Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage/Archive 1

"arguably ambiguous between the US pro-life and right-to-life movements"
What exactly is the "right-to-life" movement, and how is it distinct from the "pro-life" movement? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly taking contributors to AAT (who, I would have to dig through it to research) at their word that it's a meaningfully distinct topic. My minimal understanding is that the right-to-life movement was the early US anti-abortion movement, mostly arising soon after Roe v. Wade, that later came up with "pro-life" as a counterpoint to "pro-choice".  Possibly the "meaningful distinction" arises from the pro-life movement's attempts to justify its labeling by involving itself in euthanasia and capital punishment, but I don't really know.  My general instinct is that if enthusiasts about a topic tell me there's a meaningful distinction where I see none, I should assume they're right. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While different parts of the movement may emphasize some things more than others, the suggestion that we are discussing two actually separate movements seems pretty dubious to me, and should at least be marked as dubious if it is mentioned at all. On the other hand, clarifying whether/how a "pro-life" article should cover non-abortion topics such as euthanasia and capital punishment (which arguably have arisen as people contemplate the ramifications of their philosophy, and not just as a cynical exercise in labeling) seems to be a task of the first order.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On your first point, I certainly don't feel like I have the knowledge to argue the point. I'd like some input on the matter from people who identify as experts on the relevant history and sociology, but I'd say go ahead and edit the draft as you describe in the meantime.  On the second point, it doesn't seem difficult to me, really.  I mean, it seems difficult if, as most people in the overall process have continually assumed, we're using "pro-life movement" as a coatrack to discuss anti-abortion politics.  But if the topic is the pro-life movement, which is the drum I've been beating since forever, then it seems entirely straightforward to include whatever we have sourcing for along those lines, if we do in fact have such sourcing. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal sense is that it is a meaningful, but not fundamental, distinction. That is, they could be in either one or two articles, and which is better would mostly depend on size issues. Not sure if that's important enough to include in the RFC text though. Homunq (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've experimentally done a rewrite that removes all consideration of the right-to-life movement. What do you guys think? —chaos5023 (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

voting system
Insofar as votes on this are to be tallied, I suggest considering my essay on that: User:Homunq/WP_voting_systems.Homunq (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've written it in as a "hey, closing admins, you should analyze using this". If there's some powerful call for an actual vote, either from the community or ArbCom, that can be strengthened, but I'm not presently seeing a need to make it more than a recommended/requested advisory measure. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend you use the 20% supermajority (60/40) option. It would set a precedent that that's the default. If you think that needs to be explained better, let me know. Homunq (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Eraserhead, if you do a "let's vote" proposal, I commend this option to you. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, edited in a mention of this. Homunq (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I made a slight edit to clarify the "disregard !votes that contradict policy" section here. Let me know what you think. Homunq (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it; gets across everything I meant, but reads as more complete and even-handed. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If we aren't likely to be in a stalemate position this seems good. A supermajority does minimise fraud and is more in line with how we roll in general. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For clarity do you want me to gain a consensus for a preamble to vote on the result? I am just about to go on holiday so seeing that up is going to be hard unless I have until the 15th October to do so which should be fine. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. I'd say just set up a proposal structure here on the talk page with your best argument for it and let it run.  Could use up until the 15th though it'd seem better to resolve it faster than that. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thinking some more we cannot make a decision about voting at the same time as stage 2 so there will only be a week to make a decision. I can't do this until the 9th/10th at the earliest. If that isn't acceptable then you or someone else will have to do it. Or we will have to take silence or limited commentary as enough. Or we will have to delay the whole process. A month for the first part would probably be better all round.

Additionally if you want me to argue in favour of the supermajority thing I'm going to probably need until the 15th - if not longer to fully understand the supermajority position to make sure it is still basically certain we will achieve a result - which is the whole point of voting.

You also need to make it clear that the other preamble points are up for discussion now and will be set in stone on the 15th. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a note about how procedural items like closing procedure are up for revision during the structure phase. I'm not sure why proposing a vote is that hard, but okay. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to propose what presently seems to me to be the best idea (standard finding of consensus regarding Conclusion and, if the Conclusion has consensus, tallied vote regarding title option) and see what people say. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated it is a great proposal. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote - Voting systems were part of what caused problems with the last RfC. Just drop the voting system, and let the closers determine consensus. And incidentally, this is according to policy and common practice. The only time "voting" is involved on Wikipedia is when granting extra tools/responsibilities to an individual. As this is a content-related discussion, it clearly should follow the consensus policy. - jc37 22:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See my reply to your identical comment below. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

International connections
Let's talk about this addition to the arguments against premise 1: "The US movements exist in a global context, and are intimately connected with similar movements outside the US. Including a regional specifier in the title may distort the articles by excluding coverage of that context and those connections."

Long story short, I'm not seeing it. It seems to me that there's nothing about a "United States" prefix that prevents one from saying "United States pro-life movement members have helped found pro-life movements in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Uzbekistan", or what-have-you. How would the problem posited manifest?

It also seems problematic in that the "regional specifier in the title" presupposes things about titles that are intentionally not in evidence at the premise stage. For this to be a relevant argument for premise 1, it seems like we have to be raising the question of whether it's meaningful to identify the pro-life movement in the US as a coherent topic -- either saying it's an international movement in character, which seems false on the face of it and AFAIK nobody is arguing, or saying that some other identification (presently not in evidence) is more meaningful. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think your job here is to vet the arguments. Homunq (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. "Best collaborative analysis of the situation that the participants can arrive at" doesn't mean everybody just throws in whatever they like, whether it's credible and founded or not, it means we work to present arguments to the community that are valid. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Chaos. You can't unilaterally vet the arguments. If we have to put voting up for consensus the same has to apply to everything else. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah. That's why I'm talking about it on the talk page.  That is, I'm following WP:BRD, except giving the edit the benefit of the doubt in not reverting it.  But I'm not getting any discussion in response, just flailing that appears to carry solely the message that I can't question things other people write.  Which, well, this is Wikipedia, yes I damned well can. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have valid counterarguments. You have a right to pose them. I am not enough of an expert on the history of these movements to pursue the issue down every branch of logic. Still, I think that the argument as I posed it is worth considering, and I think that the RFC benefits from presenting both sides.
 * In other words, I would encourage others to continue the dialog in this section here, but I would oppose striking the argument from the RFC. I would not oppose refining it using evidence from the dialog here. Homunq (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it kinda needs work to be able to do anything with it. For an initial clarification, though, since it argues from the existence of a "United States" disambiguator, does that mean it's actually an argument against title options 2 and 3, not premise 1? —chaos5023 (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am also inclined to support removing this text, unless the argument can be made more sensible. There is so much potential (and not just potential but history) of confused flailing around on this issue that we need to make an extra effort to direct the conversation in productive directions.
 * Homunq, can you clarify what in the world you mean here? Over my long experience, I have never seen the U.S. abortion debate pay any significant attention to what goes on outside the U.S.  We Americans pretty much do our own thing, for better or worse.  Furthermore, how does having a U.S.-focused article detract from describing relevant global perspective?  We have, for example, a whole raft of articles on the history of slavery in various U.S. states (see History of slavery in the United States).  Perhaps you think this is a bad idea also, but to me it seems one of many examples one could cite of a place for describing local details that would be out of place in a global article, while mentioning the local impact of the global situation when it's relevant.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I can't say I'm an expert on the US abortion debate. Do what you see fit with this argument. I just feel that if you present only one side of the issue, that might actually encourage some editors to push back at what they feel is a biased process. Emotions run high on this issue and it doesn't take much to get some people's backs up. Homunq (࿓) 14:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do feel like the concerns of the ZOMG GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE crowd should be addressed in some fashion, but that basically requires making enough sense out of their concerns to present them as arguments, and that doesn't seem to be possible; there doesn't seem to be anything there but knee-jerk reaction against anything that smells like the United States. You can't even get through their heads that regional topic coverage doesn't hinder global perspective; they just go back to yelling ZOMG GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE.  And as far as I can tell, their idea of global perspective is having these two articles be paired, opposing global overviews of the two sides of abortion-related political advocacy, which is just fucking stupid.  It turns the articles into hideously inadvisable POVFORKs of Abortion debate, and if we had that the only sensible thing to do would be to merge them back to Abortion debate, i.e. AAT option 12.  And yes, this is the nature of the hole that Steven Zhang dug us down, but I kind of feel like we should be digging out of it, not pulling the top in over us. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Invented titles
It seems like, sooner or later, the specter of invented titles will be raised, so may as well get out in front of it. The best invented titles I can come up with that clearly and unambiguously identify the US pro-choice and pro-life movements as their topics are: These are, of course, ugly and verbose as hell. Both sets continue to support a reading of subtle partisan POV, since, as we have found, that situation literally cannot be avoided. Are they, or anything similar, worth including in the title options? —chaos5023 (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for legal access to abortion in the United States / Opposition to abortion in the United States
 * Support for legal access to abortion in the United States / Opposition to legal access to abortion in the United States
 * I also note that their clear and unambiguous identification of topic is potentially self-dating because these abstractions are a moving target. If, one day, this type of political advocacy in the US is centered in the Baby Murder Is Awesome Movement and the Barefoot and Pregnant is Beautiful Movement (in a dystopian future where all public relations professionals have been purged), these titles' topic identification becomes invalid, while identification using self-chosen terms does not.  (Same applies to title option 3, of course.) —chaos5023 (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If nobody's going to speak up for these puppies, never mind 'em then. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)