Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles/Archive 2

Co-ordinating administrators for Abortion article titles discussion
Pursuant to the remedy at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, the pending structured discussion at Requests for comment/Abortion article titles requires one or more uninvolved administrators to be appointed to co-ordinate and close the final vote of the RFC. We asked Black Kite, EyeSerene, andHJ Mitchell if they would commit to co-ordinate the vote, and they have agreed to do so. We therefore select these administrators to be the administrators appointed by the Committee, in the sense defined in the above remedy. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * May I ask what is meant by referring to these three as "neutral administrators"? It seems to me that it would be hard to be informed about this topic and not have an opinion about it.  I don't mean any offense against them personally; in fact, I know nothing about any of the three, and it may well be that they are people we can trust to be impartial despite any POV they may have.  I would just be interested to know the criteria by which they are judged as "neutral".  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote dumping
This page is quickly turning into a pointless quote-dumping free-for-all, with people adding quotes that don't even match the proposed titles. How about we restrict the quotes to only those from high-profile sources that actually match the proposed titles and we concentrate on adding arguments and cumulative statistics rather than just adding as many quotes as possible. Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Only one source doesn't match the proposed titles, I've moved it into an "other" category. -- Eraserhead1&lt;talk&gt; 21:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely pointless. I'm certainly not going to evaluate an argument on "who can find the most sources that match their preferred title", I need reasoned argument, and I'm sure the other two admins appointed here would agree. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the same as what was done at Talk:China/Archive_14. Obviously its only a first step, but it was definitely useful there. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the concept, and it is certainly useful in discarding titles that are clearly not in common use, but here I think its use is limited and open to abuse. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Black Kite. Being the one who developed the structure along with Steve, it's for arguments and policies on why a certain title should be used. From my standpoint, I'd like to see an equal balance between Wikipedia policies used and sources instead of a long assortment of sources.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's not a source dump. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know what you guys are looking for. The sources found so far make it clear that their is no obvious common name and I don't think WP:POVTITLE applies. I went with an Asian bias in my search (to make sure there was some coverage in that direction), but there was no attempt to stack the deck from me. The only thing to discuss is which titles you think is the most neutral - but the most neutral titles (the last set) don't have any significant usage at all.

The only other policy based argument is to drill down and see whether sources prefer some combination like pro-choice/anti-abortion overall -but we need to look at more sources to see whether things like that are common. -- Eraserhead1&lt;talk&gt; 22:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made an attempt at coming up with some other policy/search based arguments. -- Eraserhead1&lt;talk&gt; 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thank you. We appear to be proceeding down a more productive line now. Black Kite (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Eraserhead hits the nail squarely on the head with this comment: "the most neutral titles (the last set) don't have any significant usage at all.". To the extent that the discussion is about which terms are most widely used, it is missing the point. IMO.Wanderer57 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As ArbCom, has set out at this time inremedy 5.1 of the Abortion case and this remedy is being fulfilled with this binding, structured community discussion; we can rarely rule against what ArbCom imposes as a remedy. Because of the opinions that have been brought up about the titles, I recommend noting that in the discussion and the three administrators as mentioned above and in the preamble will weigh the discussions based on arguments and on what the community wants. I apologize as there is no other option. Regards,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  18:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is an important point, but covered by the current terms of reference of this discussion. Wikipedia policy already prohibitspromotion of any POV, strongly and in many places. If it's not clear how this affects article titles, then we appeal to WP:IARwhich is also policy. IAR needs to be used with caution of course but if policy is unclear that's a very suitable place for it.
 * The point as I understand it is that as so much of the extant literature is heavily POV one way or another, little useful information is obtained by counting ghits, or even by similar quantitative searches more biased in favour of (more) reliable sources. I think it's an excellent observation, perhaps not new but very well put. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Structural issue: no arguments against
The structure needs a place for arguments or evidence against a particular option, because material that speaks against one specific option does not necessarily speak for one other specific option (and filing that material in duplicate under each other option makes a mess). For example, WP:TITLECHANGES is an argument against the "legalization" option and not necessarily for any other. —chaos5023(talk) 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I put "less concise" as an argument with the "legalisation" option - even though its a point against. -- Eraserhead1&lt;talk&gt; 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * YES! Please change "in favor of" to something neutral, perhaps "concerning". Like Eraserhead I will add my unfavorable arguments anyway. Joja lozzo  03:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've refactored "in favour of" to "regarding". People have already taken care of making for and against subsections.—chaos5023 (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Table
I have reverted the change to a table for pro-life/pro-choice for the list of sources. I have several issues with the table, firstly it significantly reduced the number of sources, secondly its misleading. Its quite clear from my Google searches that pro-life and pro-choice are used to refer to things other than abortion. I got top results (when using -abortion) that had literally nothing to do with it at all. I got a gym as a top hit for pro-life and a recruitment firm for pro-choice. Unless someone has gone through and read all the articles using pro-life and pro-choice you don't know that they don't refer to something else.

The other possibility is that they include reader comments, which aren't reliable sources and which don't have to follow any style guidelines. With the quotes you know that they are on topic. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) if it reduces the number of sources, we can easily expand it. 2) Can you point to a specific result from my searches, with the phrase in quotes and restricted to a specific website, where this is the case? 3) Again, can you show that this is the case?--Cerebellum (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Answered at User_talk:Eraserhead1  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania! 18:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are too many problematic things about it. The point of the quotes is to attempt to figure out the organisations house style with regards to this area. Assuming people are doing the search in reasonable faith a quote should establish that reasonably well.
 * The problem with the searches is that they include results that shouldn't be counted, user comments, usage in quotes of other people (which can't be changed), usage in proper nouns (which again can't be changed) or of topics not to do with abortion (e.g. euthanasia) and the search engine might find synonyms or there might be hidden text which the browser finds and so on. It also doesn't account for organisations changing their house style.
 * All of this applies to a general Google as well, and I thought the issues would be less important, but there are too many problems with that really. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a train wreck in the making
I pity the admins or editors who will have to make a binding decision based on this RfC format. A preliminary draft via an experienced mediator would have probably avoided the tl;dnr that the main RfC is quickly becoming. The instructions in the first section, which probably nobody has read, say this is supposed to be a preliminary discussion to identify the potential titles for the 2nd, voting phase. Yet the subsequent sections present arguments for choices, which I suspect is what most commentators focused on, because in the last section the participants are already !voting by arguing pro or con the proposed titles. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we collapse (and archive) that discussion to avoid the people who have voted prematurely from losing face if they change their minds. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Even though, we thought about doing that during the planning stages. I think that now we are adding sources, arguments and discussing all at the same time during the 30 day time period. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or on this page. All the best,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania! 18:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AsCIIn28me is correct, if I recall correctly. I'm going to re-read the remedy. I hope that the rest of their comment isn't a dig at me. Steven   Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed the entire section. It shouldn't start for a month. Steven  Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Steve, I think that's a little bit harsh. So, I've archived the discussion below. I think you should remove your request on WP:CENT in that case.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  19:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully support the archiving. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, archiving works too. As for removing from CENT, well, the first month, users present evidence regarding article titles. This can be the wider community as well, so I don't think removing it is the W2G here. As for the addition of for/against, I'm not quite sure if that was how this was supposed to be done. I'm gonna poke an arb, as I did make the structure quite clear for a reason, and it was run by arbcom. I also don't think removing the evidence and arguments of others because you don't agree with them is fair. These details are being laid out so the community can make an informed decision based on all the facts. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 20:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We weren't voting (well, I wasn't). I read the preamble in full. We were discussing the proposed titles, as requested in the preamble, and the discussion was making progress and producing alternative suggestions for titles. What was wrong with that? ~ Kimelea (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the misunderstanding, Kimelea. I agree that there has been some misintepretation of what is supposed to be done with this discussion. Steven and I take full responsibility for that and we are working to make the sections more informative. I appreciate you and the others for bringing up these concerns. If you have any other concerns, please let me know. Thanks,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  21:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, but I still seem to be missing something. I have re-read the preamble as well as the comments (reasons why the discussion was removed) and it seems that this is what is expected: Now, we "gather evidence" for the use of the various terms that are already on the table (though not sure how we can gather evidence for the use of a straight description like 'Opposition to abortion', but leaving that aside); in a month, we discuss the evidence and simultaneously vote on the best terms from that list. When does the community get to discuss the terms themselves and propose alternatives?
 * Or, given the similarity of the current discussion on the project page to the one that was deleted, maybe this IS the time for proposing alternative terms, and the problem was just that we were stating opinions on appropriateness of terms rather than purely 'gathering evidence'. If so it feels like a very fine line. Were the few stated opinions really disruptive enough to justify removing the whole discussion, including the useful parts where we worked together on finding the best title names? What am I missing? ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Since Steve removed the discussion, I'll wait for his response on the removal. As you can see earlier in this discussion, I was the one who wanted to archive it here because just removing it with nowhere to go seemed a little bit harsh. In regard to the process of evidence, then discussion, during the "discussion" phase the community can deliberate about various variants to the titles. It's preferred at this time to remain to these three titles because these were the ones discussed at length during the Arbitration case on Abortion, instead of having an array of proposals.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  23:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good job guys bringing this back on track and under control. I apologize I if sounded too rough or condescending in my initial post here. Alas, some of the objections were unavoidable after the rush of editors here following the watch-list notice. I think people generally expect that there is something to !vote on when it gets advertised there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Closed discussion

 * "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both euphemisms. "Pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more specific.  Regarding "pro-life":  Everyone wants to think he is "pro-life," though some are not universally pro-life, as when a legal death penalty has been rendered.  Fetuses are "life" (as are gametes before fertilization), but the legal question is not "life" but "personhood," and opinions vary as to the proper dividing line.  On the other side, everyone wants to be "pro-choice," a fact that the "pro-choice" side has used to advantage even when advocating funding by the unwilling for medical procedures performed by the unwilling. Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the above proposal is for "abortion-rights", not "pro-abortion". What do you think about that? --Cerebellum(talk) 02:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the focus. Indeed, a problem with "pro-abortion" that I did not note above is that most "pro-abortion" advocates claim they are asserting no opinion on abortion itself (many, notably candidates, insist that they personally would like it if not many abortions occurred).  I find "abortion rights" inherently vague as it varies from advocacy that the government not restrain abortion, to advocacy that government mandate funding of abortions, which I do not view as a (natural) "rights" question. I have no solution, as a catch-term that avoids this problem might be anything but concise.  "Anti-abortion," for its part, has no such ambiguity.  Spike-from-NH(talk) 03:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pro-abortion is out of the question, so there is no point in arguing for it. –Roscelese (talk&sdot; contribs) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are both a) rallying-cries much more than they are objective and b) are hugely emotionally loaded, which I suspect is what lead to this discussion taking place at all. "Abortion-rights movement" and "Anti-abortion movement" are less loaded terms. However the term "movement" to me implies unity of purpose and unity of methods to a greater extent than I think it is right for us to presume. The titles "Support for the legalization of abortion" and "Opposition to the legalization of abortion" are far more neutral (NPOV as mentioned above).  The subject of abortion vs anti-abortion is and will remain fraught with questions of conscience, with emotion and with political maneuvering.  The titles "Support for the legalization of abortion" and "Opposition to the legalization of abortion" insert Wikipedia into the debate to a lesser degree than the other options offered.  Wanderer57 (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But do we really discuss opposition to or support for abortion rights except insofar as people who hold those views act on them in organized ways? "Movement" doesn't seem inappropriate, whichever adjective we decide to use. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Abortion rights v. Pro-life sounds like NPOV-but-recognizable phrasing to my ears. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Pro-life" is a very loaded term, and certainly wouldn't instantly be in line with NPOV. Grutness...wha?  05:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At the moment I don't have a very strong view on what set of titles to use (as has been my position throughout), but havingmismatched titles is absolutely not neutral. –Roscelese (talk &sdot;contribs) 05:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not a compromise arrangement: "Abortion rights (pro-choice) movement" and "Anti-abortion (pro-life) movement"? It would allow both sides of the POV labelling to be aired and thus cancel out, and would also allow for maximum "google recognition" titling.Grutness...wha?  05:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. A compromise arrangement I see like this: Pro-choice is what I have always heard and what has always 'rung' in my ears best. I say we use that. However, Anti-abortion strikes me as wrong, because those views cover more than abortion- they cover women's birth control rights in general, in most people's minds at least. Problem is, rejecting anti-abortion AND pro-life as grossly politically incorrect, I don't know what we'd use for that. What about Anti-choice? ADDENDUM: Yes, I like those two.Pro-choice and Anti-choice strike me as fair, accurate and encyclopedic. In addition, they are in no way judgmental, merely logical with "choice" as the root, thus you have "pro-" and "anti-". Logical and simple.-- Djathink imacowboy  05:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Addendum to comment for clarification: Let's look at the 3 picks. You have "abortion", pro- and anti-, which is loaded automatically. You have "life", as in "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" which is imbalanced and reminds too many people of "abortion". Now, we want to be balanced and encyclopedic. You then have "choice" which is a clear, accurate and impartial reflection of the issue. So I repeat, the only logical and non-judgmental course is to use Pro-choice and Anti-choice, and that is doubly good to the purpose since "pro-" and "anti-" are nothing but descriptive; they're not loaded no matter what.-- Djathink imacowboy  05:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Pro' and 'anti' may be neutral terms but 'choice' is not. Choice is a good thing with connotations of rights and freedom. "Anti-choice" implies that restricting someone's rights and choices is the main purpose of the anti-abortion movement, which they would strongly object to: for them, the issue at hand is not choice at all, it is life. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The community already favors "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" 1,729 to 485. No single phrase is going to be prefect but this is probably the least objectionable, it is the common name and it the one favored by the community.  For similar reasoning, "pro-choice" is probably for the best on the reciprocal articles. - Haymaker (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that was the actual article title for a long time I don't think its a particularly meaningful result. People who don't have a preference will tend to use the article title. Wikipedia has a much higher use of People's Republic of China (rather than China) than the outside world because that was what we called our article until recently. -- Eraserhead1&lt;talk&gt; 08:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, posted something here first that belonged in preceding section; now moved up there.) -Jerzy•t06:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Originally I was going to side with the "support and opposition", as they fit the NPOV the best out of the three original options, though after Haymaker's suggestion for "pro and anti-choice", I think that would truly fit better than any of the three options listed. Can it be added as a fourth option? Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice would more clearly reach the NPOV and define the rules of engagement for any editors to those articles.


 * After all, the "Pro-Choice" movement isn't for abortions, they are for the right to choose the option of an abortion if you want or need one. The "Pro-Life" movement doesn't want to 'end abortion' per say, they want people to choose life over abortion. On sktool, it looks like anti-choice gets 6,600 global searches a month. Not quiet as traffic gaining as anti-choice or pro-life, though definitely more accurate and more neutral. Which is what we're striving for, isn't it? =)


 * If we can't add this fourth option, I would side with support for the legalization of abortion and opposition to the legalization of abortion. --Bema Self (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a historical analysis of the derivation of the terms may help? Why and was the term 'abortion' chosen to describe the killing process? http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=abortion&searchmode=none http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=abortive&allowed_in_frame=0 Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not an area in which I have edited. I think 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' are preferable because that means each is described positively by the principle they consider to be the more important, and because they are the simpler names proposed. The one thing which gives me slight pause is that they are only subjectively specific to the abortion debate, but I don't consider that to be substantial enough an objection because few people do use the term to refer to other issues and that's what hatnotes are for. As a historically minded chap I note that in Britain in the 19th century it was common to refer to 'Reform' without needing further explanation that what was meant was reform of the Parliamentary franchise. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support/Opposition to the legalization of abortion implies it is in the process of becoming legal. This is false, as abortion has been fully legal for over 30 years in my country. Yoenit (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't rely on consensus here, since both pro-life/pro-choice and anti-abortion/abortion-rights are offensive to significant portions of the community. We can't rely on policy, because one option is more common and the other is more neutral.  I feel like this is a lose/lose situation where the compromise (oppostion/support) is the only viable option.  I don't like supporting something based on its mediocrity, but the very blandness of this option makes it unobjectionable and I don't we can agree on anything else.--Cerebellum (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. I specifically believe that in this case the specific rule against "compromise titles made up to quell contention" should be ignored, suspended, amended, or otherwise evaded. In this particular case, any decision that gives a "win" to anyone is deeply undesirable for precisely that reason, and mediocrity should indeed rule! GeorgeTSLC (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Journalistic media commonly use language that is terse but unnatural, such as "axe" rather than "dismiss". This is especially common in headlines. I don't like this style, which is often ambiguous, and even cryptic at times! "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" both have numerous possible meanings and lack precision. On the other hand, the proposed titles using the term "legalisation" make it sound as though legislation is the heart of the issue for the people in these movements, which it isn't. Legislation is only one part of the mechanics by which either side seeks to achieve their goals. I would therefore favour the "Anti-abortion movement" and "Abortion rights movement" titles.Fuzzypeg★ 11:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm not convinced that "abortion-rights movement" with the hyphen is grammatical. Removing the hyphen would look better to me (compare "women's-rights movement" and "women's rights movement"). Fuzzypeg★ 12:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not neutral. "Pro-life" suggests that the opposition is anti-life, while "pro-choice" suggests that the opposition is anti-choice.&mdash; this is simply false: "pro-choice" does not suggest that the opposition is anti-choice. It accurately states that the other side is anti-choice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Anti-choice" does not accurately capture the ethos of the movement, just as "anti-life" does not accurately capture the ethos of the pro-choice movement. Pro-lifers value life above the freedom to choice; this does not mean that they are against choice.  Pro-choicers value the freedom to choose above life; this does not mean that they are against life. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly presenting the idiocy this debate has to put up with. Simply logically wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way? --Cerebellum (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ad homimen attacks aren't going to convince anyone of your logical case. Cerebellum is right - for the anti-abortion side of the argument, the issue is about life, not choice. 'Anti-choice' is a loaded term, that's why it's not on the table for consideration, so there's not a great deal of point debating it further. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * These terms have always irritated me. Frankly, everybody is "pro" life and "pro" choice and nobody is "pro" abortion or "anti" choice. The reasons are irrelevant. It all boils down to legality - are you in favor of legalized abortion or against it? Of the choices given above, only Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to the legalization of abortion are close to appropriate; however, they seem to indicate that abortion is yet to be legalized (which is not always the case). Therefore, it would be better to shorten them to Support for legal abortion and Opposition to legal abortion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That has got to be the most sensible suggestion for titling the articles. It accurately describes what each side is trying to achieve without promoting or denigrating either one. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree: Yes - that's it. This is concise, perfectly balanced and neutral, doesn't put undue weight on 'legalization', and puts the focus fairly on abortion itself rather than the associated political movements. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See response to Light-jet pilot below for why the rational opposite number to "support for legal abortion" is "opposition to abortion".—chaos5023 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion:to avoid the problem of "overly precise" titles, change "legalization" to "legailty" in both. --Stfg (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also, these titles are short, NPOV and make sense to people all over the world ("pro-life" and "pro-choice" certainly don't). –Danmichaelo (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * *"Legality" is certainly a logical improvement over "legalization", but it puts the focus on legal rather than moral issues, and the articles cover both. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Pro choice and pro lifes are euphemisms. They do not address what they seek to support or oppose. "Pro abortion" and "anti abortion" use the name of the thing they are fighting for/against. It is time to stop using cop-out euphemisms and start naming the thing that is being supported, if one chooses to support it. This illogical and biased distortion in language needs to be addressed. "abortion rights" and "pro life" are inconsistent with each other, and again, they are a euphemistic cop-out. One is pro abortion or against it. It seems like "pro-choicers" believe that "pro-abortion" sounds too harsh because they dont like the connotation of the thing they are supporting and as such must come up with these euphemisms, or throw a "rights" in there. Call a spade a spade. "pro abortion" and "anti abortion" are simple, precise and consistent. Saruman-the-white (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know anyone who is "pro abortion"? Abortion is sometimes necessary or desired, but I can't think of anyone who would actually advocate it. I'm definitely "pro choice", but I'd never say I'm "pro abortion" because it makes it sound as if I like abortion in the same was as I like candy bars. The articles are about whether or not abortions are legal, not about whether or not they are right. That's why I think Support for legal abortion and Opposition to legal abortion make sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that while the straight Google results are higher for the anti-/pro-abortion, a good chunk of the relevant links provided in evidence relate to one issue, the controversy surrounding Apple's Siri. As such, and especially in light of compromise alternatives like "anti-choice" which verge on neologism-land, it makes sense to me to stay with the classic pro-choice/pro-life, thoughScjessey makes an interesting argument. Are those terms are in global usage? Aslbsl (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone has said, 'The community already favours "pro-life" ' as opposed to 'anti-abortion'. Firstly, as a terminology, I didn't say 'anti-abortion', I said  'anti-choice' . The editor who commented that said acceptable known terms are 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'. I think I made it eminently clear why those terms as automatic usages should be avoided by Wikipedia. For one thing, many people are offended by the term 'pro-life', which automatically implies pro-choice groups as 'pro-death'. How else can you conceive it? And a note: Haymaker did not suggest pro-choice and anti-choice: I did. Another editor has said we must stick to terms that define for or against legalisation. In America abortion is the law of the land Roe v. Wade. So that suggestion is nothing but divisive. Someone says 'anti-choice' is a neologism. False. It is a concrete, accurate position and 'anti-choice' describes it perfectly and without offense. What does it matter if 'anti-choice' is not so common? It isn't common because the two groups seek to offend and attack each other. Let's not feed that fire here.I say we use 'pro-choice' and 'anti-choice' as main terms. My post is not too high up there- I recommend it be re-read and reconsidered.-- Djathink imacowboy  16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Anti-choice" reeks of partisanship and should not be used.


 * The political left almost always uses "pro-choice/anti-choice" while the political right uses "pro-abortion/pro-life". To use either of these would be taking sides on the issue. Also, using "Anti" anything is negative one way or the other. I believe Support for legal abortion and Opposition to legal abortion are the least biased and clearly state what needs to be said.Light-jet pilot (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The opposite number of "support for legal abortion" that makes any sense is "opposition to abortion". Nobody (by which I mean a statistically and politically insignificant number of people) is opposed strictly to legal abortion; a stance of opposition to abortion's legality is always found as one aspect of a stance of opposition to abortion of any kind.  In fact, "opposition to legal abortion" could be seen as POV in that it echoes a common propaganda claim of the American left, that opponents of legal abortion want to go back to the days of high-lethality back-alley abortions. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I suppose grammatically the definition we are trying to get at is "support for abortion being legal" vs "opposition to abortion being legal", but that's way too clunky. If you are making the argument that "opposition to legal abortion" can be read as "oppositiononly to abortion that is legal" (implying that there is not necessarily an opposition to illegal abortion) you also have to read "support for legal abortion" as "support for abortion itself as something desirable so long as it is legal", which is obviously not what is meant. ~ Kimelea (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Anti-choice" is a non-starter in every conceivable way. Its opposite-number propaganda title is "Pro-baby-killing".  Come on.—chaos5023 (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've always liked this idea myself... count me in for naming the articles Advocacy of the murder of babies vs. Advocacy of the enslavement of women. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very much agreed "anti-choice" is a non-starter. No one should be labeled an "anti-" anything against their will. -Haymaker (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's already an article called Abortion debate. Why bother with separate articles about each of the two sides of the debate?--Victor Yus (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the objective of Wikipedia isn't to efficiently taxonomize political issues, it's to provide coverage of distinct topics of encyclopedia interest. Besides being linked by their opposition, abortion-rights and anti-abortion movements are distinct political movements that each receive extensive coverage as such in reliable sources, so our natural tendency is to draw the abstractions at the same level our sources do. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood, but I'd ponder if there can really be said to be one worldwide "anti-abortion" movement and one worldwide "abortion-rights" movement (or whatever you want to call them). Everywhere you go there are people declaring opposition to abortion, but are they really linked in one "movement"? And are their opponents all linked in one "movement" too? Is everybody in the world who hates cats part of an "anti-cat movement"? (Maybe that wasn't a good example.)--Victor Yus (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pro-life when limited to the abortion context is contrary to the stance of (arguably) one of the most vocal and well-funded voices of the "Pro-Life" message, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Their site herestates their take on "pro-life":

The committee assists the bishops, both collectively and individually, in teaching respect for all human life from conception to natural death and in organizing for its protection, especially on behalf of those who are unborn, disabled, elderly, dying, or facing the death penalty.

This mandate includes the following areas of responsibility: Education, promotion of pastoral care programs, and public policy advocacy focused on issues involving the defense of human life at its beginning (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, cloning) and at its end (euthanasia, assisted suicide, including collaboration on opposition to the use of the death penalty).

Opposition to abortion is just part of the concept of pro-life in the USCCB's view. Use of "Pro-Life" solely in the context of abortion is a twist of one commonly understood use of that wording. Note: "Pro-Life" + "Death Penalty" yields 11 MM results, "Pro-Life" + "Contraception" yields 34 MM results, "Pro-Life" + "Capital Punishment" yields 2 MM results, "Pro-Life" + "Stem Cell" yields 6 MM results, "Pro-Life" + "Euthanasia" yields 2 MM results, "Pro-Life" + "suicide" yields 50 MM results, clearly there's more to pro-life than abortion.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pro-life/Pro-choice, basically per Sam Blacketer's argument. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove "support for the legalization of abortion/Opposition to the legalization of abortion"?
Can we remove these options in favor of "Support for legal abortion/Opposition to abortion"? The new options seem more succinct.--Cerebellum (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems kinda silly, since it's the status quo (the titles at present). Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 19:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Parallelism
When we choose the titles do we have to go for parallelism or can we pick which title we prefer for each? For example some sources (e.g.South China Morning Post) use anti-abortion and pro-choice. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt;20:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. We hadn't thought about interchangable titles. At this time, I'm thinking that you can put the source under both headings naming which title was used in the context. Best,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania! 21:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Objection!
You know, this was a rotten tactic which I just discovered and I don't care who cites what WP procedure. Comments were hijacked from the page and just hidden here. I resent that treatment.-- Djathink imacowboy  21:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you actually want us to achieve a consensus that sticks then you need to give a suitable amount of time for evidence to be gatheredbefore people raise opinions on which name they prefer - if only to make sure that people come back after the evidence is gathered and make a decision then - and to avoid any loss of face from people changing their minds. -- Eraserhead1&lt;talk&gt; 21:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments: here.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  21:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the preamble made it relatively clear that discussion would commence after one month of adding information to help the community decide. It's also in the arbitration remedy. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 23:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Adding information to help the community decide" - that's what I thought we were doing. Working through possible options so the ones we agreed were best supported could be voted on later. Please see my question above, which Whenaxis left open for you. I am new and have no idea what an arbitration remedy is, I just responded to a prompt on my watchlist requesting community discussion (that's what it says) and, like probably everyone else whose comments were removed, I came, I saw, I discussed. I still don't understand how we caused such a problem that it couldn't have been fixed with a little communication to redirect our flow. ~ Kimelea (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Kimelea! I hope this is a place you'd like to stay. I know that as a new editor to Wikipedia, you're not quite sure how everything works. I'll try to explain briefly what the Arbitration Committee does. As like anywhere, Wikipedia has disputes and we have a complete dispute resolution process that editors can go through to resolve their disputes. For particularly intractible disputes where all other dispute resolution processes have been used, the Arbitration Committee is the final and last resort that impose binding solutions. These binding solutions are what is called a "remedy". Please note, that even though there is watchlist notice for this, you don't have to feel obligated to participate in this discussion, a watchlist notice is there to improve coverage of discussions of community-wide importance (see also WP:CENT). For more information on how the Arbitration Committee works clickhere. All the best,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  02:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Kimelea. Had a bit of a shocker of a day, and about the space of 15 minutes in a ten hour day to deal with 50 things, so some of my replies today have been a bit rushed. Having been on Wikipedia for over four years, you tend to forget at times that not everyone knows what arbitration is. The purpose of this discussion I should made clearer, but the first stage people add details for/against certain proposed titles and how they fit within Wikipedia policy. This talk page can be used for general discussion, as always. After a month, essentially, we vote on the titles, and then the administrators will close the discussion and implement the consensus of the community - what the general agreement within the people commenting is. I hope that clears things up a bit, and sorry if I was a bit abrupt earlier. Steven   Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 06:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this whole drama some kind of sick joke? We get this announcement at the top of our watchlists (I presume every single editor got the same thing) inviting us to come and join in this discussion, then when we come and do that, we get insulted, our topical comments get moved away and collapsed out of sight, and still clearly no-one knows what's going on. Looks to me like the whole question is a totally artificial one (like I was saying before I was censored, it's doubtful whether these two articles should even exist at all), which only has the purpose of giving people an excuse to carry on the abortion debate on Wikipedia in addition to every frigging place else. That's all I have to say on this matter - have fun guys.--Victor Yus (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At least they are correcting their mistakes when they occur. The way you are actually going to stop people discussing this it to appeal to reason and make strong reasoned arguments - you can't do that overnight. -- Eraserhead1&lt;talk&gt; 09:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly can't do it if people like you keep censoring my comments. Just what's going on here? Who gives themselves the right to remove arguments that they find "unhelpful"? Do you want people participating in this process or not? --Victor Yus (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

...or ever, round here, Eraser. Am glad to see Victor's post. And if I may slightly rephrase his sentiments with my own words: have fun 'correcting mistakes' through 'appeal to reason and strong arguments'. By the way: where is the reply that we all deserve about the moving/hiding of our comments ... and may I add, where's the apology for the way we've been insulted here?-- Djathink imacowboy  10:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Whenaxis, I saw and appreciate your apology and explanation. You people do not make things very clear or easy to follow.-- Djathink imacowboy  10:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Djathinkimacowboy and Victor Yus, we were not censoring your comments. We are merely archiving the discussion for now because it commenced ahead of time. We take full responsibility for making it unclear to start with. The archived discussion will be transferred back to the main page and reopened on 23 March. This process still needs some ironing out, like anything else. We just ask you to bear with us. Once again, apologies for the misunderstanding.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania! 15:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Are other options possible?
This is interesting, I didn't see an exact title that I'd gladly support. Each example has some quality of non-neutral bias. Are there other possible titles, and must it be well referenced, as already in wide use? Or simply well understood. I don't see why we shouldn't determine our own title! My76Strat (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of the choices, Support for the legalization of abortion / Opposition to the legalization of abortion is best at addressing all relevant concerns. I would suggest less verbiage opting in favor of: Support(s) legalized abortion / Oppose(s) legalized abortion. -My76Strat (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course legalized does imply an action to make legal excluding areas where it has never been illegal. A thing that has never been illegal, is legal by that facts virtue. So I think: Support(s) legal abortion / Oppose(s) legal abortion, might be better. My76Strat(talk) 05:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or 'Support for the legality of abortion' / 'Opposition to the legality of abortion'? (Or 'Support for abortion legality' / 'Oppose abortion legality' for conciseness.) I'm not sure, however, do we need to discuss here or at the project page under discussion?JHS nl  (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd particularly like to suggest that, although IMO we should have articles at the current titles Support for the legalization of abortionand Opposition to the legalization of abortion, this does not mean that we can't also have an article on some of the others as well. For example, one on Pro-life movement specific to those who identify themselves as this and including other issues that these organisations and individuals also promote, in this case for example their opposition to euthanasia.

This option, that we might have more than just these two articles, seems not to be on the agenda at present. I think it should be considered. As my examples I hope demonstrate, some of the other titles have a significantly different scope and could become good articles in their own right. Andrewa (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you have made a valid point worth considering. - My76Strat (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm presently feeling like the right way out of this mess may be to use the Pro-life/Pro-choice movement titles for these articles, with the understanding that these articles are about the United States movements that use those names.  Part of how we got here, I think, was the unexamined thinking that, oh, since pro-life means opposed to abortion, the article Pro-life is the umbrella article for political opposition to abortion and needs to encompass anything that meets that description.  Which, no, it just doesn't.  Correspondingly forPro-choice.  Since these articles' content is still dominated by material about the US movements, and they're the articles that have historically been titled Pro-life and Pro-choice, bring them back to their roots and factor material unrelated to the movements that are their topics into articles oriented toward global perspective on abortion.  Which can have Zhangesque made-up names without it being an issue because there isn't nearly as much of a WP:COMMONNAME for the topics on a global scale.  (Or, y'know, just put it inAbortion debate.) —chaos5023 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi All - Note
Hi all, thought I'd just leave a note here that I'm still around and watching the discussion, though not really doing much. Poke me on my talk page if anything is needed. Steven  Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 23:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

New clarification request before ArbCom
FYI, I've asked ArbCom for some more clarification regarding the Abortion debate and Abortion debate in RegionName refactoring option, since there are weighty issues about it that are presently unknowns but which we should be able to get some clarity on without having to close the RFC first. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Voting?
The announcement on my watch page says this is open for voting. I've been gone for a few months. Do we vote around here now? David in DC (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably best considered a WP:NOTVOTE that is halfheartedly using some conventions of voting for clarity's sake. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I can't speak for the other two admins involved, but when the dust settles I certainly won't be treating the discussion as a counting exercise. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I was afraid I'd wandered into the wikipedia version of the Star Trek Mirror Universe. David in DC (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Bias in the choices
I would argue that the choices in this discussion are biased towards a good view of the currently titled "support for the legalization of abortion" movement over the "opposition to the legalization of abortion" movement. Many of the choices for the "opposition to the legalization of abortion" movement use terms such as anti, and ban, while none of the choices for "support for the legalization of abortion" use those terms. One option goes as far as painting "opposers" as being intolerant. Only one choice for the "supporters" uses the term opposition in the form "opposition to the abortion ban"; however, in that example opposition to a ban is usually found to be a good thing. I certainly wouldn't agree that saying "Opposition to the preservation of unborn children" should be a title for the "support for legalization" side, but I am surprised by the fact that it is acceptable to use the terms anti- and opposition in almost every choice for one side and not a single one for the other. Ryan Vesey Review me!  17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Essay on this RFC
I have written an essay about this RFC at User:Chaos5023/Why your entire way of thinking about the Abortion Article Titles RFC is wrong. I hope it will help clarify matters. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Jezebel inviting readers to weigh in on this RfC
[http://jezebel.com/5904296/wikipedia-invites-users-to-debate-whether-pro+life-is-really-a-thing? this] Jezebel article popped up on my Twitter feed not long ago. I think it's safe to say that Jezebel is not neutral when it comes to abortion (articles on abortion are generally from a "pro-choice" point of view, and often ridicule many anti-abortion laws passed in America). The article itself seems to put a somewhat political/feminist slant on the issue. It also invites readers to weigh in. I don't know how likely it is that their readers will want to read through the entire RfC and vote, but if there is any influx of voting it should be taken into account. Just thought it was worth a mention. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 17:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thanks. I tossed a Not a ballot on top of the page to try to get out in front of whatever issues might arise a little bit. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

summary?
My *understanding--

No consensus has been reached because….

First the discussion went off topic into an argument about what the issues should be called. With the article “Essay on the RFC” we are back on topic.

We are looking for a better title for an article (or perhaps two articles) that will explain the Pro-Life Movement and the Pro-Choice Movement. These two movements are the two main sides of the Abortion Debate.

One problem is that that these phrases, “Pro-choice” and “Pro-Life” are not from a neutral point of view.

One advantage to continue to use these titles is that most people are familiar with what they are refereeing to in this context.

Another problem is that both they and the title on article on the Abortion Debate are from a US American centric point of view.

Another problem is that once we use the phrase “Pro-choice” or it seems to me even more so on the side “Pro-Life” we have left the scope of the article on the Abortion Debate because for example, in the Pro-Life Movement, the issue about the end of life and the taking of the lives of adults not related to pregnancy, i.e. the death penalty, become involved.

One thing that can guide us are the Wikipedia guidelines that urge us to find a noun rather than a phrase to describe these two movements and even to get away from describing these two sides as “movements.”

Is this summary of where this disscusion now stands accurate?

One reason I decided to comment is that I am very troubled that apparently using some version of reproductive rights does not seem to be considered and I do think at least on the “Pro-Choice” this is part of the answer. Because that is what the argument is more about on the Pro-choice side. Even in the political arena, as recent laws have to do with things like contraception or whether or not a pregnant women can be forced by a state to carry a still born pregnancy until it “naturally” deliveries we begin to see how the Pro-Choice Movement is much more about supporting the legal rights of fertile womb owners and on the other side opposing that or maybe to say supporting fetal and zygote rights. I’m not suggesting using these phrases but I am trying to brain storm about how to better describe the over arching ideas.

I would like to see Reproductive Rights Support and Opposition used as I think they are more neutral and perhaps more global as well as more accurate.


 * I’m very new. If you look up this ID it was created today but I think I’ve had ID’s before?  But they were many years ago.  I think I commented on pages having to do with baby books and maybe something with the solar system.  Not trying to hide anything but have no idea what I used before.  Although I am new or extremely inexperienced at commenting/editing, I’ve used Wikipedia extensively for years and even in depth i.e. looked at and considered talk pages and histories.  I often have a hard time following what is being discussed or how I might contribute so I’ve been reluctant to.

Also full disclosure. I was directed here from the Jezebel article and my personal beliefs are not the slightest bit neutral—I am radically pro-choice. However, I deeply value wikipedia’s attempt to stay neutral and yet factual i.e. not every argument has two equally opposing sides. And I wish to do whatever I can to help. Also I'm assuming I'm not too late becuase I see a number of comments added April 13th and April 20th not related to the Jezebel article. Dianneprince (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * my choice is part of #1 Pro-Choice -- then number 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceitdevitto (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)