNG because the topic should be abortion generally, not anti-abortion specifically. You can summarize both viewpoints on a per-country basis based on each country's main article in such a way. Consensus via compromise. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the topic is meeting GNG. There is plenty of RS that talks about opposition to abortion in Islam, opposition to abortion in Latin America, opposition to abortion in Africa, etc. RS doesn't need to be exclusively about the topic in order for it to be used for the topic. But if you need RS that is exclusively about those things as their main topic, they do exist. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12345323/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21972672/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34557809/, https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Abortion-is-illegal-and-wrong-for-Indonesian-Muslim-leaders-as-well-32597.html, https://religioncheck.com/is-abortion-haram-in-islam/.
 * I am still not understanding why it would be better to make people look up this information on each country's page rather than having a place where they can find it on one page? Reesorville (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)