Talk:United States anti-abortion movement/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Interesting.

I find it interesting that the Pro-Choice talk page is filled to the brim with discussion, yet this page is not. Are people removing sections from this page? If so, why?Bill Heller (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There was this edit recently. William Avery (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, please note at the top of this page, a header box, with a section called "Archives" with 4 pages of archived discussion. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename, move back to pro-life

I believe the article was boldly moved from the longstanding pro-life out of process. We now have a situation were the two movements, pro-life and pro-choice, don't have naming parity, and it's been like that for too long. I'd like to restore this article to simply pro-life as it is shorter, less verbose, simpler, more common search phrase, and has a long history precedent. But before I made the bold move, I wanted to seek input. If no one agrees with me, that's fine. I'm not too attached, but I'd request instead that pro-choice be moved to pro-choice movement for parity. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Either moving this to pro-life or moving pro-choice to pro-choice movement is fine.Boromir123 (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead reads The pro-life movement is... The article is about a specific, manipulative, political name for a movement acting exclusively in the abortion debate. It's not about people who are in favour of life, in all circumstances, with no reservations. Many would be supporters of various war activities, and/or capital punishment. It's a very narrowly based movement. It makes sense to say so. The same applies, with less intensity, to the Pro-choice article. It's name is a somewhat more accurate description of its political position, but still manipulative and political. HiLo48 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on your understanding of Wikipedia naming conventions, you feel something else is better suited for pro-life? -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think descriptions of all those who oppose abortion should be grouped together under an Anti-abortion title. An article called Pro-life anything is an advertisment for a movement with a name designed for manipulative marketing purposes rather than truth. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia:NC#Non-neutral but common names not apply to this situation? And would we be excluded from discussing opposition to euthanasia if we had an article at "anti-abortion"? Looking at WP:NC, I am personally convinced that pro-life is most in line with our naming conventions. I'd be glad to explain my logic further, if necessary, but I'm curious how you are reaching your conclusions based on our guidelines. Wikipedia isn't about The Truth, so we have no responsibility to be proscriptive in our article naming. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Pro-life" makes sense to me, I think it is the generally accepted name in the abortion debate. - Schrandit (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph in the lead

Should there be a whole second paragraph in the lead devoted to violence and abortion? Seems rather undue. - Schrandit (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

While perhaps not representative of the pro-life movement by any means, especially from a statistical standpoint (the % of crimially violent pro-lifers is probably remarkably low), and thus I can see that as an argument from weight, I also realize that the media gives the violent acts (or terrorism) committed by a few extremists a lot of coverage. So it may not be undue weight in terms of media coverage (even if that weight is inappropriate/wrong or disproportionate). Because of that, I feel that we should mention something in the lead, though probably not a lot. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response under "Lead Section." Wide media coverage of the relatively few violent Muslims does not warrant a "Lead" mention of terrorism in the Islam article, nor should such be true here. Chadbald (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We should definately cover the topic and I think we do a decent job of showing all sides and putting the incidents in context later on in the article. Per the vibe I'm getting here I'm going to trim that second paragraph down to a sentence in the first paragraph but I don't know if we should cover violence at all in the lede. - Schrandit (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Schrandit and Chadbald. The violent actions of a few extremists particularly in the United States should not really belong in the lead in what is really a worldwide movement.Boromir123 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the worldwide business sometimes escapes me. - Schrandit (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm convinced, but for the time being I'm willing to stand aside for the sake of consensus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Polling

I don't see what the polling section has to do with this article. It is too US centric, doesn't represent a world view, and is about both pro-choice and pro-life and everything in between. It shouldn't go in the pro-choice article, and it shouldn't go here. Furthermore, there is some original research in the summary of the polling data. I'd propose removing it, and merging any viable content to the Abortion in the US/public opinion article/section. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Debate Section enhancement

I just added some widely-known information. I know that the start of the section requests more citations, but really, almost all of what I added is so widely known that we hardly need bother. (If you insist, then you will have an easy time finding sources!) V (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it for the time being. It is poorly phrased, seems quite POV, and of course in unsourced. Saying a fetus is worse than a vampire is quite offensive, and if you don't acknowledge that, well.... -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit was made partly as an experiment. I was quite sure someone would come along and ignore facts, and revert it. What facts am I talking about? You specified it yourself: "Saying a fetus is worse than a vampire" --the reason the statement is factual is because a vampire only sucks biological resources from its victims; it does not also excrete biological waste products into its victims. If you don't like the facts, and are offended by the facts, tough! The facts are still the facts! V (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not novel ideas that random people on the internet come up with. Wikipedia is not about The Truth. Furthermore, I don't believe such content, even if sourced, would be appropriate for this article (but maybe the more general abortion debate article or maybe the Beginning of human personhood article, something like that). An argument that a fetus is worse than a vampire has nothing at all to do with the pro-life movement.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

By definition, the "Debate" section of this article does not have to only focus on the pro-life side of the debate (else there would be no debate). Thus to allow such a section to exist in this article is to invite exposure of all the flaws in the pro-life argument. I'm quite sure that every single pro-life/anti-abortion argument is fatally flawed, to the extent that the only way the promoters of that side of the argument can hope to prevail is by suppressing exposure of the flaws, any way they can think of (exhibit A being the fate of the experimental post under discussion here, and the feeble rationale you invoked, effectively saying that Truth is unimportant). I formally invite you or anyone else to pick any pro-life/anti-abortion argument you like, and I shall show you its fatal flaw --after which, of course, there will be more feeble excuses made, regarding why it shouldn't be posted to the Debate section of this article! V (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

V - That just ain't gunna happen. I draw your attention to the first dot point at the top of this page. It says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." It was an interesting, if dramatic, point you made and referenced at the start of this section. I know you have been scornful of references, but if you CAN link to a reliable source, you may be able to say something like "X says that a fetus is worse than a vampire" in the article, but it simply cannot be just you saying it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I plainly indicated that after discussion of some debate aspect here, its essence might be included in the Debate section of the article (the whole purpose of this Talk page section!) --and I also plainly indicated that such inclusion would be resisted. Next, you are quite wrong; I am not scornful of references. Do remember that Wikipedia freely allows editors to draw obvious conclusions. There are plenty of sources about vampires, all agreeing, even with respect to fictional entities, that they take biological resources from their victims. Vampires are never portrayed as also excreting all their biological wastes into their victims. Meanwhile, you can also find plenty of sources indicating that the fetus of any mammal does both. It is therefore quite obvious that a fetus is worse than a vampire, and the rule about obvious conclusions should obviously apply! (On another subject, for anyone interested, I posted some relevant comments on the Talk page of the Beginning of human personhood article.) V (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you think the guidelines say, it's obvious to me that "obvious" material, that can be posted without sources, realistically also has to be non-controversial and non-confrontational. Things like "Australia ia a country in the southern hemisphere..." or "World War II was a major war..." You know it's true. Some could argue that your "obvious" conclusion is actually a form of wp:synthesis, combining knowledge of vampires with knowledge of the fetus. I am actually interested in your analogy with vampires. It's one I haven't heard before. And I can see your point in wanting to include it. All you need to do is find someone else who has had the same idea and has written it up in a reputable place. Easy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"reputable place"---do you have any idea how funny that is? For any opponent of abortion, there is no such thing as a reputable place that hosts material poking holes into their arguments. :) For another argument you might not have encountered before, search for the word "genocidal" in the recently archived Talk:Abortion page. On that page is also an expanded argument about fetal parasitism, in the "Difference Birth Makes" section. I've also posted other arguments on the Talk:Abortion debate and Talk:Viability (fetal) and Talk:Roe v. Wade pages, none of which has a counterargument posted last I checked. Prepare to be surprised how many ways the pro-life/anti-abortion arguments fall to pieces. V (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be surprised. Please don't make assumptions about my own knowledge and opinion on the subject. What surprises me is how determined you are to not get material that supports your opinion into Wikipedia. There are methods that work, and methods that don't. Stop wasting your time on the latter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't making much of an assumption above; I've originated several arguments that I've never seen anywhere outside my own Web postings, and of course that means Wikipedia's rules won't allow them, since none are WP:RS. I did think that the vampire argument might stand a chance due to sheer obviousness. And facts are not opinions. There might be an opinion associated with the meaning of "worse", but that is doubtful. Is there anyone anywhere who thinks that an adult human that has blood extracted and wastes injected will exhibit the same-or-better level of health as someone who only had blood extracted (assuming equal amounts of blood)? V (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

More on specific incidents of violence

While horrible all around, someone forcing a pregnant woman by gunpoint to go to an abortion clinic has nothing to do with the topic of "Violence against pro-life movement". Was the woman a pro-life activist? Similarly, a woman calling in a false bomb threat doesn't seem on topic either. But more importantly is the issue of citing these one off, local newspaper stories. Wikipedia is not the local news. We should report on incidents that a) have commentary relating them to the topic of this article and b) are reported by multiple independent sources. We should not be compiling a one off list like this ourselves, especially when it runs the risk of original research. Furthermore, it sets a precedent where some users may feel compelled to 'balance' the article by adding similar one off, local newspaper stories related to anti-abortion violence. And then we will end up with two long lists of these isolated (or not) incidents, in an article related to a much different topic. This is a matter of scope, and Wikipedia style. We should much favor commentary and summary prose, synthesizing concepts, in lieu of presenting such laundry lists. I say the former is quite unencyclopedic, and we can do better! Anyway, I hope this explains my reverts, and I'd be glad to respond to concerns or explain further. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Those edits did nothing to address any of my concerns. For example, adding the phrase that someone "chose life" does not make the incident any more related to this topic than before. Keep in mind, "pro-choice" individuals have babies all the time or "choose life". I'd appreciate a more through discussion, and perhaps additional input, before the new, disputed edits are re-instated, per WP:BRD. Reverting to restore new controversial material is never OK, especially when no further attempt at discussion is made. Please consider reverting yourself while we discuss this further.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My own 2 cents: I'm not sure I share your OR concern, Andrew, (or at least not to the same degree) concerning the principle of compiling incidents, provided they are documented and clearly related to the topic (but we had this exchange before). I do, however, share your concern about "mission creep" in this part of the article. This article should deal with a (pretty much) worldwide movement, several decades old, and some of the reported incidents are probably too minor/irrelevant for inclusion. I would be fine with a separate article on the topic of violence targeting members of this movement, and only a brief mention in the main article.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

These are some pretty strange incidents of violence. And by "strange", I mean lame.

The first one isn't even real violence, just its cartoon depiction.

The second was about a really violent person who also killed a "gravel pit contractor against whom he bore a grudge". His stated reason for murdering the pro-life activist is that he didn't like the guy's sign. It's not clear whether the violence was due to opposing the activist's stance or just being offended by it. Quite frankly, I don't like those dead fetus signs, and I'm pro-life.

In the third case, there wasn't any violence, or even the credible threat. The police didn't arrest him, no charges were pressed, and they returned his guns the next day. Also, the text has an ugly typo in it.

The fourth contains the credible threat of violence and an actual arrest, but no violence as such.

The last is about a man who tried to force a woman to have an abortion, which is hardly the same as violence against pro-life activists. Also, he didn't actually use the gun.

No matter how you add these up, you get zero. I can't imagine why we should keep any of these, but I'm not going to just jump in and remove them. Instead, I'll wait to see if maybe I'm missing something here. I find it hard to believe that we can't find better examples of violence against pro-life activists! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For law enforcement, the "threat of violence" is already violence (see violent crime), so I don't agree with your challenges based on that distinction. As for Pouillon, I don't think challenging its relevance as a case of violence against a "pro-lifer" qua "pro-lifer" is reasonable - it's been widely interpreted and commented as such, including in a statement by President Obama.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My take on it is, there is significant media coverage, and scholarly analysis of the topic of pro-life/anti-abortion violence. This is because there is a history of extremists associated with the pro-life movement (to some degree) actually having organized campaigns of terror against clinics and doctors, to the point of murder. This is notable because of the level of organization (a la the Army of God) makes this matter more than isolated incidents, but something institutionalized. And as such, there is media attention and scholarly review. Some of that attention, it could be argued, is unwarranted due to perceived (or actual) liberal media bias. So conversely, some individuals here (and outside Wikipedia, mind you) have said "hey, why all this attention to violence against abortion providers? The pro-life movement has suffered violence as well" and that leads to the compilation of such lists as found in this article. However, we have to acknowledge the significant difference in treatment by the media and scholarly community, and we have to acknowledge the significant difference and scope and mission of the two types of violence, where there is no evidence at all of some sort of organized, institutionalized effort to attack the pro-life movement. This clearly explains why we have an article on one topic, but not the other (and that also relates to Wikipedia policy regarding notability and weight). Needless to say, efforts to add the flip side of the coin (Violence against pro-life movement) have come and gone in this article, and I have historically opposed such efforts. Last May, another attempt was made to create the section, and this time it introduced two incidents that had significant media coverage, so after some discussion and revising and gathering of sources, we reached a compromise to include those two (despite my personal reservations, as I generally agree with Dylan's analysis above). Earlier today, something that may not be avoidable, but I was hoping wouldn't happen, happened. Someone added another 3 incidents to the section, but without demonstrating significant media coverage or analysis. So as it stands, my goal would be to remove those 3 incidents. I'd be glad to discuss the concept behind the section further, as I think it is problematic that we don't have any source which synthesizes the concept behind "violence against the pro-life movement".-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, based on what you've said, I think it's reasonable for me to remove this trio of recent additions. If anyone disagrees, I encourage them to revert my changes, but also to explain your reasoning here so that we can come to a consensus. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to the issue you brought up, regarding the concept of violence by and against the pro-life movement. I am sorry to have to admit that the idea of violence against abortion providers is inherently contained in pro-life, and has manifeste.d itself systemically. A central tenet of pro-life is that abortion is identical to -- or at least morally akin to -- murder. In the minds of some of my fellow pro-lifers, it follows that abortionists (and the women who hire them) are literally murderers, so killing these people is a praiseworthy act of defense-of-others or righteous retribution.

The comparison between abortion and murder is ubiquitous within the movement. In fact, the sign I carried in the March for Life spoke of baby-killing, and I saw signs equating mass abortion with genocide. While I think it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers join me in stopping far short of violence, there is a small but dangerous minority which systemically supports violence as a means of achieving our goal. The Army of God is one obvious example, but I think that the ACLA hit list is an even clearer indication, as it shows an organized attempt to incite violence among others, as opposed to a coincidental collection of like-minded warriors for God. It sickens me that these people pervert our principles by murdering in the name of life.

In contrast, while the act of abortion is itself abhorrently violent, the pro-choice movement lacks even an ideological basis, much less any genuine tendency, for supporting violence against pro-life activists. They have no hit lists, much less self-avowed armies. There is simply no parallel here, so any argument that a balanced view requires highlighting violence against pro-life activists is simply being dishonest. This is why I believe that the last two examples should be removed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I absolutely share Andrew c's OR concerns. It's a clear cut case of OR, in effect using news reports as a primary source. We need a reliable secondary source that identifies these activities as being part of a phenomenon of anti-pro-life activity. As an illustration, we don't go into minor court reports and find every case of domestic violence precipitated by a woman electing to have an abortion, and clock that up as an example of anti-abortionist violence, as that would be OR, and pretty poor OR at that. I support the removal of the material.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on having looked at what's now left, I think the whole section should go. The cartoon is not violence, and the murder of Pouillon was by someone not involved in pro-choice organisations, who had mental health issues, and also topped someone else on the same day entirely unconnected to the abortion issue. There is no evidence that he was an activist of any kind against pro-life. NPOV is not the same as pretending niceness and nastiness are in 50-50 balance on all sides in all way and at all times. If it's the case that there simply isn't any organised campaign of violence at all, we shouldn't pretend that there is. "Balance" should not misrepresent reality. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should remember that this article is about "pro-life" (not so long ago, it was more precisely "pro-life movement", but it was changed, I believe infelicitously). I fully agree, therefore, that the issues of violence against abortion providers and violence targeting "pro-lifers" should be disconnected, and not under a common heading. Regarding VAAP, the main issue relevant to the article is that of the relationship of the pro-life movement to such violence; as for violence against "pro-lifers", the question is: is such violence significant enough to feature in a history of the pro-life movement? I believe the Pouillon murder is significant - it has had wide national resonance - and has marked the self-perception of the movement. The fact that the perpetrator was not affiliated to a "pro-choice" organization is not, I believe, relevant. It would be if we were discussing including the Pouillon murder in the pro-choice article under a heading "incidents of pro-choice violence" - but we aren't.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've amended the "violence against PL" section, trying to syntethize it so it doesn't turn into a laundry list, while not completely discarding relevant and informative material. I've just changed the title of the following section to re-focus it within the article.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, Matthew, to sort this section out. However, I still have serious reservations about what's left. Whatever the US legal definition of violence is, all we have here is one dubious case of anti-pro-life actual violence. It's a celebrated case, but celebrated by partisans, not by independent sources. The other cases look like they are what editors can find, not what has been collated by a reliable resource. It's up to an RS to argue whether or not an abortion-performing doctor flashing a gun at pro-lifers protesting at one of his workplaces represents any kind of trend of violence/violent threat. Assembling these cases to argue any kind of pattern is OR unless it's to illustrate an argument found in RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am rather disturbed about the conversation here. The removal of historical material demonstrating violence against participants in the pro-life movement or people who have chosen to abide by the pro-life viewpoint (for their own personal decisions) by people who admit they are pro-choice in the discussion page clearly violates conflict of interest clause of wikipedia. The removal of historical material of violence against pro-life activists by pro-choice advocates is not much different from the history of pro-choice advocates murdering politicians, talk-show hosts, activists, and intimidations of those people (including people who have chosen life) through the use of violence. There are very notable cases, which should be included in the article. I am curious how anyone editing the article (and removing material) can be unaware of the history of violence against the pro-life movement. One might suppose that the removal of material may be due to either ignorance or malicious intent. Material should not be removed by people who have a conflict of interest. If there is a concern about organization of the material, that is fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHalko (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

David, let's please keep the conversation on issues of WP policy, and assume good faith. Vsevolod, I don't believe the current wording is a case of OR - I know Andrew and I have disagreed about this issue before, but I just don't see the bar for OR being set this low in any other article. The assertions in this section are fully backed by RSs, and that, I believe, is where the bar is set all through WP, and should be set here.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the conversation I brought was clearly on WP policy - conflict of interest and vandalism (i.e. malicious intent.) After seeing material deleted wholesale from the article, it was re-added with adjustments made, in good faith, with concerns expressed by an individual with clear conflict of interest. Phrases such as "celebrated" in reference to the deaths of individuals and acts of violence either acted or threatened is disgusting, clearly demonstrating conflict of interest. As individuals add content to the article, added content should not be deleted wholesale by people with clear conflicts of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHalko (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is almost by definition written by editors who are interested in this issue, and people interested in the issue often have an opinion on it. The way forward, I believe, is to try and find an informative, balanced and encyclopedic common ground based on WP policy.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

David, I apologise if my use of the "celebrated" was taken the wrong way. I was trying to find a more elegant way of saying "made a big thing out of through the media". As it was members of the pro-life movement doing this, I had hoped it was clear that I wasn't using the word in the other meaning of "glorifying as a good thing". Clearly my hopes were misplaced and I apologise for any offence caused. (I should point out to you that I haven't actually revealed my own views on abortion anywhere on Wikipedia - I'm trying to adhere to NPOV). My view is that identifying the Pouillon case as an example of a phenomenon of anti-pro-life violence is POV in two respects. Firstly, that Pouillon was a victim of someone acting because of opposition to the pro-life movement is a partisan narrative. It does not appear to be the view of independent sources, who document that the killer did not like his signs with pictures of foetuses on them, and who killed someone else the same day unrelated to the issue. As Daryl points out, a lot of pro-lifers don't like those kinds of signs. Secondly, to group examples together without an RS analysis that says (more or less) "there is a phenomenon of anti-pro-life violence" is POV and OR. We're putting together isolated incidents and claiming there's a pattern.

Matthew: I'm surprised you haven't come across someone setting the OR bar so low (or is it high?) on Wikipedia before. I've edited in a few controversial areas (meaning controversial for wikipedians) and really focussing on what is and isn't OR is one of the common ways of finding a settled position. Here's an imaginary example of the kind of OR I think is being done here. I scour the newspapers looking for people murdered or attacked with the name "George". I then go to the page called George (given name) and add a section on "Violence against people called George". Obviously this is silly, and one can argue it's UNDUE, but it's also OR, because it's effectively claiming a phenomenon of "violence against Georges", whereby people are attacked because they are called George. I hope we can agree on that. (Even if I find one or two newspaper articles detailing how a person genuinely was attacked because the assailant had something against the name George, I cannot make claims of a larger phenomenon. One swallow (or two) doesn't make a summer.) Now instead of using "George" let's use "Mormons". We can put up a section on the LDS page called "violence against Mormons" and list examples of people who were Mormons who suffered some kind of violence - whether or not it has been established that the violence was an act against Mormonism. I hope we're agreed this too would be OR. However, I also suspect you feel the tug (as I do) of "well...that kind of violent phenomenon might exist - I can see certain people getting wound up enough", and you start to wonder if it really would be OR. The thing is, it still is OR. Unless there is a reliable source that identifies violence against Mormons as a pattern of behaviour, it would still be us joining dots that as wikipedians we're not allowed to join. We're getting distracted by what we expect to be the case, not what the sources allow us to state is the case. Put aside the fact that this is an emotional topic. What we have here is (according to the Pouillon page) the only ever case of a pro-life activist being killed while he was protesting (the appropriate RS does not even state the killer was anti-pro-life rather than against the public display of foetus pictures, or just out to kill people), another man freaking out with a gun (firing shots in the air) when someone told him (and I'm sure it wasn't in a soft, peaceable tone) he was a baby killer, and a doctor in a high-stress, slightly high-risk situation, flashing a gun. A pro-choice POV editor might, with equal justification, label this section as "violence provoked by pro-life activists". That would also be the double OR we're doing now: classifying each event in a way the RS does not support, and stringing the events together to form a larger pattern. Both the current version and this imaginary version are doing analysis that must instead be left up to reliable sourcing. Apologies for the long explanation - and apologies to any Georges or Mormons. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Vsevolod: no apologies needed – on the contrary, thank you for taking the time to make your case. I’m going to try and make mine as eloquently! Here’s my central point of disagreement/misunderstanding on the OR/non-OR limit (using another fictional analogy): we’re editing the article about a town named X. X has hosted the county fair in 2002, 2005 and 2008. The article reads:

”X has hosted the county fair several times: in 2002 [Reference 1], in 2005 [Reference 2] and in 2008 [Reference 3].”

References 1, 2 and 3 are all briefs in the local paper, each of which mentions the fair in 2002, 2005 and 2008 respectively. No RS says “X has hosted the fair several times: in 2002, 2005 and 2008”, however I believe it is not OR, but admitted and common practice on WP, to present these related facts in an organized manner. Of course, OR could easily creep in: saying, for example

”X has hosted the county fair every three years: in 2002 [Reference 1], in 2005 [Reference 2] and in 2008 [Reference 3].”

wouldn’t do: you would have to have a source saying that this rule/pattern exists. Those, I believe, are the limits within which we have to tread. Hopefully, the (perfectible!) wording I suggested respected this. I propose the wording “Members of the pro-life movement in the United States have on occasion been the victims of violence in reaction to their advocacy.” I do not propose, for example, "There is a pattern of pro-lifers being the victims etc". Neither do I propose, “Pro-lifers have been targeted for their pro-life views” – as in all the instances RSs establish that violence was in reaction to their actions, not to their views (a distinction which was, I believe, one of your concerns.) On another point that you haven't mentioned, but I know it was a concern of Andrew's: I understand that it may be a problem to juxtapose a section on "violence against PL" and the section on "PL and violence against abortion providers", and to seem to draw a parallel between the two. Both topics are very different in nature, as they are in scope. I am open to trying to resolve this, if you have any ideas (in wording, or in moving the "VAPL" section to another place in the article - though, no offense to anyone, the whole layout of the article is a bit of a mess). --Matthew Moorhead (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Matthew - thanks for your reply - I understand your view more clearly now. In your example, I would actually say that, if we have a pattern of the fair happening every three years (say four or five examples), it's fine to presume - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the fair was triennial, or at least has been triennial. (One of these days I will write an essay WP:THEBLEEDINGOBVIOUS, because - believe it or not - I'm not that much of a sourcing Nazi, especially when it comes to lesser known topics.) However, I'm not sure your example applies here. The county fair is a single, repeating event, whose calendar pattern can be discerned without referring to a wider context. A better example for the current case would be saying that "people who visit the fair are occasionally called Justin", based on three reports of people called Justin visiting the fair over its 15 year history. The impression given to the reader would be that one was more likely to meet a Justin in the fair than in everyday life. But the fact of the matter is, we are saying this with no idea how many Justins have actually visited the fair, or how many Justins one would otherwise meet. How many protesters on any topic have had a gun waved at them? What's the expectation of violence in any protest? We are now out of the area of the bleeding obvious, and into territory where it's no longer our call, but up to RS.

So, where do we go from here? I suggest we put material on Pouillon into a section that covers his martyr status and the controversy around the shooting (but no forking from the Pouillon article), and ditch the other stuff as UNDUE.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with your solution, Vsevolod, in order to move forward. I don't feel, however, that a section specifically about Pouillon's murder would fit well within the overall article.

Here's my own proposal for a compromise: discard the "violence against PL" section, and reassign the information to the relevant paragraphs in the "types of advocacy" section - with a condensed reference to Pouillon in the Truth display paragraph (RSs state that the murder was in reaction to the fact that Pouillon displayed pictures of aborted fetuses), and a mention of the 2 other incidents as an aside in the part about Picketing. I don't believe the cartoon video, though not irrelevant, can be recycled under my proposal - it would have to be discarded for now.

I'd be the first to say that such a solution is imperfect, but I believe it answers concerns about unduly establishing a pattern linking various events, while not discarding most of the information.

Obviously, the conversation isn't only between Vsevolod and me - any other thoughts on a way forward?--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring this, but I've already said what I have to say. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Pro-birth revert

I reverted user:Toussaint's edit because it does not support the statement. The statement said that the name "Pro-choice" implies that opponents of abortion are "pro-birth". However, the source is someone arguing that a particular individual who is pro-life is in effect pro-birth, not that Pro-choice implies it. (In any case, the source is a local newspaper reporting on the views of a non-notable religious organisation which itself is actually pro-life, but believes that pro-life people must also support the creation of a better (i.e. pacifist) world for children.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed by 72.240.91.65

I've felt compelled to revert a repeated change by this user, because I feel it biases the article. While I can certainly understand the motivations, articles on controversial topics represent a hard-fought consensus that cannot be ignored. Dylan Flaherty 20:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who made said changes, and made them because the section on the debate seems incomplete and somewhat biased. The section is supposed to discuss the arguments on both sides, but it predominantly speaks of pro-choice arguments (including the controversial Roe effect, here without citing any references). I am also concerned about the wording of several sentences, e.g. "[T]he fetus is...preparing to subject her to a major medical/surgical trauma (childbirth)..." This sentence in particular is troubling because whether that was the author's intention or not, it suggests that the fetus is somehow attacking the mother. In short, I feel the article would greatly benefit by showing a wider range of arguments and showing less of a favor to one side. 72.240.91.65 (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I've learned about the abortion-related articles of Wikipedia is that each and every last one of them has been fought over like a disputed border between warlike third-world nations. Each line in the sand has a history and you don't just go upsetting it without getting a consensus from the people who etched it there with their blood. While I am not unsympathetic with the sorts of changes you'd like to make, you have absolutely no chance of making them if you just start editing. You need to gain a consensus behind you even before you edit, so that your changes will be accepted. This is what I do: I ask, I wait, and if what I hear doesn't sound supportive, I move on to something else. It's not as satisfying as just rewriting the article to fit my view, but then again, that's why it's not called DylanPedia. Please take a lesson from this. Dylan Flaherty 15:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for also being concerned about the neutrality of the article. My reasons for editing the article are above, and I feel changes are necessary to achieve a neutral point of view. After the first three paragraphs that mostly describe the different positions on the issue, there are three paragraphs that each contain a pro-choice argument (one of which makes no citations), but there are no corresponding pro-life arguments. It was mainly for this reason that I made my edits and later put up the POV flag. At any rate, we're discussing the proposed changes on the talk page now. What do you think: do you think any of my changes are appropriate? 72.240.91.65 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at this edit right now.

1. I think "for any reason" may be redundant here. That's what "on-demand" means.
2. I don't believe there's any doubt that abstinence, sex ed and contraception can all lower the number of unwanted pregnancies. The only debate is over to what extent each of these is effective and moral.
3. The reason it says "a form of" is that it is not identical to infanticide, as a fetus is not technically an infant, although I would argue that it is morally equivalent.
4. I don't think abortionfacts.com is a reliable source, except perhaps if narrowly taken as a statement of the pro-life view. Still, if we need that, we can find better sources.
5. I'm not sure why "she has" is better than "there is". If anything, the latter suggests that it's a family decision.
6. Removing the carefully neutral text about the Roe effect and replacing it with "claimed to" seems like obvious bias to me.
7. No problem adding the sentence about what pro-life advocates feel, but using the phrase "mother and baby" to refer to a woman who does not wish to be pregnant and to the fetus she is trying to abort seems, well, obviously biased. Let's stick to medical terms, and then this change would be acceptable.
8. The next sentence, about homocide, is highly problematic. The first link requires membership and the second is not a reliable source. Without a reliable source to stitch these two ideas together, it would be original research on our part to synthesize them.
9. The last change is also problematic, as the "counter-argument" seems to be irrelevant. It may well be that legalizing abortion makes it more common, but that does not counter the likely true claim that pro-choicers would rather that fewer women have abortions. Their basic argument is that they want to reduce abortions by addressing the demand side, not the supply side. Likewise, whether the specific number of maternal deaths from unsafe abortions before legalization was accurately stated has no bearing; it's just a cheap shot.

I'm sorry to have to tell you that most of these changes do not seem to have much of a chance of gaining consensus. Dylan Flaherty 18:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life legislation

Is it consistent with NPOV to describe a non-person, such as a law, as "pro-life"? I argue that, because it is not a question of self-identification, we must use neutral terms for the legislation and prefer description of the legislation's effect to political euphemisms; in this I am supported by Andy Walsh, Kansan, and VsevolodKrolikov. Schrandit and John J. Bulten argue that because a law's supporters describe it as "pro-life," so too should we.

I urge anyone interested in commenting to read all previous discussion, beginning at my talk page, continuing to Talk:Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion_stance_wording, and ending up at Talk:Pro-life#Pro-life_legislation.

(Note that the same question applies to the phrase "pro-choice legislation.")

Roscelese (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Moved from Talk:Political positions of Ron Paul#Abortion stance wording:

There seems to be an edit war over whether his position on legalized abortion should be described as "anti-abortion" or "pro-life". I cannot find any overall Wikipedia consensus on the term that should be used; I do note that in the actual Abortion article, "pro-life" seems to be used more ("anti-abortion" tends to be used in the context of things such as the violent fringe of the movement). Having said that, I also know that the Associated Press Styleguide recommends the use of "anti-abortion", so there are good arguments that could be made on both sides. Regardless, an attempt should be made to discuss the issue here rather than edit warring. Kansan (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To sum up my position as laid out on my talk page: We accept "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as descriptors for people, because they are self-identifications; unlike other editors in this discussion, I do not go about editing descriptions of people to put in buzzwords I like. However, laws are not people, and cannot self-identify, so we have to treat them as we'd treat anything else and describe them in non-biased language. This can take the form of using a neutral descriptor - "X supports anti-abortion legislation" - attributing the biased descriptor - "X supports legislation he describes as pro-life" - or suppressing the descriptor entirely - "X supports laws which would define a fertilized egg as a legal person." However, the latter two aren't really appropriate for a heading, so I think in this particular case we're obliged to use the neutral text.

Dictionary usage moreover is against applying "pro-life" to non-people/groups. (Interestingly, the OED accepts "pro-choice" as a word one can use to describe a law, but I think it's best to keep the policy equal.) I used OED, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage.

I've been changing these because WP:NPOV is the standard we should be striving for. The self-identification rule allows for balance if not real neutrality, and while one might disagree, it's at least consensus. "X is pro-life" sort of implies "X describes himself as pro-life." If, on the other hand, you start letting biased text through in non-SI cases, NPOV is gutted. "This law is pro-life" - well, it certainly doesn't believe that abortion is wrong itself, because it hasn't a brain. Who has described it as pro-life? And why are we only listening to them instead of people who have described the law as anti-choice? Better to go with neutral text. Roscelese (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved editor to the discussion, I do tend to agree with the arguments presented, most of all because buzzwords such as "pro-life" assume a familiarity with current political terminology/buzzwords, whereas the term "anti-abortion" succinctly describes the position. The usage of the term "pro-life" for people is as much of a courtesy to allow people to go by self-defined terms (and, on the same token, we would prefer "abortion rights legislation" to "pro-choice".) On the balance, I support usage of "anti-abortion". Kansan (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Thanks to the vicissitudes of the pro-life movement, I can anticipate some surreal sentences coming up once we try to use "pro-life" as a neutral descriptor - "X supported pro-life legislation like [thing], which would reduce unplanned pregnancies. Pro-life groups opposed the law..." But that hasn't been an issue so far, and thus isn't a cornerstone of my argument. Roscelese (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Political positions of Ron Paul is the wrong article for this discussion; copying it to Talk:Pro-life#Pro-life legislation, as previously proposed on R's talk. R made this same change in perhaps 50 20 articles, so while the Ron Paul watchers should be free to comment there, it really needs the pro-life article watchers. JJB 20:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Begin new comments below.

I too consult many dictionaries, and without detailing at this time, it is clear that R's many edits and reversions are fighting a personal bete noire of what she considers POV phrasing, as her user page says. There is no appreciable difference between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion", with or without hyphens, that prohibits one from being used for legislation and allows the other, or that makes one more neutral than the other. If anything there is a sense of "anti-abortion" that restricts it effectively to "anti-induced-abortion", making it the wrong word due to that ambiguity, which "pro-life" does not have. "Pro-life legislation" passes the Google test with flying colors. The fact that R marked all these revisions as minor (for which she has apologized), and that no discussion was originally initiated anywhere, indicates a misunderstanding of process as well. (I would certainly appreciate R's links to WP guidance on self-identification, because I broadly support self-ID and have not found it covered sufficiently in policy to my taste.) About 5 editors have objected or reverted these edits, so there is no consensus for them at this time. I would appreciate below the views of regulars to this article (as well as the Ron Paul position article where this discussion was first posted) as to whether the phrase "pro-life legislation" should be verboten on WP. JJB 20:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a persistent problem with counting, JJB. My edits (in under 20 articles) have been reverted by three people, one of whom is yourself, one of whom has an extremely clear agenda (as I pointed out, if you think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are of equivalent neutrality, you cannot be trusted to give an unbiased perspective on this issue), and one of whom hasn't yet commented in this discussion.

it is clear that R's many edits and reversions are fighting a personal bete noire of what she considers POV phrasing, as her user page says - because God forbid anyone should have the goal of making an encyclopedia neutral. The horror!

Funny how most hits for "pro-life legislation" are from self-described pro-life activists. They couldn't possibly have a reason to describe the legislation in non-neutral terms. I'll also refer you to WP:GOOGLE and point out that if you're going to insist on relying on that, "homophobic legislation" (fex) gets plenty of hits and is another thing one isn't allowed to say on Wikipedia because of NPOV. From a purely pedantic perspective, hey, "Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well" gets loads of hits too.

There is no appreciable difference between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion", with or without hyphens, that prohibits one from being used for legislation and allows the other, or that makes one more neutral than the other - really? You don't understand that "pro-life" is a term created to paint the movement in a positive light (because who isn't in favor of life?) while "anti-abortion" is both specific and non-euphemistic?

As for self-ID, I don't think it's in the MoS per se but it's certainly been a recurring issue at talk:pro-life. Roscelese (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Without answering the formal fallacies from your arguments, it remains to demonstrate the dictionary usage at hand. Yes, I would take you up on your offer to quote the OED.

• New International (3rd unabridged): neither word present, due to date.
• Merriam-Webster (10th): "antiabortion ... (1971): opposed to abortion"; "pro-life ... (1961): ANTIABORTION".
• New World (3rd): "antiabortion ... opposed to induced abortions and to their legalization"; "pro-life ... opposing the right to obtain a legal abortion".
• American Heritage (3rd): "antiabortion ... Opposed to abortion: the antiabortion movement." "pro-life ... Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."

Every dictionary has one simple definition for each word. Clearly, MW, in addition to noting that the first citation of "pro-life" is 10 years older than the first of "antiabortion", has decided to finesse the issue by regarding them as straight synonyms, so there is no advantage there to choosing one over the other generally; individual editor clusters should decide at each article, rather than my hunting down and shooting the phrase "anti-abortion legislation" or "laws" in 20 articles without discussion. Further, WNW and AH clearly give "antiabortion" a narrower scope than "pro-life", WNW limiting antiabortion to induced abortion, and AH expanding pro-life to all embryo/fetus protection; thus we could also, if we were minded, make a good argument for using "pro-life" in all cases, being the older word and the more generic and less ambiguous word. Your idea that some source permits your WP:OR rule that legislation is never pro-life is not borne out, as every definition refers to opposition to abortion, and opposition can be attributed to laws as well as people, or else you could not call the laws antiabortion by any of these sources. You then discount your outlier evidence, namely that OED uses "pro-choice" as describing laws, which is an appeal to yourself when you don't like the source, on your rationale that "I think it's best to keep the policy equal." Equality is disputed. One side focused on the words "proabortion" (1972) and "antilife" (1929) as proposed equality-keeping antonyms of "pro-life" (1961), the other side focused on the word "antiabortion" (1971) as a proposed equality-keeping synonym and "pro-choice" (1975) as a proposed antonym. But all these words have different nuances and usages, so equality is a nonstarter argument because the different camps just go on using different words. In short, to make such a sweeping change you would need a broad consensus at this article first, just as I would need if I decided to make a sweeping change in the other direction. (Incidentally, I co-led a social club with a NARAL director for a year, and, in the Ron Paul Revolution, I and a self-ID'd pro-choice Paulite told the media that Paul brings unity on even this issue, which means he's doing a better job on carrying out WP's mission of consensus than WP is today.) JJB 22:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's lovely that you have a "pro-choice" friend, but I'm afraid that isn't at all relevant - your anecdote about Ron Paul supposedly bringing unity would be undue and OR if you tried to edit based on it.

As for your position, I'm still skeptical about the grammatical point, but that's really a subset of the neutrality point, which your paragraph on synonyms and antonyms still fails to address. I've explained at length why the statement "this law is pro-life" is biased, because it privileges the opinions of "pro-lifers" over "pro-choicers" in a non-SI case; have you anything to say? Roscelese (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We have used pro-choice and pro-life as far back as I remember, just like we use self-ID on all the political issues I can think of. I can think of no decent reason to change. While I could appreciate a move to pro-abortion/anti-abortion I see how that would get very sticky very fast, I say we we stay with pro-choice/pro-life as descriptors. - Schrandit (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's disappointing when one uses levity to lighten the mood of a challenging discussion and one is mistaken for someone who wants to insert OR into an article (which would be COI too as per my userpage). Anyway, the only "privilege" I see is that more laws are pro-life than pro-choice, primarily because the Supreme Court holds that the Constitution is pro-choice, and so that camp holds the "turf" and the other camp ends up with more textual citations. That's not a privilege of certain opinions any more than the pro-choice designation of the status quo of the Constitution is a privilege. It's just "facts on the ground". But looky there, Google has 223,000 hits for "pro-choice legislation" also, and what a coincidence that the leaders are NARAL, prochoiceny.org, and Wikipedia on FOCA. So you seem to be well-represented; this is hardly a "privilege" of some opinions over others. Are you saying it would be more neutral for pro-lifers to get to name legislation they oppose (proabortion), and pro-choicers to name legislation they oppose (antiabortion)? The bete noire is still the explanation I'm going with. JJB 02:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, dude, I'm saying it would be more neutral to avoid political euphemisms in ostensibly neutral prose. (And let me again refer you to WP:GOOGLE.) As for "pro-choice legislation," I've no problem with rephrasing that in a neutral form as long as the same standard is consistently applied. (Ie. no "pro-life legislation" and "legislation which would expand abortion access," that isn't balanced.) Like other editors, I have only a limited amount of time and energy so I may not devote equal amounts of the same to removing instances of "pro-choice legislation," but I'm not insisting on a standard that favors one position over another (unlike the ridiculous "pro-abortion"/"anti-abortion" proposal).

Queries:

1. Do you have a problem with the phrase "Ron Paul supports legislation which would do [thing]" - sans descriptor? That's my preferred phrasing for in-paragraph discussion. If you don't have a problem, proceed to question 2. (If you do have a problem, ask yourself if it is consistent with NPOV to pepper articles with gratuitous instances of a non-neutral phrase.)

2. Since that kind of phrasing isn't possible in a header, would "Abortion-related legislation" or something similar be a suitable replacement for all headers that currently say "Pro-life legislation" and "Pro-choice legislation"? Then the paragraph would elaborate. Roscelese (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Do I really need to say it again? I'm not the one who's changing descriptions of people. While I would prefer neutral (rather than merely balanced - of course, "pro-abortion" is neither, unless you'd really like to rename this article "anti-choice") terminology, I recognize that describing people/movements as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is consensus, and I have always let it stand. However, this is not an issue of self-identification, because as far as I can tell, none of these laws identify themselves (are you using some other arcane definition of "self-identify" that doesn't mean "identify themselves"?) as "pro-life."

If you're referring specifically to how we describe laws and are just using "self-ID" as a smokescreen, remember that there is, actually, no consensus - that's why we're having this discussion - and also read what I wrote to you on my talk page about how no, we don't actually always take proponents' word for it. Roscelese (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Roscelese. The best choice between two loaded descriptors in this case is - neither. "Abortion-related legislation" / "Legisation on abortion" and "...supports a law that would..." There's simply no need to get tied up in the issue. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

While that would be acceptable in some cases, it should not create a requirement to delete the objected phrasing everywhere. Sometimes the shorter phrase is clearer (re R's query 1). As American Heritage makes clear, sometimes "pro-life" conveys a nuance that "antiabortion" does not (laws banning embryonic stem cell research and mandating parental notification for abortions are not antiabortion per se, but are pro-life). And sometimes (as in the cases where R has been reverted), the reliable sourcing for "pro-life" (or "pro-choice") is just overwhelming. Thus there is no need for a taboo; current harmonious editing interaction, case-by-case, is sufficient. JJB 16:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I specifically said "in this case". Sometimes it's appropriate to use "pro-life", but it's not required in the Ron Paul article (with the exception of his explicit self-description) . You need to explain why a neutral editor would object to the formulations I put above.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You speak vaguely. For as long as I can remember we've had a compromise between pro-choice/pro-life. Roscelese has attempted to substitute the term pro-life with language she finds more neutral and descriptive. Her precise wording has met with near universal objection on the grounds that what she perceives as neutral wording others find less than neutral. I don't know how, exactly, you would go about changing the descriptions on abortion related articles (of which, there are at least tens of thousands) so you will understand my supreme hesitation. - Schrandit (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For as long as I can remember we've had a compromise between pro-choice/pro-life. - Go ahead and prove it then. The whole reason this discussion is happening is because there is no consensus on how to describe laws. (Check out that "near universal objection," too - you and JJB against me, Laser brain, Vsevolod, and Kansan. Maybe a little review of math would help here: 2 < 4. Even if you count ClovisPt, who hasn't joined the discussion, as being on your side, you're still outnumbered - hell, even if you weren't outnumbered that's hardly a "near universal" objection!)

I don't know how, exactly, you would go about changing the descriptions on abortion related articles (of which, there are at least tens of thousands) so you will understand my supreme hesitation. - Don't you worry your pretty little head about that. Not a lot of articles actually use the objectionable phrase, so it'll be quite simple, and of course, no one's making you do it. Roscelese (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with adding a few extra words (ie. "pro-life legislation" to "legislation which would restrict abortions and ban embryonic stem cell research") in the interest of neutrality. Not only is it more neutral, it also provides more information! Right now, a reader can't necessarily know whether a politician who sponsors "pro-life legislation" is active only on the abortion issue or also in embryonic stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide, etc. (Parental notification laws are anti-abortion, though, so no luck there.)

the reliable sourcing for "pro-life" (or "pro-choice") is just overwhelming - Such as? NYT doesn't use "pro-life law/legislation" at all (the only hit is from an op-ed), BBC doesn't use it at all, AP doesn't use it at all, Guardian doesn't use it at all, the notably conservative Telegraph doesn't use it at all, Time appears to have used it only once, it isn't used any more often than "anti-abortion legislation" in WSJ, Fox News uses almost always "anti-abortion law/legislation," and uses of it in Newsweek outnumber uses of "anti-abortion legislation/law" only by one. Where is this overwhelming consensus you're talking about? Roscelese (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Come here to have a civilized conversation or stay at home.

WP goes with self-ID, yes, even with laws right now, that's why you had to run around trying to change all these articles.

Over 30,000 articles use the two phrases (I didn't even look for the stray anti-abortion/pro-abortion) so you will forgive my "pretty little head" for its worries. I'd like to know what, exactly, you plan on substituting them with.

"Parental notification laws are anti-abortion, though, so no luck there." There are another half dozen ways those laws could also be described. The issue is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. - Schrandit (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WP goes with self-ID, yes, even with laws right now, that's why you had to run around trying to change all these articles. - Which is, of course, why "anti-abortion law/legislation" gets more hits than "pro-life," even ignoring my recent edits. That really proves your point!

Over 30,000 articles use the two phrases - LOL yes, over 30,000 articles use "pro-life law/legislation."

^ Remember that suggestion I made about math?

I'd like to know what, exactly, you plan on substituting them with. - Then I suggest you read all the comments I've been making, in which I've explained that very thing a number of times.

Debate it if you like, but there's no way in which the laws are "pro-life" other than the way in which they're anti-abortion. Embryonic stem cell research and physician-assisted suicide are often grouped under the same heading, but parental consent/notification can't possibly be argued to promote "life" other than by restricting abortion access. Roscelese (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

<R, you say, "There's no way in which the laws are 'pro-life' other than the way in which they're anti-abortion," which logically entails that "antiabortion" has some broader way of use than "pro-life"; but the dictionaries above, the experts on word use, all disagree with you, as does the OED implication you cite. Wikipedia is not a site for unilateral language taboos as you seem to favor. You are to be thanked for not continuing the crusade in the light of the nonconsensus, of course. Maybe you can find a reliable source taking your novel view that "pro-life law" is some kind of contradiction in terms. JJB 22:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

When I say "There's no way in which the laws are 'pro-life' other than the way in which they're anti-abortion," I'm referring to the above discussion on whether or not "pro-life legislation" can be used to describe laws against embryonic stem cell research and physician-assisted suicide, as I explained above. (I do not think that is appropriate usage either.) Parental notification laws don't prevent suicide or the destruction of lab embryos. All they do is restrict abortion. (Putting aside proponents' tendency to describe them as "protecting parental rights" or whatnot, that's not at issue here.)

Maybe you can find a reliable source taking your novel view that "pro-life law" is some kind of contradiction in terms. - I? Why don't you find a reliable source that consistently uses that phrase in preference to "anti-abortion"? I've already discussed, at length, how my position is based on Wikipedia's NPOV principles.

If you want to see for yourself, why don't you try editing something like Nuremberg Laws to say that they protected German blood and German honor? That's how one proponent described them - indeed (since they have a title) how they self-described! - and we know the way in which proponents describe them is always right. Roscelese (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Easy there, Godwin. You say "Parental notification laws don't prevent suicide or the destruction of lab embryos. All they do is restrict abortion." Who says all they do is restrict abortion? Again, I can think of half a dozen ways to accurately describe such laws. Why must we be boxed in to describing them the way you see them? - Schrandit (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All right, shoot. How are parental notification laws "pro-life" other than by restricting abortion access? Roscelese (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said they do more than restrict abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And as I've been saying the whole time, that's not what's at issue here. JJB said above, "laws...mandating parental notification for abortions are not antiabortion per se, but are pro-life." I've been explaining that that position makes no sense. Roscelese (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Parental notification laws are about many things. Why must we be cornered into only describing them, and the sentiment behind them, as you wish? - Schrandit (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even addressing whatever else you want to call them. JJB said above, "laws...mandating parental notification for abortions are not antiabortion per se, but are pro-life." I've been explaining that that position makes no sense. Roscelese (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your contention that we should neglect description save that which you favor makes less sense. - Schrandit (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, yes, I'm totally saying we should neglect description. That's why I've been continually advocating for providing a description of the laws in question rather than just saying "pro-life" and leaving - that really reflects a desire to neglect description. Roscelese (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

random break

Woah. You lot are really going off on one. If I understand this discussion correctly, you want to use it to decide the use of the terms "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" across all pages? Wow. A tad ambitious. Frankly, I think you should not have brought this discussion here, because it's not about the Pro-life movement per se. Schandit considers my suggestion "vague", which I find puzzling. I'll try to make it clearer how I think the other article (you know, the one with its own talkpage) should be.

1. The section title should be either "Legislation on abortion" or "Abortion-related legislation".
2. The quoted self-descriptor is entirely appropriate.
3. In the text, one can write "Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values". (Obviously not actually with the strikeout, that's just to illustrate what I would remove. His "position" is quite clear from the text.)
4. There is simply no need to label opposition to stem cell research either "pro-life" or "anti-abortion". It adds nothing to the text but POV and produces reams of circular talkpage clutter.

I fail to see how a neutral editor would find a problem with this version. Now, unless there are any other of the regular editors of this page out there willing to give their advice on how another particular page might handle the issue (not how the whole encyclopedia should), I humbly suggest you repair to talk:Political positions of Ron Paul to continue your discussion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's a useful conversation to have. This started because I replaced "pro-life legislation" with "anti-abortion legislation" across a number of pages, and I think finding some kind of standard is a good idea. I've actually thinking of putting in an RfC though, because apparently being actually outnumbered is not enough to make certain editors stop claiming they have an overwhelming consensus in their favor - do you think that would help?

Also, there does exist a tag for random break, but I can't remember what it is, sorry. Roscelese (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, my recommendation is to avoid conflict and POV by avoiding either term where possible. (In the Ron Paul article it seems eminently possible, and I suspect it is elsewhere too). The current discussion seems not to appreciate that "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" are part of a bigger debate that includes the pair "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion". (pro-abortion is generally deemed quite offensive by "pro-choice" people; anti-abortion sounds negative, and pro-choice and pro-life are apple pie phrases) All four terms are not very NPOV. I think that an RFC is a better idea than randomly selecting one of the talkpages in the area to carry on a dispute.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

TLDR

Basically, labels like "pro-life" should be attributed (one person's "pro-life" is another's "anti-abortion", and so forth). So, "org X says that law Y is pro-life" is fine. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it's not attributed, so both "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" should be avoided in favour of the non-controversial phrase "abortion legislation".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In some of the articles where I changed "pro-life legislation" to "anti-abortion legislation," it wasn't clear from the article what specific policies were being referred to (and presumably it would be a good idea to somehow indicate what side the person is on). What would you advise in that situation? "Anti-abortion" with a tag? Roscelese (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if we should make "pro-life" into "anti-abortion" just as a rule-of-thumb for the same reasons that people would object if we changed all references of people being "pro-choice" to "pro-death." Pro-lifers claim it's about life; pro-choicers claim it's about choice.

By the same merit, if we changed all of the above-mentioned phrases to "abortion legislation" as to use a 'non-controversial phrase,' then some might argue that "life legislation' (or the termination thereof) could/should also be used. I could be be wrong; just a thought. Invmog (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, okay, maybe you didn't read the discussion, but:

1. We're not discussing changing references to people being "pro-life" or "pro-choice." The statement "X is pro-life" sort of implies "X identifies as pro-life." But "This legislation is pro-life" means that someone has described it as "pro-life." Someone has probably described it as "anti-choice" too - why do we put one and not the other in our text, since it's not a question of implied self-identification?

2. There is absolutely no equivalency between "anti-abortion" and "pro-death." Period.

Anyway - "life legislation" is still a non-neutral phrase, because a lot of "pro-choice" people would probably disagree that it was about life. Whereas I doubt that a supporter of "pro-life" legislation would flatly deny that it was about abortion! Roscelese (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center

There has been a breakdown in communications on this article, resulting in removal of well-cited material, tendentious editing and unlikely claims about consensus. Outside assistance would be helpful. Dylan Flaherty 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A ludicrous statement

The following statment is comlete nonsense and should be removed; "Some pro-choice advocates also point out that, while they too would prefer to see abortion not happen, making abortion illegal encourages women with unwanted pregnancies to seek Unsafe abortion, placing their own lives at risk." To follow this logic we should legalise theft, murder, rape and car theft because if it remains ilegal then people will only be encouraged to do it ilegally anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The justification for having something in Wikipedia is for it to come from a reliable source that we can cite in the article. That statement has a reference but, while its name suggests that it is about this topic, doesn't seem to be at all. I'm wondering if something has got lost along the way. Of course, your view would need the same thing, a reliable source, for it to be added to the article. I happen to agree with the statement in the article. It is my personal view on the matter. I would love to find a better source for it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor that the statement is illogical in a sense, and I agree with HiLo that either view needs to be backed by a verifiable and reliable source. I won't do it right now, but usual Wikipedia policy is to removed perceivably biased/controversial statements which aren't properly sourced. As you know, HiLo, my views are opposite of yours, but I'm not really gonna do anything about this. Invmog (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No-one could have views opposite mine, because mine are nowhere near the extreme. It's hard to be opposite the middle. But, back to the statement. What's there now doesn't seem to be properly referenced, but it describes a reality. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop it happening. It makes those wanting to have abortions seek less safe ways of having them. That doesn't have to be read as an argument for making it legal, although many would choose to do so. It is simply a description of something that happens. I'm sure that fact has been written up by people wiser than me, but I don't know where to look for such a source. Removing it from the article would not help the article (apart from obeying Wikipedia's rules in the short term). Finding a good source would. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The above comments are extraordinary. In the UK, this was the main reason why abortion was legalised in 1967. In most of the world (outside the US) it is a basic (and probably the strongest argument) for legalisation of abortion and it is very well-documented that it is so. A quick google of this subject reveals this UN WHO document for instance: 'Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic' http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/general/lancet_4.pdf. It states: "Increasing legal access to abortion is associated with improvement in sexual and reproductive health. Conversely, unsafe abortion and related mortality are both highest in countries with narrow grounds for legal abortion." I suspect that this may only be considered a "ludicrous" satement in the US. I checked the reference against the comment in the article and found a weird Zimbabwe source that doesn't appear to refer to abortion. Could someone who has editing rights replace it with eg, this WHO document. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

oh, thought the article is protected - will make the change myself. DeCausa (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life movements in Europe

This comes from my talkpage, following my revert of an IP edit that I marked as "odd".

---

The editor who made this edit is in Finland, which may explain why they would think of the UK as being "southern". This aside, I think he has a point: there's not much pro-life activism in northern Europe. Is there a way we could state this accurately? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That might be the source of the confusion, although I would personally never consider Germany Eastern Europe because I'm British. Do we have sources that say there isn't much going on in the Nordic countries? Or perhaps it's Catholic countries plus the UK? (There'll be stuff in Ireland too, I'm sure).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not easy to source. The best I've come up with are articles that talk generalities, such as this one. Can you do better? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's one from 1996, which goes into some nice detail, although it would change what the article says. If you don't mind, I'll transfer this conversation to the Pro-life talkpage, so that other people can chip in.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I'll keep looking for sources, but if anyone else has some good stuff, please offer it up. The section on Europe is actually pretty thin, and would certainly be an interesting contrast with the American situation if it were filled out properly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's 'thin' for a good reason - it's not a hot issue in Europe (in comparison to US). I think (admittedly POV) that 'pro-life' is rather a fringe issue in most of the continent. I think there should be some comment along these lines in this section. DeCausa (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal and Political Aspects

The following suggested edit in this sentence has been challenged and reverted: "However, following Stupak's vote in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, pro-life organizations accused Stupak of having betrayed the pro-life movement, and the SBA List revoked a pro-life award it had planned to give to him."

This sentence is well-cited, balanced, and highly relevant to the rest of the section. The section lists Bart Stupak as a leading pro-life Democrat in the United States. Following the health care reform controversy, it is fair to say that Mr. Stupak's pro-life credentials are not deemed to be in good standing by some in the pro-life community. The article should reflect that. Thoughts?184.74.22.161 (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm hardly the first person to object to this, so let's see what the previous stated reasons were.

"(Reverting to balanced statement about Stupak and the award he was not given, not Dannenfelser's global redefinition about who cannot be pro-life.)"

"(rv too much emphasis given Dannenfelser, per WP:COATRACK)"

Have to admit he has a point, eh? Dylan Flaherty 07:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that Dannenfelser's name is not even mentioned in the disputed sentence, I most certainly do not believe that the other editor has a point. What's the problem?184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No responses for a week, and the objection to the sentence doesn't make very much sense. I am re-inserting it.184.74.22.161 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

bioethical utlitarianism

Hi everyone,

A recent edit brought me to the sentence:

The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, influenced by Conservative Christian values, especially in the United States, and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.<ref>Holland, S. (2003). Bioethics: a Philosophical Introduction Cambridge, UK : Polity Press; New York : Distributed in the USA by Blackwell Pub.</ref>

What is bioethical utilitarianism? What forms of bioethical utilitarianism have been influenced by Conservative Christian values?

The words, "bioethical utilitarianism", were added in August 22, 2006:

This perspective is historically deriven from Judeo-Christian ideology and its influenced forms of bioethical utlitarianisms. <ref>Holland, S (2003) Bioethics: a Philosophical IntroductionCambridge, UK : Polity Press ; New York : Distributed in the USA by Blackwell Pub</ref>

Can someone with a copy of [http://www.amazon.com/Bioethics-Philosophical-Introduction-Philosophy-Today/dp/0745626181#_ Bioethics: a Philosophical Introduction] verify this?

I read the exerpt of the book thoughtfully supplied by Amazon.com:

page 206-207

[A] 'consequentialist' is someone who thinks that consequences alone determine morality. ... Utilitarianism, the main version of consequentialism, says that good consequences are ones that maximize happiness, whilst bad consequences fail to maximize happiness. ... Utilitarianism is an intuitively appealing line of thought. It pervades our liberal, secular culture.

(Note that the author is writing in the UK. I suggest that "liberal culture" he is talking about is classical liberalism rather than modern liberalism in the United States.)

It sounds like utilitarianism conflicts with Conservative Christian values.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

While Christianity is probably worth mentioning in the overview (though I could see a reasonable opposing argument) that sentence is vague and not terribly informative. Is bioethical utilitarianism a common defined term? I imagine my definition of it could very from another man's. Outside of a quote from that book I think that sentence has been mashed with others to the point of being less than accurate at the moment. - Haymaker (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. I am going to quote Alpha Quadrant's earlier rationale and endorse it in full, as it is basically exactly what I would have said: "After reading this very long discussion there are many valid arguments. Links provided in this discussion suggest that the current title is the common name. This topic is indeed controversial, and either title would be considered non-neutral. In either case policy supports the use of the common name over the precise name. This debate contains 42 opposes and 28 supports and various proposals. This may not be a !vote, but there is no consensus for changing the title." NW (Talk) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Pro-life → Anti-abortion — The name Pro-life is what they call themselves, however, for our international audience such as what we have on Wikipedia, a more precise term would probably be more appropriate. Anti-abortion is also the word often used by neutral sources in describing organizations that call themselves "pro-life" [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] There are plenty more, it is clear that news writers approaching this from a neutral point of view use anti-abortion as their term of choice because of its preciseness rather than the more vague term "pro-life." By calling this article "pro-life" wikipedia is inherently promoting these anti-abortion organization's viewpoint. Also, there are clearly those that see abortions as being "pro-life." [6] This term, in its current usage on the site, is clearly used primarily to promote the view that abortions should be banned in all circumstances, and as such, has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. As nominator, I SUPPORT this move. -_WikiMan^One 20:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this debate already, and I doubt consensus has changed since then. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

All commenters should read #Rename, move back to pro-life above (referring to an out-of-process move), as R's comment suggests. JJB 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - the conversation you are referring to, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be a discussion of whether the name of the article should be "Pro-choice movement" or just "Pro-choice" so it really doesn't add much to this discussion. _WikiMan^One 04:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, unless it's a fringe theory, nominator's link to AbortionIsProLife dotcom should be mentioned as one POV on any page called "pro-life", and that actually argues against nominator. JJB 04:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, I think its pretty fair to say that Anti-abortion is more neutral and that pro-life is a loaded term. Though it seems that Pro Life at 3 million has a fair number more Google hits than Anti abortion which has 800k I think anti-abortion is well enough used that going for the more neutral term is better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Of more value for wikipedia is the Google News results: "pro-life" brings up 1480 results in Google news [7], "anti-abortion" brings up 1330 [8] which leads me to think the difference in number of uses isn't substantial. _WikiMan^One 20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, while I'd be fine with switching pro-life/pro-choice to anti-abortion/pro-abortion I think we're better off sticking with self-identification. - Haymaker (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• You're missing an important point: pro-choice is accurate in that people/organizations that consider themselves pro-choice are just that, they support the choice in various issues. They do not push abortions, they push the choice to have an abortion, or to keep it, or to use proper birth control, etc. "Pro-life" is inaccurate for the reasons I listed above, organizations that call themselves pro-life are perpetuating the unscientific notion that birth begins at fertilization/conception which is a POV, anti-abortion would be more appropriate because that's exactly what they're referring to. However, if it would make you feel better, would you Support this move if I also nominated pro-choice to be called pro-abortion? _WikiMan^One 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd never get consensus for that move, so from a purely practical perspective, I'd advise against bothering. There isn't really a concise common-use term for "pro-choice" that's equivalent in neutrality to "anti-abortion," and having the article titles be equivalent is important. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Pro-choice to be renamed Pro-abortion access, you can input there if you'd like. _WikiMan^One 06:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, pro-life is a vague term, designed for people to be OK with. Who's going to be against life? The opposite term could be "people in favor of the legality of abortion". --Againme (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, propose speedy close as stoking unnecessary controversy. Roscelese seems to confirm my suspicion that this attempts to overturn a recent significant consensus. "Pro-life" correctly includes "anti-abortion", "anti-infanticide", "anti-euthanasia", includes some anti-contraception and anti-capital-punishment, and supports the nexus of all these positions with an essential undergirding "whole-life" ethic. I have no problem with "anti-abortion" being a spinout article extending coverage on that portion of the pro-life position. Self-identification is very applicable. JJB 21:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Rationale added JJB 21:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, that sounds like a support for renaming this article and creating a new article on your position about what "pro-life" means, since this article is only about anti-abortion. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please can you justify your position? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sir, from the lead of this article: "Pro-life describes the political and ethical opposition to elective abortion, and support for its legal prohibition or restriction." This article clearly discusses the abortion debate. Therefore, your reasoning is invalid. _WikiMan^One 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not my fault that this article, which I have avoided editing in the past, fails to accomplish WP's purpose of including all POVs about what "pro-life" is, and that the notable view I just enunciated among pro-life leaders like Ron Sider has been kept out of the article for whatever reason. However, the proposed move is from a broader term to a narrower term without any compensating proposal for accommodating the broader material. To quote myself from a discussion above: 'If anything there is a sense of "anti-abortion" that restricts it effectively to "anti-induced-abortion", making it the wrong word due to that ambiguity, which "pro-life" does not have'; 'the first citation of "pro-life" is 10 years older than the first of "antiabortion"'; dictionaries 'WNW and AH clearly give "antiabortion" a narrower scope than "pro-life", WNW limiting antiabortion to induced abortion, and AH expanding pro-life to all embryo/fetus protection'; 'As American Heritage makes clear, sometimes "pro-life" conveys a nuance that "antiabortion" does not (laws banning embryonic stem cell research and mandating parental notification for abortions are not antiabortion per se, but are pro-life)'. This is all in addition to the "whole-life" POV. JJB 23:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • But is that the common usage of "pro-life?" Type the phrase in any search engine, I would say at least 80% will be referring to the position on abortion. _WikiMan^One 23:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)^One 23:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • The first sentence of the Overview sections gives a good indication that the article is about more then "anti-abortion". It says "Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death." It sounds like the lead just needs more clarification that pro-life generally encompasses more then just an abortion debate.Marauder40 (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • You cannot possibly be arguing that parental notification laws are not anti-abortion, what else are they? Feel good and make people like Becky Bell die laws? They're definitely anti-abortion, saying that they are pro-life though is definitely a stretch. _WikiMan^One 00:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per neutral sources using Anti-Abortion. Also, Pro-life would suggest the opposite is Anti-life. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support self-evident that "Pro-Life" is not NPOV; it means their opponents are 'anti-life'. It also lacks precision as it does not accurately describe the article. The article is not about, eg, anti-euthanasia or anti-suicide. The article says it's about "the political and ethical opposition to elective abortion, and support for its legal prohibition or restriction". 'Anti-abortion' is more accurate, mor neutral and more international ('pro-life' being especially associated with the US) DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as has been said before in the archive the last time this came up. "The convention throughout abortion-related articles is to use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" per the self-identifying terminology guideline in WP:MoS." Marauder40 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you link to this exact guideline, I can't see anything on WP:TITLE that makes that point? I'd have thought WP:NDESC or WP:POVTITLE would be the most relevant pieces of policy. EDIT: I found the guideline MOS:IDENTITY - but that's a guideline, whereas the other two are policies and thus carry more weight. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This discussion will end up being more about editor's views regarding abortion rather than a dispassionate analysis of the content of the article against WP:AT, which is sad. A move here is likely to see a cascading series of move requests that will have more to do with US domestic politics than Wikipedia's naming policy. While this could be seen as Wikipedia defining the opposition to this group's aims as "Anti Life" this is easily avoided by actually naming the opposing topic Pro-choice, which of course we do. I find the whole "defining the opposition" argument a little strange to use as justification for this move however. If the article on this topic was named as "Anti abortion" wouldn't that then define the opposition as "Pro-abortion". Is this any better than "Anti Life"? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Your argument does not answer any of the arguments made in favor of the move above. I understand that as Catholic, it is hard for you to think that your position is anything but pro-life, but could you consider allowing it to be renamed to be a more precise description of what the position is all about? Anti-abortion would not define the opposition, it would not define anything but provide precise identification for the article. Pro-life inherently endorses the view that a fetus is somehow a "life" and therefore violates WP:NPOV. _WikiMan^One 23:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • 70% of UK catholics are pro-life pro-choice, so I'm not sure how ones religion means you cannot be pro-choice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • What makes you think I am Catholic? Provide evidence, please or withdraw. You have absolutely no idea about my views on abortion and I suggest you stop trying to tell me what I think. Your comment and your unwarranted assumptions here has strengthened my belief that this move discussion has little to do with improving Wikipedia and more about using this encyclopedia to fight off-wiki political battles. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconding Eraserhead here. Please don't attack people's editing on the basis of their religion. That would not be appropriate even if being Catholic meant that you opposed abortion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I shouldn't have wrote that anyway, long day, I apologize. _WikiMan^One 23:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) Good crystallization of issues above. First, pro-life and pro-choice are not antonyms, defusing any argument from antonyms (as use of proabortion and antiabortion would permit and inflame). Second, most Catholics are broadly pro-life as I state above (often "whole-life"): I understand they often connect their pro-life position also to ESCR, contraception, euthanasia, capital punishment, nuclear war, etc. Third, we are rapidly descending into POV arguments if WikiManOne infers that "pro-life" endorses a fetus being the second half of Webster's ¹life 8 : a vital or living being; specif : PERSON; in fact, "pro-life" actually only endorses what everyone agrees to, the first half. (¹live 1 : to be alive : have the life of an animal or plant; ¹life 1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body.) Please do not use the ambiguity of "life" to insist on swapping one of its meanings for another. JJB 23:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• JJB, pro-life is clearly used by anti-abortion activists as a way to promote their cause and has been clearly noted as a deliberate misnomer. [9] [10] This [11] LA Times article which states "The term pro-life is a misnomer when used to describe people who oppose legal abortion because it implies that they have a greater respect for life than [pro choice individuals]." There are plenty more such sources from mainstream literature. Pro-life in this article is being used to describe those that oppose abortion, which in this usage is clearly simply a misnomer. _WikiMan^One 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Pro-life is an accurate description. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• You are clearly endorsing a point of view here, which shows why this title is undesirable. _WikiMan^One 23:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Pot, meet kettle. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• From a WP policy point of view, WP:POVTITLE applies, because some think "Pro-life" isn't neutral. (Only Eraserhead got it right). --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support "anti-abortion" is accurate and fairly common. "pro-life" is inaccurate, since many of the anti-abortionists support the death penalty, and are not vegans, so support the killing of animals, and are not pacifists, so some of them also support some wars, and support the use of deadly force in self-defense. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking, by your definition, if you believe in killing plants to eat, that's also "anti-life". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support The current title is needlessly controversial. "Anti-abortion" is the most commonly-used terminology, including by the activists themselves as clearly demonstrated by the sources. The Celestial City (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support makes a heap of sense, why wouldn't you? 166.137.139.66 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)— 166.137.139.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support. The main purpose of pro-life organizations, the main purpose of the pro-life movement is to end abortion, or at least to heavily limit access to it. This purpose is anti-abortion, plain and simple. Australian news agencies almost always use "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life". Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment If we change pro-life to anti-abortion, what rationale is there for keeping pro-choice as opposed to pro-abortion? And yet pro-choice activists do not see themselves as promoting abortions for all. I think self-identification for both is a better compromise than trying to adjudicate which tiny sound-bite more accurately describes somebody else's position. betsythedevine (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Opppose They self-identify as pro-life, and this usage puts them on equal footing with pro-choice. The seems the more clearly neutral approach. The only way it would be acceptable to support this move is if we simultaneously moved pro-choice to pro-abortion. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The sources provided include the feminist Ms. Magazine, which is obviously a POV source, and not neutral. Also, it seems like WP:COMMONNAME might apply to this. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support "Pro-life" is a marketing term. It is self selected to sound nicer than being anti-something, and it's a motherhood name, because it sounds like something everyone should want to be. It does not tell the truth. There is nothing to prevent someone claiming to be pro-life being pro-capital punishment. I know some such people. So, it's not a clear name in plain English. It's a marketing name, particularly in the USA. Anti-abortion is much simpler, clearer and straightforward description of those who oppose abortion. Just look at the words in the last sentence. Can there logically be a more honest name than anti-abortion? As for the question just above - "...what rationale is there for keeping pro-choice as opposed to pro-abortion?" - well, "pro-choice" too is a perfectly accurate description of the position of those who are willing to accept abortion in some situations. I hate the idea of abortion, but I see that it is the best approach in some situations. That does not make me pro-abortion. That would be a very inaccurate description of my position. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Plenty of movement names or company names are marketing names. The tea party movement is not predominately about literally conducting parties in which people are drinking tea - rather, the term is a marketing one in reference to the tea parties during the American revolution. --B (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Pro-life" is a political position or a movement. "Anti-abortion" is a particular bill. Used in a sentence, "Pro-life members of congress sponsored an anti-abortion bill that would ban late term abortions". Similarly, "pro-gun control members of congress sponsored an anti-gun measure that would ban assault rifles". "Anti-abortion" and "anti-choice" are also used as a pejorative by persons who support legalized abortion (incidentally, that article is "pro-choice", not "pro-abortion"). --B (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• That's merely a parochial US perspective (assuming it's true even in US) DeCausa (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but the French article is fr:Mouvement pro-vie (I don't speak French, but I understand that), German is de:Lebensrechtsbewegung (Google translates it "right to life movement"), Spanish is es:pro vida, Italian is it:Movimento pro-life. While I'm freely willing to admit that my perspective of the world outside the US is limited, at least four non-English Wikipedias call this article "pro life", not "anti-abortion". If the concern is that the "pro-life movement" also devotes some energy to other issues like embryonic stem cell research and the death penalty, maybe the solution should be to incorporate that into the article, not to rename the article. Pro-life doesn't have to be the exact opposite of pro-choice. --B (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Assuming someone not familiar with the debate or the naming conventions were to come to an encyclopedia to look for information on the subject, the proposed title is more neutral, and Pro-Life (and Pro-Choice, for that matter) should be made to redirect. David Able 00:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As long as there is a redirect, we could name the article evil people who don't agree with a woman's god-given right to abort her unborn baby and people searching for information could find it. Besides, if the more common term is "pro-life", not "anti-abortion", it seems like the more common term would be the preferred one, if the title of the article actually did make a difference in someone's ability to find it. --B (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • That's one of the points - it's not the "more common term". Anti-abortion is. Pro-Life is only ever used by the groups themselves as a marketing tool. Generally, no one else calls them that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs)
      • I don't believe that's true. Encyclopedia Britannica says pro-life. Encarta says pro-life. Neither of them have "anti-abortion" as an entry. Here's the reason for the misconception - you're relying on what people who are opposed to the pro-life movement call it. Abortion is a wedge issue and it isn't one on which anybody is truly neutral. When US news media types refer to it as the "anti-abortion" movement (as opposed to an "anti-abortion" protest or an "anti-abortion" bill) they are simply showing their bias. The term for the movement itself is and always has been the "pro-life movement". Even if that is the movement's preferred name, so what? How many articles about groups don't refer to the group by its preferred name? --B (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - is there not a way to disambiguate it? You are never going to reach a consensus. I know what my view is but feel that it would add little to the debate. It is one of those issues of semantics that will never be resolved, although there might be a place in the article to explain - NPOV'ly, of course - why even the terminology is controversial. The actual choice of term is, well, "deja vu, all over again". Sitush (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary RM break 1

• Comment Noting that this is a global encyclopaedia, I politely ask those who claim that "Pro-life" is the more common term if they have ever looked outside the USA? HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Purely anecdotal, and therefore worthless I guess, but in the UK most people I talk with use the word "abortion" and see "pro-life" as an emotive phrase. "abortion" or "termination" are the medical terms here, and many even scoff at "termination". But that might be down to whom I converse with, hence a POV etc. This is the problem. I have no great inclination towards one or the other: one appears to soft-soap and the other, whilst medically correct, is seen by a significant number to be "cruel", even in the way it is pronounced (too many hard consonants cf sibilants of "pro-life"). Weird. Sitush (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Well, if you google site:bbc.co.uk "pro-life", you get 1510 g-hits and if you google site:bbc.co.uk "anti-abortion", you get 1130 g-hits. Google site:uk "pro-life" and you get 49K g-hits and google site:uk "anti-abortion" and you get 12K g-hits. As I stated above, Encarta and Britannica both have entries for pro-life and neither has an entry for anti-abortion. This whole thing is a ridiculous discussion. The term for the movement used by anyone who isn't opposed to it is "pro-life". --B (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. We must be neutral, and that means we must use terms of self-identification over terms used by opponents that assume the opponents' perspective. In this sense, every "support move" opinion I read above this comment shouts loudly why we must not move the article, precisely because every support opinion conveys a belief that we had better present the pro-choice worldview as so correct as to properly be assumed without comment. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Lobbying by "Oppose" voter: User Kenatipo has violated the WP:CANVASS policy by lobbying another user to change their comment from "Comment" to "Oppose." [12] _WikiMan^One 03:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not canvassing. Betsythedevine had already commented here. Please focus on the debate. Fences&Windows 03:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec)A conversation between exactly two editors is not a violation of the canvassing guideline, nor should it be interpreted as one. Persuasion is not only allowable, but much to be desired if a consensus is to be reached. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Fine, I have renamed it "lobbying" instead of canvassing. I still think it falls under the same category but regardless. _WikiMan^One 03:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • With just over 1500 edits to your credit, you have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works with the relevant policies.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, right, so let's belittle people we disagree with, WP:CIVIL, anyone?
• Support move. I think the sources are such that such a retitle can be made. Moreover, "pro-life" doesn't always just refer to anti-abortion sentiments. It can mean opposition to euthanasia, for example. Anti-abortion is quite neutral and far more specific. Just because anti-abortion activists might not like the term doesn't mean it's non-neutral. Lovetinkle (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Oppose Unless you are going to propose to change "pro-choice" to something similar so that our "international" audience can understand it better.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that should also be renamed (as this should be renamed), though to what is less obvious. abortion-access is a possibility. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I did propose that Pro-choice be renamed to something similar. So now I guess you aren't opposing anymore? See discussion at Talk:Pro-choice. _WikiMan^One 06:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment And it was speedily shut down. To paraphrase Biff Tannen - "You guessed wrong, dude". Changed !vote to STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE because of badgering.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Totally, because that's obviously the best argument ever to take or not take a given action on wikipedia. _WikiMan^One 03:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose That's how they self-identify, and it's the most common term. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - both terms are violations of NPOV ... "anti-anything" tends to have a negative connotation, and "pro-anything" has a positive connotation (I cannot in anyway buy for a moment people here saying "pro-" is so POV, but "anti-" is perfectly neutral). Arguing that one term is more NPOV is not something that I would buy. I thought it was true that many (though not all) pro-life groups go beyond the abortion issue (ie, opposing doctor assisted-suicide) ... so using a term like anti-abortion in this case may not be any more or less NPOV, I think it would be less precise. Not to mention, I think that most pro-life groups refer to themselves in that way ... I could get a lot of people to support moving "New York Yankees" to "Evil Empire", but that's not what the Yankees call themselves ... even if I found a vast majority of sources supporting that this is what a majority of people call the Yankees, it still shouldn't be moved. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, precisely per Mattinbgn.  -- Lear's Fool 05:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Generally, we should be supportive of what a movement calls itself, except, of course, when that description is deliberately obfuscatory, as "Pro-life" is, since it seeks to hide the primary thrust of the movement, which is to outlaw abortions. If the abortion-rights movement started to try to position itself as the "Unwanted Child Protection Movement", the questin would be the same: which name most accurately represents the focus of the movement, versus one selected for its public-relations value? In this instance, "anti-abortion" is the name which most accurately describes the movement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Deliberately obfuscatory? Good grief, do you really think that any person who self-identifies as pro-life doesn't intend for you to understand that they oppose abortions? The pro-abortion movement is "pro choice". The anti-abortion movement is "pro life". In both cases, the terms avoid the word abortion and describe something we would all find positive. All of us believe that life is a good thing and all of us believe that choice is a good thing. Who in the world is going to name their organization or movement something that doesn't sound like a good thing? If the guy who founded McDonald's had called it McPoopburgers, would you go there? The Wikipedia article should be about what the movement is really called, not about what you wish it was called. It is really called the "pro-life movement" whether you like the name or not. Microsoft is called Microsoft, even though I'd rather call them "company that makes software that blue screens constantly". Phillip Morris isn't called "company that sells death sticks". Apple isn't called "overpriced toys for nerds and limousine liberals". --B (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OFF-TOPIC

I take offense to your characterization of Apple! Apple should be called "amazing company that makes products that are worth 10 times what they're priced at! WikiManOne 06:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC) In case it isn't obvious, I meant that to be light hearted, this thread is getting very heated. I have an Android phone and an iPod Touch, so I'm bipartisan. --B (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I'm almost all mac, iPhone, iPods, iPad, macBook, but I use Google Chrome, so does that make me bipartisan? :P Sorry for my very lame sense of humor. WikiManOne 07:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Dayewalker. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Both "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are "marketing terms". You can't change the one to anti-abortion without changing the other to pro-abortion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, how exactly is the pro-choice-movement "pro-abortion"? Are they the folks who want to force every woman to abort at least one of their fetuses? Never heard of them... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

They support the right to abortion-on-demand, while the other group opposes it. And since you bring it up, there are very few who support a blanket ban of all abortions. Primarily it's abortion-on-demand that they oppose. Abortion as a medical decision (i.e. to save the mother's life) has much less traction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-abortion" isn't even an accurate substitute for "pro-life." There are quite a few pro-choice people who are also anti-abortion, but they still support the legality of abortion. The issue isn't actually abortion, but rather the legality of the act. Dayewalker (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, you're confusing those who are for a right vs. those who are for a duty; on the one side you have people who want to tell others what to do, on the other you have those who want to leave everybody alone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a poor characterization. I am strictly apolitical, but I know people who are pro-life who very much talk about protecting the civil rights of a human being. There may very well be a disagreement about the beginning of human life, but it is strictly an opinion that one side stands for truth, justice, and the American way, and the others are mustache-twirlling villians. It is opinions like this (and siilarly voiced opinions the other way) that prevent intelligent debate. 00:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, for those of you who say that pro-choice is the correct term, perhaps you could give me a rationale why all of the following news articles in mentioning someone's "pro-life" identity state "pro-life, meaning anti-abortion" or some variation of that: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
  If pro-life is really the most common and appropriate term to describe these people, why is it necessary for them to note that that means anti-abortion? The truth is that its an imprecise propaganda term used by the anti-abortion lobby, and a neutral point of view would require its renaming. _WikiMan^One 07:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And "Pro-Choice" is a propaganda term to describe supporters of abortion rights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OFF-TOPIC

In fact, I have often heard Pro-Life folks refer to abortion-on-demand advocates as "Anti-Life", and sometimes I think they're onto something. Some in the so-called "Pro-Choice" folks, like the vegan somewhere up the page, oppose defending ourselves against enemy nations without and murderers within, yet somehow killing the unborn is perfectly OK. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC) That didn't sound like a rationale, this is about neutral point of view and making the article accessible, not pushing a certain point of view. If pro-life is so widely used, then why did all the articles above feel the need to clarify what they meant by pro-life? Because its an inherently vague term. WikiManOne 07:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC) "Anti-abortion" is neither neutral nor accurate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC) "Anti-abortion" is perfectly accurate, and it gets its neutrality from its accuracy. Binksternet (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC) But "pro-abortion" doesn't? - Haymaker (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Indeed it doesn't. Pro-choice says "it's up to you, you can either do it, or you don't". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC) So-called "pro-choice" allows for the killing of the unborn, who have no choice. "Pro-choice" is a POV-push. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Can't you say the same thing of which ever side is arguing for less government regulation in any argument? People who argue for an unobstructed right to union membership, politicians who wants courts to be able to hand out the death penalty, folks who want fewer firearm regulations are all saying "it's up to you, you can either do it, or you don't". Pro-choice is emotive and non-specific, if we knock pro-life to anti-abortion there is no reason to keep "pro-choice". - Haymaker (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC) You seriously don't see the difference? >> "You must eat Bananas." — "You must not eat Bananas." — "If you want some, there are Bananas on the table." And the firearm-thing is called "gun-rights," not "pro-gun" for a reason: we don't have legislation which forces you to own a gun. That only exist in some nutcase village in Utah I was told. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral, Although it is a POV term. I concur with all the points raised by the nominee. However, we would also have to change the pro-choice title for the same reason. So i think this is nullified. Someone65 (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - That is completely wrong, and I explicitly made a point of saying so above. (I wish we had a rule in AfDs that said any post that ignored previous posts got automatically deleted.) Anti-abortion means exactly that. Total opposition to abortion. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. I hate the idea of abortion, but I see it as a necessary evil in some cases. So, I am not pro-abortion, but I certainly want a choice to exist in some situations. HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-choice doesn't mean anything. What choice is being presented? It is intentionally hazy and non-specific. - Haymaker (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think what's really the problem here is that positions on abortion cover a continuum, ranging from total opposition in any circumstances, through allowing it in extreme situations such as after rape, then to where the mother's health is genuinely threatened, and ultimately to giving the mother an absolute right to choose. (And there are many positions in between.) The first group can be easily and clearly described as anti-abortion. Pro-life only works in the narrow self selected definition of one particular anti-abortion movement. Obviously, as a selection of English words, it could mean much more than just anti-abortion, but doesn't necessarily do so. It's not so easy to come up with a simple term to describe people in other places on that continuum. Maybe pro-choice would work for the last of my four groups, but I have no idea how to create a simple label for those in between. And that's the real problem. We are trying to create simple labels for what can be very complex perspectives. There IS no simple annswer. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is about a movement, called "Pro-life". That's how they self-identify and the term is commonly used. I do not see that "Anti-abortion" is more commonly used in the sources. I should also point out that the "Pro-life" gets nearly 40x as many hits as the "Anti-abortion" redirect, so I think it's clear what people are searching. Clearly, the POV status of the name is a hot topic, which I'm not offering an opinion on because that is not what this discussion should be about. Worm 11:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment That seems a particularly American POV. The sentence "That's how they self-identify and the term is commonly used" is a classic case of WP:OR. Where do "they" self identify that way? Which people self identify that way? Obviously a lot of the big noise makers on the issue use that term, but I know of some anti-abortion folks who want nothing to do with those who have made it a big-scoring political issue. One can be anti-abortion without being part of any movement. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not American :) I distinctly consider myself un-American. Yet, I am well aware of the term Pro-life and in the sources I've read the campaigners identify as "pro-life". I haven't seen campaigners saying "We're anti-abortion" in sources. News sources seem pretty split down the middle on which term to use, in my opinion, so I don't see a clear need to change it based on that either. Worm 11:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the suggestion of Americanism. (I might feel insulted myself by such a slight ;-) ) I feel the term "pro-life" certainly came from America, and isn't used universally around the English speaking world. My position is that "anti-abortion" is 100% clear and concise, and relates only to the abortion debate, while "pro-life" can (and does) get used beyond that area. It's not a 100% clear term. The two don't mean the same thing. And what we're talking about here is what is only accurately described by "anti-abortion".

No worries, as you said, the term has come from America, but I do believe it is has infected other English speaking countries. I can only speak for UK, but as I said, I was aware of the term and only know it in regards to an opinion on abortion. However, I would be persuaded by your argument of accuracy if you could provide me a recent source which discusses pro-life as a term unrelated to abortion. By recent, I mean since the term "pro-life" has enterred the public conscience, the last few years. Just because the term could be interpretted differently doesn't mean it is. Someone mentioned the Tea party movement above. I don't follow American politics enough to know much about it, but I have a feeling it's nothing to do with Tea drinking rights. Worm 11:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not just English-speaking countries. Click on the article and look at the interwiki links to this article in other languages. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM calls it some form of "pro life". Latin and Simple English may have evil Americans dominating them, but other Wikipedias have a strong international flavor and they too think the movement is "pro life". In French, pro-vie (the term for "pro life") gets 425K g-hits and anti-IVG (the term for "anti-abortion") gets 243K g-hits. --B (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Commenting as an editor who is not involved in this subject. The movement generally describes itself as 'pro-life' because they regard the life of an unborn foetus as taking priority over any rights the mother has to control her body. In general, political campaigns and social movements should have their articles located at the terminology they use to describe themselves. I am not convinced by the suggestion that English-speaking countries other than the USA do not use the term; it certainly seems to be standard in the UK. Even if usage in the UK and other countries is influenced by the USA, then that is something in society which we should reflect. If the use of the terms 'pro-life' and 'anti-abortion' were in roughly the same proportion, I would also argue for using 'pro-life' as it is better, if possible, to describe a movement by what it supports than what it opposes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. "Pro-life" is a hugely loaded term and implies that people who support abortion are "anti-life", which is ludicrous. Both terms are commonly used (usually by people with different viewpoints), so the less POV one should be used for the article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Your value judgment about whether or not you like the term doesn't cause the reality to be adjusted. "Pro-life" is overwhelmingly more used, is the title of every single corresponding article in Wikipedia's other languages, and is what the movement calls itself. Not liking the term doesn't change what it is any more than not liking the term "pro choice" would change what it is. Believe it or not, even pro-lifers favor choice in most aspects of life - you choose what to eat for breakfast, what kind of car to buy, and what color shirt to wear. Even pro-lifers support those choices - they are not "anti-choice" any more than pro-choicers are "anti-life". --B (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "Overwelmingly more used"...what nonsense. In the UK, no one would use "pro-life" unless they are a pro-life supporter. The reason is it's inflammatory, and obviously so. It's nothing to do with an individual 'value judgment'. DeCausa (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I take exception to the concept that using the term implies you support the movement. For example, BBC News has 512 instances of "pro-life", and I do not believe they support it. They also have 549 instances of "anti-abortion", not much difference. Worm 14:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      • irrelevant - see below.
        • Indeed. In fact, suppose we check several UK publications:

Publication	Pro-life g-hits	anti-abortion g-hits
express.co.uk	506	150
thesun.co.uk	1610	140
guardian.co.uk	32K	4890
telegraph.co.uk	3240	750
independent.co.uk	13K	1222

• • • • • I think I've made my point. --B (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
          • No you haven't because you haven't bothered to look at these hits. Most of them are using them in clearly not a neutral way eg quotes from the likes of Ann Widdecombe!!! You have to go through each hit and distinguish bewtween when the news organisation is using the word 'itself', when a columnist is editorialising and when it's being quoted, usually of a pro-lifer. What you've produced is worthless - except... the one's I did take a look at support the view that pro-life is used in a non-neutral context. (Oh, and by the way, the Sun/Express/Telegraph are hardly 'neutral'! DeCausa (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Who cares if it's the news organization using the term itself or not? You seem to be under the impression that the proper name for the pro-life movement can only be determined by its opponents, because if someone supportive of the movement calls it "pro-life", that doesn't "count". --B (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
              • ...because in the UK it's not a neutral or 'common' term...it's inflammatory and one-sided. Read my post above which you're replying to!!! DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. "Pro-life" is of course just a euphemism for anti-abortion, in the same way that "pro-choice" is a euphemism for pro-abortion. We should not use euphemisms as titles, especially when they are as cryptic as these two are to an international audience. "Pro-life" might just as well refer to activism against the death penalty, and "pro-choice" might just as well refer to activism for the right of employers to discriminate on the basis of race and gender. This article should be renamed to anti-abortion, and pro-choice should be renamed to pro-abortion. If necessary, a joint move proposal should be created and announced on WP:CENT. Hans Adler 15:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If you're going to rename the one, you need to rename them both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • • Wasn't "joint move proposal" clear enough??? Hans Adler 00:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about that. This BBC glossary points out that "Supporters of the pro-choice agenda do not necessarily support abortion itself, only the position that women are entitled to make the decision themselves." Worm 15:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Oddly enough, that same glossary has an entry for pro life, but not for anti-abortion. I think it's a real shame that the BBC is so biased towards America that they are using the America-only term instead of the proper international term. (dripping with sarcasm) --B (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Basically WP is not the place to open cans of worms indiscriminately, and that would be the primary result of such a move. Nor is the title "inflammatory" to anyone I have known. Collect (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UCN. This is a pointless ideological dispute. I'm a firm pro-Choicer in my own political life, but this clearly against WP:UCN. We do not dissect the meaning of words that go into group labels here, and determine on our own that they are illogical, irrational, etc. People should also be reminded that WP:BATTLEGROUND is part of the policy WP:N - "Wikipedia is not a place to ... carry on ideological battles." Let's end this nonsense and carry on improving the encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for so succintly saying what I was thinking. Worm 15:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Why not rename it Anti-choice or Anti-death.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Highly suggest that someone WP:SNOW close this immediately, and let everyone get back to doing something useful with their time. I'd do it myself but Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure suggests that I shouldn't. SnottyWong ^babble 16:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I don't see what the big deal is here. We should also change the name of "Pro-Choice" to "Pro-Abortion Rights", and this article should be deemed "Anti-Abortion Rights". With the first sentence in both articles stating what each group deems themselves to be(Pro-Life and Pro-Choice). Sort of what NPR decided to do. I don't want to ruffle the feathers of anyone on either side, but it does seem obvious to rename both articles to a more neutral title. Dave Dial (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That naming convention presupposes that abortion is a right. --B (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • This naming presupposes the unscientific notion that the fetus is a life. It also plays into anti-abortion propaganda in re-branding their movement. _WikiMan^One 18:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      • In what way is it "unscientific"? Science cannot prove whether an unborn fetus constitutes a life - it is purely a matter of opinion as it is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. Viability (fetal) is probably the best "scientific" definition of whether or not a fetus is a life. And as I said repeatedly, even if the term "pro-life" is propaganda, the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia use a group's self-identified name, not what their opposition calls them. Good grief, the Republican and Democratic parties both have names that are propaganda (don't most people like the republic as a form of government and don't most people like democracy?) But we name their articles by what they call themselves, not by what someone might wish they were called. --B (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • This will more than likely be my last comment here regarding this issue, but I do not agree with your claim. The naming I suggested does not 'presuppose' anything. It states the indisputable facts as they exist. Dave Dial (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary RM break 2

• Oppose the move. Various reasons given above.198.23.5.10 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed here that nobody has even commented on my point from above that we are trying to apply a binary arrangement of words to something which is really a continuum. Too hard a concept? HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, reposted since this got no answer before for those of you who say that pro-choice is the correct term, perhaps you could give me a rationale why all of the following news articles in mentioning someone's "pro-life" identity state "pro-life, meaning anti-abortion" or some variation of that: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
  If pro-life is really the most common and appropriate term to describe these people, why is it necessary for them to note that that means anti-abortion? The truth is that its an imprecise propaganda term used by the anti-abortion lobby, and a neutral point of view would require its renaming. _WikiMan^One 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, two of them are one guy's quote. One of them is deriding the term. Three of them are from the 1980s when the movement was relatively young and a reader potentially would not have known the definition, and, in any event, not relevant to what the correct term is 30 years later when clearly even if "anti-abortion" was the correct term then it isn't now. If the correct term is "anti-abortion", why would you use "pro-life" at all? One of them describes Jesse Helms as "pro-life, meaning anti-abortion". If the correct term is "anti-abortion", why even say that and why not just describe Jesse Helms as "anti-abortion". The reason is that the author knew the correct term for the "pro-life" movement, which he then defined for his reader. This is no more mysterious than an author discussing the "tea party" movement, then defining that term in case his readers are unfamiliar with it. --B (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • How is it clearly not the correct term now? You're making a jump in your argument, what it shows is that's how they self-identify but in order to make it clear to readers, they were required to clarify what the term meant, "anti-abortion." _WikiMan^One 18:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      • "Pro-life" is clearly the correct term. Please find a single dictionary, encyclopedia, or other reference source that lists only "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life". I've given you three - Encarta, Britannica, and the BBC's US Elections glossary - that list only "pro-life". You can click every single interwiki link from the article and every single non-English Wikipedia uses "pro-life" as the name of the article. At a legitimate reference source, this wouldn't even be a debate, because the answer is obvious. --B (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Here's one [27], so there you go, its listed in a dictionary. Now, just an hour ago another neutral newspaper published an article referring to the movement as "anti-abortion" [28], furthermore, these scholarly articles also refer to it as "anti-abortion" [29] [30] [31] [32] there are plenty more, its clear that anti-abortion is the precise term of choice from neutral sources. _WikiMan^One 18:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Cambridge also lists it, [33] clearly "legitimate reference source" is not an issue here, its about a personal bias that wants to make the movement appear favorable rather than neutral in an encyclopedia. _WikiMan^One 18:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Add to that Dictionary.com [34], Merriam-Webster [35] and Reverso (HarperCollins) [36]. Dude, legitimate reference sources list anti-abortion all over the place! That's FIVE dictionaries! _WikiMan^One 19:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I also call attention to this article [37] which clearly states it like this:

"The annual legislative debate between abortion-rights advocates and anti-abortion advocates played out Thursday as it has in previous years"

• • • Seems pretty clear what the preferred neutral wording is. _WikiMan^One 18:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      • • Umm, the dictionary link you gave proves my point. According to them, anti-abortion is defined in the Collins English Dictionary, while pro-life is defined in that dictionary, as well as the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. In other words, the latter does not think anti-abortion is a word. Amusingly, your first link categorizes the article under the subject, "Pro-life movement", so apparently they think "pro-life movement" is the correct word. Your third link refers to the law as "anti-abortion", which is correct, not to the movement. Your fourth link uses "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice". In any event, I don't dispute that both words exist and both words are used, I only claim that "pro-life" is unquestionably the correct word when referring to the movement or philosophy. Let me clarify my request - my request is for a reference source that lists ONLY "anti-abortion" as a term and not also "pro-life". The dictionaries you gave list both. --B (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Did you even read the sources? Both the Washington Post and Times Dispatch are calling the people who call themselves "pro-life" "anti-abortion" instead. Good grief, do you even read the articles? Furthermore, I just gave you three more dictionaries that list "anti-abortion." If you want to take the time, compare the definitions for "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" in Merriam-Webster, "anti-abortion" has been in use longer. Their definition of "pro-life" almost seems to just say "anti-abortion" which is exactly what it is and what it should fall under. _WikiMan^One 19:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Again, I'm not questioning that the term "anti-abortion" exists. I fully believe you that people use it. I will even give you that in the US media (which is heavily biased to the left), it's at least as prevalent as "pro-life". Just showing that it is used in a news media article doesn't show that it is the better name for the article. This table shows you what I am driving at. For reference sources (encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc), notice how of the ones we have found so far, all of them define "pro life", but not all of them define "anti-abortion". That would suggest that "pro life" is a preferred term. Feel free to add to the table. --B (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference Source	Pro-life link	Anti-abortion link
Encarta (Dictionary)	yes	no
Britannica (Dictionary)	no	no
Merriam-Webster	yes	yes
Collins English Dictionary	yes	yes
American Heritage Dictionary	yes	no
Random House Dictionary	yes	yes
Dictionary of Politics (Brunswick)	Says "see 'anti-abortion'"	Yes
Princeton Wordnet[38][39]	yes	no
Webster's New World	Yes	Yes
Shogakukan Progressive English-Japanese Dictionary	No	Yes
New Horizon English-Japanese Dictionary (Tokyo Shoseki)	No	Yes

Who/what is "Dictionary of Politics"? (Publisher/authors?) --B (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• This chart adds very little to the discussion, all it proves is that both terms are in common use. Now that that has been established, lets go back to discussing which is the most neutral description of the movement. Clearly, from the news articles shown, objective journalists use the term "anti-abortion" rather than the misleading term "pro-life." Also, the book Dictionary of Politics was published in 1992 by Brunswick. _WikiMan^One 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The purpose of the table is to see which term is preferred by neutral reference sources (which Wikipedia purports to be). It seems to be pretty overwhelming within the very small sample size that we have. --B (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment' - Support vote by IP 166.137.139.66 should be thrown out as WP:JUSTAVOTE, as should Oppose votes by Kanatipo, Lear's Fool, Jclemens, Slatersteven, and IP 198.23.5.10 for the same reason. _WikiMan^One 18:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- neutrally states what the subject of the article is. Nothing says we can't refer to "pro-life" in the body of the text as a term which is frequently preferred by those holding anti-abortion positions. And responding to the comments about about renaming "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" -- that wouldn't be accurate. Many people who identify themselves as pro-choice will also state that they're against abortion in general, but more firmly against imposing their value system on the people actually affected by the decision. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Switching to oppose, as it's been pointed out downstream that opposition to euthanasia is part-and-parcel of the position. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - if this article is not going to be renamed, then the article Anti-abortion violence should be renamed Pro-life violence for all the same reasons that this article shouldn't be renamed. _WikiMan^One 19:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary RM break 3

• Oppose and speedy close - pointy move request that has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. SnottyWong ^confabulate 19:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Dup opinion, see above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename per nominator to the more neutral title "Anti-abortion". If this article was about a particular organisation, it would of course be appropriate to use the name of that organisation, but in this case the article is a general one about a particular political position. Rather than using the contested terminology of one side of the debate, we should use a neutral, descriptive title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • On the money:that's the nub of the issue, succinctly put. DeCausa (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Even the left-wing RationalWiki (created to be a liberal version of Conservapedia) calls it the Pro-life movement. Does Wikipedia really need to be to the left of RationalWiki? --B (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      • As soon as you use Liberal and left-wing as being equivalent your American view of the world is on display. HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, I used American political terms to refer to the political bent of RationalWiki, an American (New Mexico) organization that was created in response to Conservapedia (another American organization). Incidentally, wikia:Liberapedia (another liberal encyclopedia) uses Pro-life as their term of choice. --B (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support renaming/restructuring: to daughter article on Anti-abortion, a title which is more specific, less ambiguous -- especially since the term is preferred by the Associated Press Stylebook; main article on Pro-life should include broader discussion of abortion, contraception, capital punishment, euthanasia, stem cell research, cloning and other reproductive issues. I disagree that the term Pro-choice is logically parallel: pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The AP is engaging in POV-pushing. They encourage reporters to use "abortion rights supporters" and "anti-abortion". They are, of course, assuming what they would like to conclude - that abortion is a right. The movement itself, since at least the 70s, has been called the "pro-life movement", regardless of what the AP might wish. --B (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I'm going to take the AP as a reliable source any day over what wikipedia User:B has to say on the topic. If the AP believes it should be referred to as anti-abortion, then they probably have very good reason to do so, and let me remind you, they are the Associated Press. _WikiMan^One 22:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, apparently Reuters is also POV pushing in your opinion.[40] In reality, both Reuters and the AP, respected journalistic sources, are opting for the more neutral word. _WikiMan^One 23:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      • "Anti-abortion" is not neutral, nor is it factually correct. "Pro-Choice" is also a lie. The so-called "Pro-Choice" is actually "Anti-Life". You can't have it both ways in your POV-push. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
        • The pro-choice movement is not anti-life any more than the pro-life movement is anti-choice. Even the AP's own style guide says you should use pro-xxxxxxx to describe people who support the point of view (pro-war, pro-business, pro-labor, etc). But the mental gymnastics kick in when it's time to talk about abortion and it's "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights supporters". --B (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Except in this case, they are clearly not pro-life so much as pro-banning abortions-on-demand and even in cases of rape and incest to a large extent. Therefore, the AP has it right when they refer to them as "anti-abortion" as a neutral and accurate reference to the anti-abortion movement. _WikiMan^One 23:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Very few conservatives (almost nobody of any significance) actually support banning abortion in the case of rape/forcible incest. Plenty (most?) feel it is still morally wrong, but don't support criminalizing it. But regardless, that doesn't justify changing the name from something it is to something it is not. What might make sense is to move the article to pro-life movement, which then eschews the question completely. It's very clear that the name for the movement (as opposed to the adjective used to describe a person) is the "pro-life movement". --B (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Ok, I get it, they think murder is okay under certain circumstances, either that or they don't really think its murder... suits me either way, we're getting off on a tangent. The associated press uses the term "anti-abortion" in lieu of "pro-life" because "pro-life" endorses the view that life begins at conception/fertilization and is therefore endorsing the protesters view making it supporting a POV, if wikipedia is to claim to support having a NPOV we will do well to follow the lead of the AP and rename this article "Anti-abortion" or even perhaps "Anti-abortion movement" if that would suit you. _WikiMan^One 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
                • (1) No. They don't think it is "okay", just that it shouldn't be criminalized in the limited case of rape. (2) "Pro-life movement" is the name of the movement, just like "tea party movement", "temperance movement", or any other grassroots movement has its name. There is no such thing as the "anti-abortion movement" (there are anti-abortion laws, anti-abortion protesters, etc, but the name of the movement is not the "anti-abortion movement".) --B (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, You know, we don't always use self selected names in Wikipedia. We seem to avoid describing North Korea as a democratic nation, even though its self selected name say it is. The North Korean government chooses to use that name as a marketing tool (not all that successfully, IMHO). The Pro-life movement use its name as a marketing tool too. Not the same thing, you say? It's definitely all about politics. I truly have reservations about using marketing names here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's because we prefer common names instead of longer formal names (Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton). It has nothing to do with a value judgment on the name of North Korea. --B (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm reminded of the Richard Nixon referring to Communist China as "The People's Republic of China" with a straight face. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OFF-TOPIC

If we're being honest the Chinese government have done rather a lot for their people. Giving a billion people electricity and lifting a good half billion out of absolute poverty, which the Chinese have done, is kinda a big deal, and something the "western" governments haven't really matched in the past 30 years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Oh man, now we're talking about China? I'm sure the tortured Tibetans and butchered Uyghurs like the fact that Mao "built a lot of roads"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC) We have plenty of tangents already here ... can we not go down this one unless someone is going to offer up for consideration what the Chinese call the pro-life movement? --B (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Many American Southerners used this same argument about saving African-Americans from the savagery of the Dark Continent, and civilizing them, giving them a job .... its an argument, just an extremely poor one. Large swaths of China remain without plumbing, electricity, and McDonalds. You note that over half the Chinese remain in poverty. I am certain that no similar Western nation is half impoverished. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC) I was actually reading in the Economist that these days there are less than 10 million Chinese without electricity - that's why I made my previous point. I'm happy to provide a source for this in the morning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting back on point how do "real" encyclopedias such as Britannica designate the pro-life and pro-choice movements in their articles? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• They don't. They do have dictionary definitions but in that case their definitions are of no further value than any other dictionaries, and there are dictionaries that list it either way or (mostly) both. What we need to look at is what neutral sources like the Associated Press or Reuters or other outlets use, which is "anti-abortion". Neutral sources seem to opt for that characterization... _WikiMan^One 01:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And just out of curiosity how do "neutral" sources, like say Reuters and the AP, refer to the ambiguous term "pro-choice" (pro-choice about what? Whose choice?). Badmintonhist (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC) PS: what about the major networks, The New York Times, the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek?

• I can provide you with instances of both Reuters, the Washington Post, Associated Press and probably other reliable (and neutral) sources referring to the movement as "anti-abortion" or "anti-abortion movement", it would seem wikipedia should follow these neutral and reliable publication's style rather than titling this article in such a way as to endorse one position or another and compromise NPOV. I don't know how they describe pro-choice or abortion rights activists, I believe that the AP generally refers to them as "abortion rights activists" but don't have articles to back that up. Interesting question though, not really pertinent to this specific move... _WikiMan^One 01:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • NYT: [41] [42]
    
  • WP/AP (They seem to have same articles): [43] [44]
    
  • Reuters: [45]
    
  • Time: [46] [47](interesting one, because the picture is titled pro-life in an apparant nod to the images, but in the caption he is clearly noted as "anti-abortion")
    
  • Those are all I looked up for now, I'm sure the pattern would probably continue... _WikiMan^One 01:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • What does showing individual articles prove? Both terms are clearly used. Using Google News from 2002 to 2011, there are 46K total "pro-life" uses and 31K total "anti-abortion" uses over that same time period. The frequency of use seems at least somewhat related to the political bent of the publication (with the Washington Post being an outlier). For site:nytimes.com over that same time period, they report 1170 uses of "anti-abortion" and 653 of "pro-life". (Obviously this could not possibly be not an exhaustive list of articles, but presumably the uses are a representative sample.) Site:washingtonpost.com is 756 for pro-life and 316 for anti-abortion. Site:foxnews.com has 511 for pro-life and 508 for "anti-abortion". (Fair and balanced?) Site:washingtontimes.com has 280 for pro-life and 55 for anti-abortion. We're going around in circles here. "Pro-life" has more uses. It has more news uses. It has more British news uses. EVERY SINGLE WIKIPEDIA - even the non-English ones, which presumably aren't nearly as influenced by us evil Americans - use it. Reference sources prefer it. People who don't give an excrement one way or the other about the issue use it. Gallup uses it when they poll people about it [48]. Survey USA uses it when they poll people about it [49]. Some site that indexes polls [50] has two polls (the aforementioned Gallup poll and a FoxNews poll) that use it and none that use anti-abortion. The only people who don't say "pro choice" and "pro life" are the committed left. --B (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That reads like name-calling of the most stupid kind. What does an interest in correct use of language have to do with being a pinko commie? You do your case no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • • So what you have just shown is that the Washington Post, New York Times, and other neutral/respected/reliable publications use "anti-abortion", fringe publications with an axe to grind like the Washington Times uses "pro-life" and than semi-fringe organizations, tough not to the level of the Washington Times, like Fox News use both... I think that says a lot about which one we should use; noting that the AP, TIME, Newsweek, LA Times, and other major newspapers opt for "anti-abortion", surely you aren't accusing WP:RS of being the "committed left," whatever that is... _WikiMan^One 02:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose after careful consideration. Pro-life and pro-choice seem to be both more popular and what each movement prefers to be called. If this rename were to go through, we'd probably want to rename the pro-choice article to be symmetrical. Unfortunately there is no convenient anti-term for this, so not moving maintains neutrality in my mind. I would rather use the common name for both at the slight expense of precision. –CWenger (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Per Griswaldo, Snottywong, Arc, and others. Also, the motivation behind this suggestion is suspect at best, coming on the heels of the PP "sting". Arzel (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose.

Wikipedia:Article titles #Considering title changes has a couple relevant principles (highlighted):

"In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense (emphasis added). Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason, such as anachronism, for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both Volgograd and the Battle of Stalingrad.

"Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

"Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, (emphasis added) and there are many other ways to help :improve Wikipedia.

"While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."

I agree with the following comment by a pro-choicer, under Talk:Pro-life #Arbitrary RM break 1: " *Oppose per WP:UCN. This is a pointless ideological dispute. I'm a firm pro-Choicer in my own political life, but this clearly against WP:UCN. We do not dissect the meaning of words that go into group labels here, and determine on our own that they are illogical, irrational, etc. People should also be reminded that WP:BATTLEGROUND is part of the policy WP:N - [new para] "Wikipedia is not a place to ... carry on ideological battles." Let's end this nonsense and carry on improving the encyclopedia.User:Griswaldo (User talk:Griswaldo) 15:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC) "

As a Wiki editor, I think this time-consuming debate about titles is unneccessary, because the leads in both articles (Pro-choice and Pro-life) adequately explain the issues that have been raised in this debate.

The lead in the Pro-choice article is: "Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have the choice of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, including access to sexual education, to safe and legal abortion, and to contraception and fertility treatments. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement. [new para] On the issue of abortion, pro-choice campaigners are opposed by pro-life campaigners who generally argue for the rights of fetuses."

The lead in the Pro-life article is: "Pro-life describes the political and ethical opposition to elective abortion, and support for its legal prohibition or restriction. Those involved in the pro-life movement generally maintain that human fetuses and, in most cases, embryos are persons, and therefore have a right to life. On the issue of abortion, pro-life campaigners are opposed by pro-choice campaigners, who generally advocate for women's reproductive rights."

As a pro-lifer, I would make the following points (in response to various pro-choice points made by other editors):

1. Most members of the pro-life movement are also opposed to embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) (which destroys living human embryos), euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Many, but not all, are also opposed to capital punishment.

OFF-TOPIC

2. Time magazine's October 4, 2010, cover story shows that human life begins in the mother's womb (Paul, Annie Murphy (October 4, 2010). "How the First Nine Months Shape the Rest of Your Life: The new science of fetal origins". Time. Retrieved 2011-02-05.). 3. The Feticide article says: "In the U.S., most crimes of violence are covered by state law, not federal law. Thirty-five (35) states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and 25 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development." 4. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act article says the killing of a pregnant woman can be the basis for two counts of homicide. "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"." 5. "Anti-choice" is not a self-defining term. As human beings, each of us makes many choices every day. For pro-lifers, however, no one has the moral right to "choose" to kill a human embryo or fetus. Otherwise, a murderer could assert that he is pro-choice in that he has the right to choose to kill someone. 6. Before and during the American Civil War, on the issue of slavery, the two opposing sides were not called "pro-choice" and "anti-choice". Those who supported each state's right to choose slavery were called "Pro-slavery" supporters; those in opposition were called "Abolitionists" (which re-directs to "Abolitionism"). Anti-slavery also re-directs to "Abolitionism".

7. When you type "Pro-abortion", you are re-directed to "Abortion debate". When you type "Anti-abortion", however, you are re-directed to "Pro-life". Because typing "Pro-abortion" re-directs to "Abortion debate", typing "Anti-abortion" should likewise re-direct to "Abortion debate".

As a Wikipedian, this debate reminds me of the Talk:United States debate, wherein several Wikipedians asserted that the title of the article on the United States should be re-named "United States of America".

Eagle4000 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Slab posting is rarely an effective strategy in these discussions. Far too much there to respond to. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I see that someone above has claimed that the Guardian uses pro life more. I did a search on their website and I found the opposite 767 hits for pro-life vs 1018 hits for anti-abortion - and at least the top hit had the pro-life in quotes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Hans Adler, who was interestingly a support-er, and he wrote "This article should be renamed to anti-abortion, and pro-choice should be renamed to pro-abortion. If necessary, a joint move proposal should be created and announced on WP:CENT. " At present there is no such joint move proposal that would move both articles at the same time, so that's actually an argument for oppose. I think the idea of a joint proposal was actually a very good one to handle the case of these two uniquely situated articles. Arguments would become much clearer when opposing or supporting both the anti and pro-abortion titles. Also there is WP:POINT going on here per this [51] creating a false nomination saying "I am not actually in favor of this move," at the parallel article. Hobartimus (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Adding "movement" to the titles of both this article and pro-choice might be a wise move. Srnec (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it might. Good luck getting anyone to notice your excellent proposal in this hash, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait for the request to finish and make the suggestion again as a separate thread.Griswaldo (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's a constructive idea. I supported this proposal but adding Movement after pro-life (and pro-choice) would go a long way to reducing my objection to the title. Also, under WP rules could the words pro-choice and pro-life be in inverted commas in the titles? If so, I would support that too. They are both after all just slogans. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems more to do with someone's political agenda than npov. Groups are named by their adherents, not their opposition. Shall we name "Pro-Choice", "Pro-Abortion?" This proposal should have been a candidate for quick deletion instead of protracted discussion. If it is accepted, no group will be safe from pejorative and mischievous re-labeling. Environmentalists ---> "Tree Huggers"? "Pro-gun control" ---> "Anti-gun nuts." It works both ways folks. Do you want an npov encyclopedia or merely another extension of the pov media? Student7 (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Oh yes? So, the Hijackers in the September 11 attacks article should be renamed 'Martyrs in the struggle against American imperialism' should it? What nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• OPPOSEI have been reading wikipedia for a long time since way before i made this account, noticed lots of articles are liberal and socialist biased, "anti-abortion" is only used by abortion supporters, prolife is used by pro-life supporters and neutral people. lets keep wikipedia neutral and fair everyone!!!!! Encyclopedia91 (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly not a neutral post. Only an American conservative would use the words liberal and socialist in such a pejorative way. This is a global encyclopaedia. The biggest problem with "Support" votes from folks like yourself is that they come from such a narrow perspective on the whole world. HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No. its the truth of the matter that wikipedia is liberal and socialist bias you are the reason why (and other editors like you) Just typical hypocritical liberal scum. Encyclopedia91 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with my viewpoint, but do please learn that the words liberal and socialist have very different meanings in different parts of the English speaking world. Throwing them around as insults here is silly, because many people will take them as a compliment. I doubt if you really want that. (Actually, all attempts at insults here are inappropriate. ) HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that the editor is an attack-only account, and I have asked for his quick dismissal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Pro-life, as pointed out earlier, has to do with the proponents advocacy, not only favoring life for infants, but also anti-war, anti-capital punishment, and anti-euthanasia. Making it unpopular with nearly every extremist for one reason or other!  :) Student7 (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not universally true. In some parts of the world I've seen anti-abortionists want to describe themselves as pro-life, but also be strongly pro-capital punishment. Before making sweeping global statements, it's good to make sure your claim is true at a global level. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "Pro-Chance" is what they should call themselves. Those who make war on the USA or who commit capital crimes have chosen to do so. The unborn get no choice, as the so-called "Pro-Choice" folks have taken it away from them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary RM break 4

• Oppose on common sense. The name may be fraught with Orwellian significance to a degree to some, on the lines of "plausible deniability == cover-up and collateral damage == civilian casualties, so pro-life == imposition of religious belief by law." However, it is the common name of the movement, a broadly used term, an easily identified topic. I point to User:Mattinbgn above for a more measured reason to oppose as I am somewhat in a WTF? state over this even needing to be debated. As a Massachusetts liberal, I can't be accused of opposing for POV reasons, I do however applaud LonelyBeacon for bringing Larry Lucchino into the discussion. Sswonk (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Probably best to use the actual name that the organisation calls itself, as this is what this article is about. As far as I am aware the pro-life movement is essentially a single-policy anti-abortion movement, and the article should include objective criticisms of this movement. I might support a page move to "Pro-life (anti-abortion)" as part of a disambiguation exercise. The article for the operation Medical abortion and the other methods of abortion should have an evidence based objective sections on "Pre-abortion counselling" relevant to each method. Snowman (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Pro-life is American ephemistic jargon and its meaning is not immediately obvious. TFD (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • ""Pro-Choice" is equally euphemistic jargon whose meaning is not immediately obvious. You either have to change both aticle titles, or neither of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere up in the mire above I tried to make the point that opinions of people on the issue of abortion fit into a continuum ranging from absolute opposition in all circumstances, to wanting it to be allowed at any stage of preganancy. Most peoples' views are nowhere near the extremes of that spectrum. Trying to assign a simplistic, binary naming system to the reality of such diverse views is a Canute-like task. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • Yes, which is why it's best to keep the articles under their current names, because those are the common names, and because they do make sense in-context. "Pro-Life" groups see themselves as defenders of the innocent, and as such, capital punishment does not contradict their core principle. The Pope is actually much more "Pro-Life" across the board. And the "Pro-Choice" label strictly refers to the choices of pregnant women, and again they see no irony in their terminology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose because: let's use the names organizations call themselves, when reasonable which is true here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Unforgiven One (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Euphemism merely to avoid the perceived negativity of "anti-", but if you believe that abortion is murder, you should be proud to be anti-abortion. "Pro-life" groups are not pro-life in general: they are not active against the death penalty, the military, putting down dogs, eating meat, etc., so the aren't actually pro-life. (Sure, some of their members may be, but the movements are not. If there is a movement which is, I'd have no problem describing them with the term 'pro-life'.)

As for the WP:COMMONNAME argument, not that frequency is not the sole criterion. Accuracy, clarity, and universality are all important. The first two, and perhaps the third, would support 'anti-abortion' regardless of what the organizations call themselves.

In addition, "pro-life" is not a noun. It's fine for a dab page, or a dictionary-like entry, but not for a full article. (On this secondary point, I would oppose 'anti-abortion' as well. "Anti-abortion activism" would be more appropriate IMO. As would "Pro-life activism" if the move does not go through.)

As for linking this to the location of "pro-choice", I agree that that is also opaque, but moving it would be a separate discussion. It's not like they're actually pro-abortion, so it's not as simple a case. (I don't know of any other term that is used, apart from paraphrases. I suppose we could do that.) — kwami (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • Nor are they "pro-choice", as they offer no choice to the unborn. And your concept of what "pro-life" means does not stand up to scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Very few "Pro-life" supporters believe in the total abolition of abortion. "Anti-abortion" is inaccurate and not common usage. And if you change it to "Anti-abortion", you need to rename "Pro-choice" to "Pro-abortion" or "Anti-life". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That [not against all abortion] is a good point, but the activism is still against abortion, even if not a complete ban. Anti-war activists might make exceptions for self-defense as well, but they're still anti-war activists.

"Pro-choice" is a largely meaningless label, agreed, but they are neither for abortion nor against life, so those labels are simply wrong. That's a bit like renaming the military "Pro-Death Forces" or the DoD the "Dept of Death". Can you name one (US pro-'choice') organization that goes around trying to convince pregnant women to get abortions? — kwami (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

From the standpoint of the "Pro-life" side, the "Pro-choice" side is indeed "anti-life", because they support the right of women to kill their unborns who have no choice in the matter. The followup from recent "stings" against Planned Parenthood are going to prove interesting, to see if the PP is in fact violating laws, and to see if it harms their reputation and/or their funding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fake "stings" against PP (where you pose as a pimp and fail to note that they reported you to the FBI for it, in order to drum up ignorant outrage, like that nonsense with Acorn) would only demonstrate that some of the 'pro-life' crowd are criminals, and willing to lie, cheat, or steal to force their POV on others. That's nothing new. But your analogy is false, as I'm sure you're intelligent enough, and hopefully honest enough, to understand. From your argument, the guns rights lobby is "anti-life", because the only purpose of the guns they're advocating is to kill people. But supporting the right to own a gun, and even to kill an intruder in your home with it, is not equivalent to mandating that everyone own a gun and kill someone just to universally exercise that right. Similarly, supporting the right to an abortion is not equivalent to mandating that every woman end a pregnancy with an abortion. The anti-handgun lobby, on the other hand, wants to ban or further limit handguns. The anti-assault-weapon lobby wants to ban or further limit assault weapons. Shall we call them "pro-life"? Similarly, the anti-abortion lobby wants to ban or further limit abortion. It couldn't be simpler. — kwami (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree. We should have Pro-Life and Pro-choice for the sake of symmetry.Biophys (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So one bad title requires another for symmetry? Both titles are bad, both should be changed, and one is not an excuse for the other. — kwami (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You have to either change both or change neither, otherwise it's biased editing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Pro-life" is more common. Besides, "anti" is not neutral. Here is a link provided by nominator [52]. It tells "I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion", and so on. This is neutral? Biophys (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anti" is completely neutral. It has nothing to do with whether the advocates on either side are neutral. It simply means "against". These groups are "against" abortion: that's their purpose. Do you seriously propose that the pro-life movement is not opposed to abortion? — kwami (talk)

It is not neutral unless the same nomenclature is used for the opposing position (pro-abortion vs anti-abortion). Obviously, we're not going to do that (pro-abortion is a far more odious name to the pro-choice crowd) so we're left with what it is. Having articles about "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" is obviously not neutral - using a euphemism for one and not the other shows a preference on Wikipedia's part. --B (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The difference is "anti-arbortion" is accurate whereas "pro-abortion" isn't. "Pro-abortion choice" would be the equivalent. DeCausa (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Even that is still a euphemism. "Support for legalized abortion" and "opposition to legalized abortion" would be the closest I could come up with for neutral names that are equal and opposite. --B (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy with that. Shall we make a joint move proposal?? DeCausa (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, those two terms do better reflect what the articles are actually about. For example, under Pro-life#Religion_and_pro-life_movements, the sections other than Christianity have nothing whatsoever to do with the pro-life movement. I could go for this name change if there was leave to, at some point based on article size, fork from it content that actually deals with the organized "pro-life movement". --B (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Those would be acceptable. We could quibble over the best phrasing (isn't there also opposition to illegal abortion?), but they're approximately correct and transparent as to what they mean. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to notice that we have a separate article, Anti-abortion violence linked to a section of this article. This provides some balance.Biophys (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Why isn't it pro-life violence? DeCausa (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a little too hypocritical: "pro-life assassination"? — kwami (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Pro-life is the common name and why burden only one side with a hostile name while allowing the other to use its preferred name? Juno (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

How is the name hostile? Anti-gun, anti-slavery, anti-corruption, anti-XXX: being against something isn't bad if the thing you're against is bad.

OFF-TOPIC

Hence "anti-life" instead of "pro-choice", as an unwanted unborn is considered "bad". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Again you are, I can't help but think purposefully, raising straw men. It isn't life which is bad, but the unwanted pregnancy. Shall we move "pro-life" to "anti-life" for those groups which propose 'justifiable homicide' for abortion doctors? They aren't "anti-life" either, they're anti-abortion. Supporters of the death penalty aren't "anti-life", nor is the military, nor is the NRA, nor are the beef and pork lobbies. All of these groups support killing in some form, but they aren't against life. Anti-abortion groups, however, are against abortion, at least to a limited extent. That's their purpose. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC) From the "pro-life" viewpoint, the "pro-choice" folks are "anti-life" and "anti-choice", as the "pro-choice" group argues for the right of pregnant women to dispose of their unborns as if they were garbage. And speaking of straw men, you've raised quite a few. It's sad to think that you consider cows and pigs to be more important than humans. But that's the typical stance of pro-abortion apologists, and is the reason why "anti-life" is a counter-term directed at them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC) "Anti-life"?...compulsory abortions for all.DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Compulsory end-of-life for the unborn at their mothers' whims, with no say in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC) No, just termination of all pregnancies by abortion. No exceptions. Otherwise, it would be failing the "anti-life" objective, wouldn't it? DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I don't follow. You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC) hmm, I think that speaks volumes. DeCausa (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC) What you've done is make a good case for why the articles should remain as "pro-life" and "pro-choice". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC) How would you know. I "lost you at the bakery". DeCausa (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC) "Pro-Choice" does not demand abortions of all, nor does "Pro-Life" demand the banning of all abortions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Er, yes. I think you're still at the bakery. 23:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC) "Anti-abortion" and "Anti-life" would be inappropriate and POV-pushing article titles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC) No, one is reality, one is propaganda, as we've demonstrated multiple times. Perhaps still at the bakery? — kwami (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC) They are both propaganda. But since "Pro-choice" does not in fact confer any choice to the unborn, it is probably the bigger lie of the two. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC) No, Bugs, 'pro-choice' isn't one of the two. (And I'm curious as to how choice would be extended to a fetus.) — kwami (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC) By allowing it to live and to decide what to do with its life, instead of its mother deciding for it. That's the right that the Pro-Life side believes in, and it's the reason it's called Pro-Life. The Pro-Choice side's eagerness to let women kill their unborn is why they get termed "anti-life". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I think "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the most neutral and the most common terms to describe these groups and it is also the way they refer to themselves. Peacock (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

They're common within the US, but we aren't a US encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

They are also US-driven, so the names fit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not for Wikipedia to tell a group how it should self-identify. The term "pro-life" is more common [53] on Google Books than "anti-abortion" [54] Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You got it the wrong way round. No one's stopping anti-arbortion groups calling themselves 'Pro-Life'. But it's not for anti-abortion groups to dictate the nomencature used by others. By your thinking we should call the 9/11 hijackers 'martyrs against American imperialism'. DeCausa (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit of a straw man. Somehow, I don't think you're going to find Britannica or Encarta with an entry on "martyrs against American imperialism". Real encyclopedias do, however, have an entry on "pro-life". --B (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Where do you find that? I only find dictionary definitions of pro-life in Britannica or Encarta, they don't have encyclopedic articles on either so that's pretty much a mute point. _WM^O 18:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary rm break 5

• Support - Anti-abortion is more accurate as multiple good sources use it more like most big newspapers. Also, I see a definition for anti-abortion in my dictionary, I don't see one for pro-life. I would like to think my dictionary is. Good source. Basically the argument I hear against is, "but that's what we want to be called," well, too bad. Wikipedia already has a very strong anti-abortion bias. It's time someone did something about it! 166.137.10.135 (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Most people identify as pro-life, not anti-abortion. Everyone should be allowed to label themselves, not forced to take the label their opponents put on them.69.174.113.4 (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support No, we don't have to go with self identity. We can also go with what neutral sources describe it as, anti-abortion. 166.137.8.248 (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Interesting to note how many Doylestown,PA based IP addresses support this change.Marauder40 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  Very interesting indeed, and with the now-banned SPA that just tried to delete a vote this might be worth a SPI. - Haymaker (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Doylestown, PA is the location of their ISP, not the location of the person. From googling, these IP addresses are from one or more iPhone users. (In other news, there are conservatives with iPhones.) --B (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Causes should not be allowed to be defined by their opponent, just as pro-choicers have decided to call themselves pro-choicers pro-lifers have decided to call themselves pro-lifers, their article should be called pro-life 128.175.87.125 (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Which means, again, that the 9/11 hijackers should be called 'martyrs against American imperialism'. We follow NPOV, not the propaganda from either side. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Move to anti-abortion - pro life is actually pro death. Anyone actually know about all the doctors killed by these people? Labidalove (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)— Labidalove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This users has since been banned for disruptive editing

Only a small minority of pro-lifers are pro-death in this sense. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The self-identification and search term arguments presented above are persuasive to me. I would support calling the 9/11 hijacker article "Martyrs Against American Imperialism" --- if that was the standard name they had used for themselves. Note that one could argue that the "pro-choice" label isn't really logical either, because many of the women getting abortions are poor, or fear poverty, and have been coerced into doing so by an unjust economic system that denies them the positive rights to food, shelter and medical care, instead arrogating all of the substantial benefits of decades of mechanization to a tiny elite which claims to own all of the Earth's natural resources. But we should also use that name, again, due to self-identification and search term arguments. Wnt (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The search-term argument doesn't really hold, because we have redirects to handle that.

I agree that 'pro-choice' is also not an encyclopedic title. But one article shouldn't be held hostage to another. — kwami (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I would also oppose moving "pro-choice", for the same reasons. The name may not be logical, but "logic" is usually known as "original research" around these parts. Wnt (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. There are thousands of articles with descriptive phrasal names that are not set by our sources. All we would need for "abortion rights movement", say, would be consensus that it's appropriate. (Though that phrase does happen to be used in RS's.) — kwami (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Making "pro-life" more neutral without also making the equally confusing "pro-choice" more neutral fails WP:NPOV.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• So please nominate pro-choice to be moved as well, if the new term is npov and you can show that it is preferred by reliable outlets like the AP, NYT, LA Times, Reuters like this one is, then I will support it. What's with holding articles hostage anyway? _WM^O 02:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Because this is not a neutral move.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How is this not a neutral move? You yourself inferred that it would make it more neutral which is what we're after. Please note that the articles are not mirrors of each other. If you want to move the pro-choice one to something more neutral, please nominate it, but don't hold this article hostage to the other one! _WM^O 03:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating has said that moving "pro-life" would make it "more neutral"!! As he/she is opposing it, it is therefore a clear admission of being not NPOV! DeCausa (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support per WP:COMMONALITY and WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS. "Pro-life" is very rarely used in the rest of the English-speaking world (unless to refer to the American political movement). An excellent example of when Wikipedia fails to be the worldwide English-speaking encyclopedia. "Pro-life" should be a redirect to Anti-abortion#In_the_United_States. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a decent argument, but I'd like to be more sure that the premise is true. If you can cite some sources I may strike out my vote. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess if it was true that Pro-life didn't exist in other English speaking countries except in reference to the US, then sites like these http://prolife.org.uk/ http://www.prolife.org.au/ wouldn't exist.

The second site doesn't seem notable, the first one, I note that their first news [55] is on the US. Not sure that that site is notable either. Also, as that site shows, the word Pro-life in that organization and outside of the US is also anti-Euthanasia. I would be open to the idea of after moving this article collaborating on another article referring to different uses of the word pro-life including other pro-life terms used internationally. The article on anti-abortion though, seems best moved to anti-abortion. _WM^O 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't up to you to determine whether a site is notable or not. Also just because "the first news article" may be from the US doesn't make it a US site. Of course Pro-life sites are going to report on news from around the world. Just a VERY quick search turned up two non-US sites that use the term pro-life. That quickly goes against the stated idea that pro-life is purely a US english term.Marauder40 (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, compare these two results, from the telegraph, a search for anti-abortion [56] (minus US on both) turns up more results than a search for pro-life [57]. Again, though, this isn't about usage, this is about neutral point of view and what reliable sources independent of the subject call it. According to the AP, NYT, WashPo, LA Times, etc. this term is "anti-abortion" _WM^O 19:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This has come up quite a bit, and I think the argument has got bogged down because the non-US 'support' editors (including myself) haven't been clear. It's not the case that pro-life is not used or not known in - in my case - the UK. That's been a red herring. The point is that compared to the US it is a 'less' neutral term. Abortion as a whole is less of an issue in the UK (not to say is isn't an issue at all) but there's long been a consensus on 'pro-choice' - anti-abortion is more fringey than in the US. 'Pro-life' is therefore a VERY controversial term. Whereas (I'm guessing), it's a just LITTLE controversial in the US, partly because the abortion debate as a whole is more mainstream for US politics than in the UK. It's difficult to provide sources (it is OR!) but if you look at the google results produced to prove 'it is used in the UK' ( as above) and understand the British political context, it is normally used in a very partisan context eg very conservative paper might use it in an editorialising way. Anyway, this is OR and not 'admissible' but I thought I'd give what I think is clarification anyway. DeCausa (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you DeCausa for expressing this clearly. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So far I'm still not convinced. If "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" are both terms known in the UK, that doesn't argue against the former; and if the former term is more controversial where opinion runs strongly against it, shouldn't the latter be also? The argument about confusion with euthanasia is interesting, but there are some problems with it - I think most hard-core pro-life people in the U.S. would be strongly against euthanasia anyway. And more generally, I recall that Pope (was it John Paul II?) was sharply critical of a "culture of death" and linked anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia deliberately, along with several other political issues. This actually counts as an additional oppose argument, because it suggests that "the pro-life movement" is broader than and (at least conceptually) distinct from the anti-abortion movement in particular. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"and if the former term is more controversial where opinion runs strongly against it, shouldn't the latter be also". I'm puzzled by what you mean by this. I've read it several times and and I still don't know what you're trying to say. In the UK, if you use the term 'anti-abortion' you could be either pro-choice or anti-abortion. If you use the term 'pro-life', IMHO, you certainly signal sympathy to that cause. Could you clarify what you meant?DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I missed your sense of controversial. Wnt (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad all's clear to you...I have no clue what you mean! DeCausa (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's time to close and archive this forum.Biophys (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? Custom is to have wp:rm discussions open for at least a week. Closing would be premature at this stage. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose No one is talking about renaming pro-choice to pro-abortion. People get to call themselves what they want. 128.175.52.6 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• This user has not made any (or few) other contributions to wikipedia.

Except for when their self identification is clearly not the most neutral thing we could call them, as is evident when reliable publications say otherwise. _WM^O 20:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality vs. self-identity... big conflict. What happened with the RCC vs. CC debate? If you aren't familiar, that's "Catholic Church". Who ended up winning? And why... it would be nice if there were guidelines to follow, like some hard rule that tells us what to do in situations like this, so we don't argue for days and days over something really petty. But because of our tendencies towards 'consensus' which end up more like voting/majority rule, things like this seem to turn into a popularity contest, where the view with the most supporters ends up 'winning', and then we get situations of inconsistency where X article favors neutrality in naming while Y article favors self-identity, because that's what was most popular at the time of the vote. For shame. Regardless, it seems clear to me that there is no consensus currently. So we shouldn't go boldly changing things, and the 'winner' would be precedent. We keep what we have because we've had it for a long time. I know it's not the best solution, but there isn't consensus really to support either side. So is there middle ground? Would there be some way to show both in the title (well, that's a software limitation, so 'no' on that front). Part of this clearly affects another article, and if we don't approach this from a more wider front, we easily can create a situation of disparity. I really don't think it would look good if we said one side of the movement isn't allowed to use it's own terms, but another side is. Seems like favoritism or taking sides, or not being neutral (which I thought was part of the point of renaming in the first place). Hmmm... may proposal would be to close this vote here as no consensus, and maybe we could open up a central discussion (not vote) about what to do with these articles, considering both sides (not just one, like we are doing here). -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CCC, for some input on how consensus can change. Status quo is just another word for m:Wrong version. Cheers! ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary rm break 6

• Support - wikipedia doesn't have to be biased just because people want to call it that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.132 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have proposed that pro-choice be renamed abortion-rights movement, as the most accurate and neutral label that I could think of. One article should not be held hostage to another, though, so the two RfMs, though related, should not depend no the resolution of the other. (A joint proposal can be made later if these both fail individually.) — kwami (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Anti-abortion" does not include the other issues of concern for the pro-life movement: e.g., euthanasia, embryo research, the ethics of medical transplants. --Chonak (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

At least on a global level, they have relatively little to do with each other. And the movement does not concern itself with other pro-life issues, such as vegetarianism or opposition to the death penalty. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term "pro-life" is far more widely used than anti-abortion and as the above user has stated, the term "pro-life" covers other issues that are grouped with the view, including capital punishment and euthanasia. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a valid argument, except.... if that is true, maybe the anti-abortion aspect of the pro-life movement could be elaborated in a specific "anti-abortion" article, and the "pro-life article should overview all of the components of the philosophy in summary style. This question is not going to settle itself easily either way! Wnt (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty unconvincing oppose point because the article itself (and this is about this article's title) is all about anti-abortion. There's a short reference to 'Consistent Life Ethic', but that's a footnote (metaphorically) about a fringe to the position. DeCausa (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The first line of the Overview section makes it pretty clear that it is about more then just abortion. This line was even in there before recent changes. "Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death." The only fault is that the article and lead doesn't cover more of those things. Those things can easily be added.Marauder40 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

...to justify the title!! DeCausa (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No it shows the fact that the title was already being used to cover a few things more then "just abortion" and that like ANY article on WP the other aspects of the article can use expanding. Just like some on here are claiming "pro-choice" is more then just "pro-abortion", Pro-life is more then just anti-abortion. The entire Overview section mentions things other then "just-abortion". Marauder40 (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This entire premise is a ridiculous notion, the term pro life has been used in the general vernacular for so long that the meaning in relation to the abortion debate is simply understood 68.39.80.156 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment to clarify my above vote in support above I believe that given that the mainstream UK and US press appear to use Anti-abortion more frequently, that pro-life wins by a reasonable margin on Google isn't enough to overide the WP:NDESC name of Anti-abortion and use the WP:POVTITLE of Pro-life. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose "Pro-life" includes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc. If you moved the article to "Anti-abortion", you'd have to create separate anti-euthanasia, anti-embryonic stem cell research, anti-assisted suicide, anti-infanticide articles. And even if you found a way to do that, then the case could be made that opposite terms should be used which would therefore require the pro-choice article to be renamed "pro-abortion". (I wouldn't object to that, but I assume others would.) Also, note that the requesting user is already trying to impose his request on other articles. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support move away from pro-life. Possibly a lost cause, but the logic of the oppose votes is, well, illogical. Two major problems. Firstly, there's a suggestion that if this article is renamed, a second one should be renamed too. So? I agree, and so do many of the other supporters of this move. But let's discuss that when the time comes... which is when that other article is proposed for renaming. Multiple move proposals are designed to simplify and centralise discussion, and one may be appropriate here for that reason, but not for the tit-for-tat political wrangling that offers renaming this article in exchange for renaming that other. No, we discuss each on its own merits, even within a joint nomination if one is made. Secondly, it's suggested that the scope of this article is broader than abortion. That is easily checked and appears to be simply false; The current lead for example reads Pro-life describes the political and ethical opposition to elective abortion, and support for its legal prohibition or restriction. If a previous version has this broader scope, then perhaps a case could be made to revert to this previous version, but the page history appears to be overwhelmingly one of an article focussed on the anti-abortion movement, so it makes far more sense to keep this history with the current content, which is to say move it. Andrewa (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment—The argument immediately above by Andrewa has gone a long way toward convincing me to change to a Support vote. The current article scope concerns abortion, not the other topics. Other arguments concerning the U.S.-centric nature of the current title are persuasive as well, however I request that WikiManOne formally amend his RM at the top to show that the currently redirected title "Anti-abortion movement" would be the best to replace "Pro-life", which is an adjectival title at any rate. I believe that "Anti-abortion movement" would be a good title. The renaming of "Pro-choice" does not have to be a condition, and can happen on its own terms. Sswonk (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. But I'm not sure procedurally that's possible. What would the support/oppose status of the contributions then mean? Would it all have to start again to give everyone the opportunity to support/oppose the amended version? DeCausa (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Short answer to the final question: no. I'm thinking of a note being added above, near the very top possibly directly below the initial rationale, and then a new subsection down here, to which the top note has a link: ===Seeking consensus to move to "Anti-abortion movement"===. An amended discussion focus such as that is not out of the realm of possibilities, and the closing admin certainly can move to that alternative title if it gains consensus, i.e., a substantial amount of switched-to and new "support" votes and solid supporting arguments. Consensus is consensus. Sswonk (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Nobody uses the term "anti-abortion" in conversation. Despite the efforts of the politically correct crowd in the media to change it to anti-abortion, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are still the terms the vast majority of people use. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody, eh? And there we have a classic example of an arrogant, ignorant, unthinking post supporting the current name. I call it "anti-abortion", and would never be stupid nor arrogant enough to claim that what I do is globally universal. We probably live in different countries (how many have you visited?), and mix in different circles. Your contribution harms rather than helps your cause. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In your circle, perhaps. I hear it all the time. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's important. My experience is that pro-choice and pro-life are both terms used almost exclusively by those promoting the viewpoints in question, except of course when quoting such people. Perhaps it's a local thing? Andrewa (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

All the comment from NYyankees51 illustrates is the user's narrow experience. In London, certainly, leaving aside media usage (quotes and so forth), people never talk about 'pro life' unless they're on a street corner handing out leaflets with an aborted foetus ('fetus' for Americans) on them. And while I think of it why isn't Anti-abortion violence called Pro-life violence? DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - If the current article doesn't cover the other pro-life issues (embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, etc.), why don't we edit it to make it cover those issues so we can get the whole scope of the term "pro-life"? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If we have sections on anti-abortion, gun control, opposition to the death penalty, the anti-war movement, moral vegetarianism, opposition to medical testing on animals, the environmental / global-warming movement, etc., then yes, IMO "pro-life X" would be an appropriate title, where X is s.t. like "movements". Though I'm not sure it would be a coherent article at that point. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In other words, if the current article doesn't justify it being called 'pro-life' lets change the article so it does! DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I saw all the media coverage about wikipedia's gender bias but I didn't think it was this bad. I go through article after article an find them dismissive of woman's health issues in order to promote an explicitly anti-woman's health viewpoint. This is a case in point. I wonder what the poll would be if all the male votes were thrown out? I somehow think it would be quite different, but then only, was it 15% of wikipedia editors are women so I guess we dont matter do we? Then people wonder why conservatives are called hateful sexist pigs, it's because they are and this proves it. Let's be accurate and call it what it is, opponents of women's reproductive health care access. Should that fail, I will settle for anti-abortion, although thus group of people generally are also against contraception, etc. it isn't covered so the article is about the opposition to a women's access to a safe legal abortion. Let's call it what it is. Sizzletimethree (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you've quite got the hang of how to persuade people to your view yet! DeCausa (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The most famous pro-life movement is Jainism. They are not even mentioned in this article. What happened to WP:WORLDVIEW? Pro-life in general is simply not the topic of the topic of this article. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Most famous? The only one I've ever heard of is the one that seems to have come out of America. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? That's a bit like never having heard of Protestants. — kwami (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I've heard of Jainism. Just never heard it described as such. But I guess it is. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm based in the UK and "pro-life" is pretty much the most common term used here - including by a lot of pro-choice campaigners - so the claims about international understanding just don't ring true for here at least (or for other countries as shown by the other language Wikipedias). The phrase has been around so long that using it is not some making radical POV political statement but rather using the most commonly understood term to refer to the position in question. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely disagree. Do you really think that if two people are chatting in the UK (not associated with either movement they would (unironically) say "Ann Widdecombe is Pro-life". Rubbish! They'd say she's anti-abortion. It's nothing to do with understanding: in the UK you'd only talk about 'pro-life' if you're one of them. Using the phrase immediately signals your position - and more than that it signals that you're a real activist. In the UK it is absolutely not NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Lionel (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion for a snow keep

No consensus, archived

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I know we're a bit early but I count 70 votes with only 26 "support" or "rename", including the nominator. In the mean time this talk page has been the source of nauseating bickering, many canvassing accusations and has contributed to at least 1 editor being temporarily blocked. This motion isn't going anywhere, the support side barely has a third of the vote, why let the drama continue? - Haymaker (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC) WP isn't a democracy. Motions are not decided by a vote. It wouldn't matter if the nominator were the sole voice pro, if the reviewer found that the arguments and WP policy supported that side. — kwami (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Agree with motion for keep, for reasons given by Haymaker. Also, is there a mechanism for preventing a re-occurence of this huge waste of time, for at least a year or two? --Kenatipo speak! 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Oppose it certainly doesn't look like a snow keep to me. A snow keep would be 5 votes in support vs 65 oppose votes. As it is it needs to be looked at by the closing admin and they need to make an appropriate decision based on the strength of the various arguments. Wikipedia decides things on consensus not on the number of votes, and without examining the points made in detail its perfectly possible that the comments in support of the move are stronger argued, and better backed up by policy than those opposing and thus the page will be moved. I also had a look right at the beginning at the archives and there wasn't anything particularly obvious about anyone attempting such a move request before. I've personally seen discussions with similar ratios of votes to that going the way of the supports because they made the case better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Can you think of a time a 1/3 minority won out when there was more than 3 votes? - Haymaker (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Sure. And this one may have had even less !votes but it only had two !votes that were for redirection other than the nominator - and the page was still redirected due to the strength of a single vote for redirection. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC) If this is anything that involves the article being moved, it will be a case of an admin "supervote", not a finding of "consensus". I've given up arguing over it because this has devolved into pointless bickering, but there really is no way that any fair-minded person can say there is a consensus to move. Real encyclopedias wouldn't even be having this argument - it isn't even a question that it's the "pro-life movement". --B (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)No snow User:Haymarker does not seem to be familiar with WP:SNOW. Vigorous debate is encouraged, and for example the recently closed discussion at Talk:Napoleon_I#Requested_move was open for 21 days. Also, remember that this is a discussion, not a vote: see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and m:Don't vote on everything, among others. The closing admin must take into account the quality of arguments, discounts !votes (where "!" stands for "non") that are wp:ata walk victor falk talk 20:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC) I have considered these things. The arguments have been examined by the voters and the numbers speak for themselves, I have no reason to believe the closing admin will come to a different conclusion. What is going on above is by and large not productive discussion and it has had a corrosive effect on the community. - Haymaker (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC) It doesn't matter whether it's snow or not -- it should stop because the proposal can't win with 2 to 1 opposing it. It's just a big waste of time. --Kenatipo speak! 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Sure it can -- it depends on the strength of the arguments, not just the number. An NPOV argument trumps an ILIKEIT argument everytime. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC) I see what you mean, Sarek. But in that case, who makes the final decision? --Kenatipo speak! 20:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC) An uninvolved admin figures out what the community has decided. This would not be me, obviously, since I gave my opinion up above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC) I just read it above: someone called the "closing administrator", who weighs each vote for how good its reason is. Got it. --Kenatipo speak! 20:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC) This isn't a case of SNOW. But it is fairly clearly no consensus, so I'd urge closing the vote portion of this, and encourage the parties to discuss it, consider compromises, and perhaps compile evidence... -Andrew c [talk] 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC) I thought if there was no consensus to change, then it's status quo. --Kenatipo speak! 21:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) A snowball close is normally only used when the !vote is something like 20-0, not where there is substantial opposition. --B (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Oppose Snowball -- while it is clear there is nothing close to consensus, I don't see this as an example of SNOW. There is significant minority (at this time) support for moving this article. Shutting down discussion early is not only an (unintended) disrespect to those supporting a move,, but could be grounds to reopen this debate immediately after it closes. I think we can all agree that reopening this as soon as it closes would not be desirous, no matter the decision. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Oppose Snowball This isn't majority 'wins', it's for the closing admin to consider which were the best arguments. Snow would be abuse of the policy given the size of the support vote and the complexity of the arguments. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC) No offense but no admin is going to close this can of worms against the votes. Someone should have closed the can when it started, and began a real discussion like, should we add "... movement" to the name of this entry and the "Pro-choice one". Hopefully when this circus ends that discussion will start in earnest. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Well I'm glad we have an expert such as yourself to tell us what will be. In fact, why do we have discussions at all when you can just let you decide for us...DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC) I'm sure an admin will close it, they may take some time, but someone will close it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Of course an admin will close it, I just can't fathom an admin wanting to step in the kind of crap they would get closing it any way other than how the majority has voted. DeCausa, at the end of the day some discussions at Wikipedia are a tremendous waste of time. This is usually the case with discussions that reflect a real world ideological divide like this one does. WP:BATTLEGROUND should be headed in these instances but it isn't always or even usually. When real world ideological battles start mucking up enough crap, I think the inevitable end is arbitration. Nothing constructive will come out of arbitration in terms of article content or title changes, but many editors will end up topic banned. That's just my opinion. I'm not an "expert" nor do I pretend to be. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC) A real world idealogical divide? I think by that you mean a really sharp divide. This is a very hot issue in the US. For us Europeans - not so much. I think it's going to depend on who the closing admin is. DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Yes the United States is also the real world, even if it isn't all of it, or even close to it. Anything can happen I just wouldn't bet the house on it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC) If an admin decides to exercise a supervote here, I cannot fathom this not winding up at arbitration. To close it as move, you have to ignore the majority of !votes, ignore that all other Wikipedias use "pro life", ignore that Encarta and Britannica (at least in their dictionaries) use "pro life", ignore that even the far-left RationalWiki uses "pro life", and instead substitute a preference for "anti-abortion". I don't dispute that the people arguing for "anti-abortion" have well-intentioned reasons for doing so, but no reasonable argument can be made from reading this discussion that there is a consensus to accept the move proposal. --B (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Actually it boils down to neutrality v. self-identification (with a slight twist in the queston: can the title of the 'pro choice article prejudice the neutrality of the move proposal). All the rest of it is just so much hot air. DeCausa (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC) It is only neutrality vs self-identification if you accept that "anti-abortion" is more neutral than "pro-life" ... and if you think of your role as an administrator to be that of supervoter. I'm trying to think of a case on point - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war isn't directly on point, but it's an example of a time when admins were sanctioned for replacing processes and consensus with their own opinion. --B (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I stick by what I said. Look, deep-down we all (incl oppose people - but no one's going to go into print to admit it) know that 'pro-life' isn't NPOV. That's why I say it's about neutrality vs self-identification. The decision the admin will effectively make (and possibly arbitration) is which, as a matter of policy, should be followed. I think this is a broader WP point than just this article, which is why it needs to go to the bitter end. DeCausa (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Well, no, I don't think that's the case. The term "pro-life" is a euphemism, as is "pro-choice", "tea party movement", or "Holy Roman Empire" (which was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an empire). But it's not non-neutral to call something by its name. Further, even if "pro-life" isn't neutral, "anti-abortion" isn't either, particularly when juxtaposed with "pro-choice" or "abortion-rights supporters". On one hand, you have the glorious defenders of choice and rights (who doesn't like those?) and on the other hand, you have those evil people who are against something. I posited (and still think is reasonable) having the article "opposition to legalized abortion" and having a separate article "pro-live movement", which deals specifically with the organized groups that call themselves "pro-life", as opposed to all reasons throughout history that somebody might have opposed abortion. --B (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Your argument is that we shouldn't call things what they are, because reality violates NPOV? If "anti" is evil, then it's evil to oppose murder, genocide, corruption, or medical malpractice. There's nothing wrong with being against something (I'm anti-smoking, but I don't worry about that making me evil), and any attempt to deny what a movement is is no more than propaganda. We have an article on death—should that be renamed "passing on" because the word "death" is negative and therefore not "neutral"? The anti-abortion movement is against easy access to abortion, or sometimes against legalized (or illegal) abortion in any form. They are therefore against abortion, or "anti-abortion". That's simply a factual description of their stance. — kwami (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Oppose. I'm fine with a close on procedural grounds (some users have suggested a close so that this and pro-choice can straight away be nominated together in a joint proposal), but the votes absolutely, absolutely do not justify a snow keep. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Support Lionel (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Support This has been going on for over a week now and the clear consensus is keep it as is. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Support Lyricmac (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Comment There may be a consensus to keep the article where it is, but it would be thoroughly inappropriate for it to be closed as snow keep. If it is closed as snow keep I will definitely escalate the closure as that will have been thoroughly inappropriate. In all other cases I'll be happy to go with the decision of the closing admin as I'm not reading through the discussion in enough detail myself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Comment A significant number of the Oppose "votes" above are of the form "Pro-life is clearly the more neutral", which it's not, or "Pro-life is the self identification name", given with no further elaboration, so no real reason why that should matter. That makes those "votes" fairly pointless, and really looking like one of those "Send a postcard to your politician" campaigns. People with serious thoughts on the matter need to express them better than that to convince others here, and such "votes" highlight why we don't count votes. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I don't see a single oppose !vote of the form "Pro-life is clearly the more neutral" or that even makes that claim apart from the neutrality of using corresponding names for pro-life and pro-choice. As for those who !vote that the self-identification name should be preferred, (1) the reasons have been repeated numerous times and (2) WP:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles specifically says that using the common name overrides neutrality arguments, so an argument "Pro-life is the self identification name" is itself a self-sufficient reason to !vote oppose. --B (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I would have to be convinced that "anti-abortion" is somehow more neutral than "pro-life". I see neither term is NPOV, and about equally so at that. Simply saying "this is what the press uses" does not make either term more neutral. Many non-American newspapaers have a declared bias. American media may not have as much of a declared slant (except maybe FOX news), but there is very much an implied slant (both left and right in a variety of news sources). I don't think saying "X% of media sources use this term" necessarily makes the title more or less neutral. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Can you clarify what is not NPOV about 'anti-abortion' exactly? I'm not sure that I've seen anyone else actually say that (as opposed to saying 'pro-life' is NPOV) DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC) The use of the term "anti-" generally carries with it a negative connotation, just as the word "pro-" carries with it a positive connotation. In most situations (of course), this depends on connotation (I would be proud of being called anti-fascist, and I would be appalled to be described as "pro-boy band"). However, in a PR campaign, these terms carry those very real connotations. For example, someone who is pro-abortion could be described as anti-certain human fetuses. It would be factual, but the connotation would be far from neutral (and I wouldn't support anything along those lines either ... as ridiculous as my example is). LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC That's pretty unconvincing: Anti-Nazi League, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-nuclear movement etc... DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I noted that in my statement. I remain unconvinced in this case, that one is more neutral than the other. I am merely stating that arguments on the grounds of neutrality are not ones to base an argument on here (as long as anti-abortion and pro-life are the options).LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Comment I see a lot of people saying votes of this type and that type should be thrown out. Other people saying this opinion should or shouldn't count. Why not let the closing admin think for themselves? SNOW doesn't really apply anymore. Now that over 7 days have passed the discussion can close whenever an uninvolved admin closes it. I'm not sure how a truely uninvolved admin could be found but lets give it a try. Hopefully one will close it soon.Marauder40 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2011 (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.

name change to Pro-life movement

• Comment The claim that a self identification name is somehow neutral has been bothering me from the start. In fact, it is, by definition, anything but neutral. It is the name chosen by proponents to make their case sound best. That means it's not neutral. HiLo48 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Reporting on non-neutrality != reporting in a non-neutral way. The proper name for the movement is the "pro-life movement". It's not a value judgment to call it what it is. It is, however, a value judgment to reject that name, while allowing "pro-choice". --B (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Heck, our own policy - Wikipedia:TITLE#Neutrality_in_article_titles - even says that neutrality in titles is only an issue if you're using a descriptive title rather than the actual common name of the subject in question. So if we're making up a title like Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, we use a neutral name - there is no organization called "Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". There is no movement called "Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". We name it neutrally. There is a "pro-life movement" that universally self-identifies as such and, despite attempts by the left to call it something else, is still called "pro-life movement" overwhelmingly more often. --B (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The article is NOT about the Pro-life movement. That's not the title. I suspect much of our difficulty is caused by that fact. I would be quite happy to to accept Pro-life movement as the title of an article about that narrower topic, but this article covers much more. HiLo48 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
        • If it's not about the movement, then neither "pro-life" nor "anti-abortion" make sense as titles. Those are adjectives. The correct title should be "opposition to abortion" (a noun) with "pro-life movement" being about the organized movement. --B (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Hm, "life" and "abortion" are nouns, not adjectives. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
            • It's been a long time since I've had an English class, but I'm pretty sure I remember parts of speech. "Pro-life" is an adjective according to dictionaries.[58][59][60]. Life is a noun. Pro-life is an adjective. Most article names are nouns or subordinate clauses being used as nouns. --B (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The CMOS does indeed call them "adjectives", though technically Victor is correct: they're nouns used attributively. (See attributive noun.) But a noun used attributively is functionally similar to an adjective, and is objectionable for the same reason: "pro-life" what? "anti-abortion" what? — kwami (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have views on abortion, but I don't consider myself part of any movement. That would apply to many people. Much of this discussion seems to be trying to categorise everybody as either Pro-Life or Pro-choice (or alternatives to those names). That is obviously wrong, but those in the movements tend to want to do it. The discussion would be a lot simpler and clearer if we did agree to put the word movement on the end.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)
• Change to Pro-life movement and Pro-choice movement would encourage proper factoring of unrelated material into a new article or articles whose name is yet to be determined, for example Legalization of abortion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like a good idea to me. We assume that political movements and political constructs have propagandistic names, i.e. the Peace movement, Non-violence, the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, Peaceful coexistence, Progressivism. Handling "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as social-political movements basically gets the built-in bias out of the way and allows us to describe them objectively. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There is already Abortion law. I would think Legalization of abortion would be redundant. --B (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Commment Perhaps "Pro-life movement (United States)". This has a very provincial scope, violating WP:WORLDVIEW unless we make explicit through the title that it's provincial. Where is the discussion of Jainism, the most famous pro-life movement of them all? — kwami (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• We should have "Pro-life movement" and "Pro-choice movement" instead of the current entry titles. Suggesting that change will have to wait until after the present fiasco ends however. I agree that both terms are US centric, however unless there is another "pro-life movement", so commonly named, that this one would be confused for, we don't need to disambiguate. Indeed we shouldn't do so simply because people outside the US don't use these terms, unless there is actual content to disambiguate. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• A perfect example of wp:systemicbias^walk victor falk ^talk 04:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Moral vegetarianism is also portrayed as a "pro-life" movement, so yes, it is ambiguity. Also, regional terms should be marked as regional, because by default we're supposed to be universal. — kwami (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

When people say "pro-life", nobody thinks of vegetarianism. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Said who? I'm vegan and pro-abortion rights. I consider myself pro-life for being vegan. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 02:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I bet you do. Pro-life when it comes to animals, not when it comes to humans. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is the Pro-life#Against capital punishment section? ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• That is very offensive. I absolutely am pro-life when it comes to humans as well as any other mammal and other animals. I am also pro-life when it comes to humans like Becky Bell, Gerri Santoro and others who have died as a direct result of abortion laws. I am also pro-life when it comes to humans like Bart Slepian and others who have been gunned down by the self branded "pro-life" activists. I am still pro-life when it comes to Iraqis and others who have been needlessly killed in war. I am still pro-life when it comes believing capital punishment shouldn't be practiced. I find your insinuation that I support human death quite offensive and ask that you take it back. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 04:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, a lot of people who label themselves Pro-life are often quite supportive of war and invasions. That's one of the problems with the name. it has a very narrow focus. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The very fact that we are having this argument is proof positive that this title is contrary to WP:Article titles#Deciding on an article title point 3: 'Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. See also WP:NDESC. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

All statements in this section seem to agree that the article-name "Pro-life" is confounded.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This thread has become hilarious all of a sudden! Lionel (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Good. It really had got a bit heavy in there for a while. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty good argument. Its pretty clear that Pro Life breaches #3 of WP:TITLE. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment You are all missing some rather key points here. Let me highlight what you're missing in the point you did quote, while also quoting other applicable language you have left out.

• Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject.
• Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.

The first point of the naming conventions is recognizability. This is reiterated in the most often quoted aspect of the naming convention when it comes to move discussions - WP:UCN. Precision does not mean logical precision based on the individual meaning of words, it means precision with the aim of identifying the topic accurately. That is clear in the guideline. The only reason to disambiguate between the United States and other regions is if there is another commonly known "pro-life movement". The fact that one could call a vegetarian ideology or another "pro-life" is completely besides the point. We function on what reliable sources do call things. Consider applying the argument Kwami made to "pro-choice" ... how many more social movements could we call "pro-choice"? The list is limitless. Of course, the notion that vegetarianism is more "pro-life" than having an omnivorous diet is not even logically sound. A vegetarian ideology, distinguished from carnivorous or omnivorous eating, could be "pro-animal life", but plants are also living. Either way its besides the point since there is only one movement known as "pro-life", and called "pro-life" in reliable sources. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• • PETA has in recent years claimed that if you are "pro-life" that you should be vegan, but even they know that "pro-life" really means that you oppose abortion.[61][62][63] --B (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

...in America. It is actually informative to tell folks where the term is used. HiLo48 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not how our naming conventions work. Also, do you want "Pro-choice movement (United States)" as well as "Pro-life movement (United Sates)", because both terms are of American origin and reflect American usage. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't need America in the tile. What I would like to see is the article called Pro-choicelife movement, and the first sentence of the lead saying something like "The Pro-choicelife movement is the name given to activists in the United States of America arguing for stronger anti-abortion legislation...." (Whoops. Really screwed up there. I think it's right now.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is what the reliable sources say I'm entirely on board. I was responding to Kwami above, where he suggested it as part of the title. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea, actually. A global article called Anti-abortion and a US-centric article called Pro-life movement (United Sates), both briefly referencing each other. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could also add a third article generally describing a pro-life philosophy including anti-war, peace, anti-capital punishment, anti-euthanasia, animal rights, etc.? Great idea either way! _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems there are sources Jainism, anti-euthanasia, and others being pro-life movements. But that depends on how that article would be written. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I suggested that "pro-life" be a redirect to Anti-abortion#In_the_United_States in my original comment, so "prolife us" might be an daughter article per WP:CFORK ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The idea that "pro-life" is only a term used in the US strains credibility. Go over to the article, look in the left column at the "Languages" links and try out all of the links to Wikipedias in other languages. All of the other languages use words that mean "pro-life". I doubt that the non-English Wikipedias are unduly influenced by what the movement is called in America. Try googling anti-abortion site:.uk and pro-life site:.uk and pro-life wins overwhelmingly. Repeat for .au, .ca, and other English speaking countries. I just don't believe this claim that pro-life is only used in America. --B (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment There's been a misrepresentation/misinterpretation of WP:POVTITLE above. This section of the policy allows a non-neutral term to be used in the title "when a subject or topic has a single common name". There isn't a SINGLE common term because 'anti-abortion' is also available - that can be seen from the google results many people have referred to. Btw, even if it were the case that 'pro-life' was more popular, it still isn't the SINGLE common term. So, the implication of the policy is that the most neutral term should be used. According to this Article (and therefore current WP consensus), " "Pro-choice" implies that the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life"." So that's clearly not NPOV. (The fact that "pro-choice" is also not NPOV is irrelevant. Breach of a WP policy by one article can't justify breaching it in the other - the remedy is to rectify the other.) Is "anti-abortion" not NPOV? Hardly: would any pro-lifer be prepared to say they are ashamed to satnd up and say they are anti-abortion. Of course not. The fact that they might believe that 'pro-life' delivers them a 'marketing' advantage in their campaigniing activies is irrelevant to this naming issue. So, in summary: (1) the article itself effectively confirms that 'pro-life is not 'NPOV'; (2) the policy states it should only be used, therefore, if it's the single common name; (3) it isn't, and another NPOV common name is available - so let's use that DeCausa (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You're taking "single common name" out of context. Read the sentence directly above it — "Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a common name (taken from reliable sources) or a descriptive title (created by Wikipedia editors)." In other words, the distinction is not whether or not there are other names which have gained acceptance somewhere, but, rather, whether it is a "made up" title. For topics that don't use "made up" titles, we use the most common title (pro-life). For topics that do use "made up" titles (foo and bar in early United States History), we use neutral titles. --B (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No. It just doesn't say that. It does not say the "the most common title". That's pure fabrication. It says it can be used if it is the SINGLE common name. It's quite clear. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The policy gives two possible scenarios - "Non-neutral but common names" and "Non-judgmental descriptive titles". Which of those two possible situations does this article most fit into? And besides, even if you want to get hung up on the word "single", Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming says the same thing, but without using the word "single". --B (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(a) Non-neutral but common names: that's where it says SINGLE common name (b) Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming is a summary, (the detail is in the Article titles policy, specifically WP:POVTITLE), but even there the examples given are non-neutral titles with a SINGLE common name!!! You need to think about the reason behind the policy. The aim is always to be neutral. In the context of a title, moving away from that principle may be acceptable if there is no alternative neutral common name. That's why the policy says SINGLE. It's not a technicality or a hang-up on one word: it's an important point that defends Wikipedia's principle of neutrality. (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the policy is specifically so that we don't change the name of something that really exists just because it allegedly isn't neutral. Pro-life is overwhelmingly the more common name, even if it isn't the only name in existence. We are concerned with neutrality of names only where we are making up a name. Otherwise, we are concerned with popularity. Both policies say this. One of them, unfortunately, also uses the word "single" when it really shouldn't. That word was added less than a year ago based on this "discussion". The person who added "single" said that they preferred "most" and considered "single" to be more clumsy. He or she then goes on to say "The purpose of either alteration is to avoid that nonsense, and to refer the argument to WP:COMMONNAME, which should be the governing paragraph." Again, the whole idea here is that there is a distinction between "common names" (names where we are NOT making up a term for the article) and "descriptive names" (names where we ARE making up a term for the article). You're using the "descriptive names" rule to try to justify a move, but the policy doesn't support that. The old wording for the policy certainly doesn't support that. The discussion explaining the change (for which there was no consensus sought or achieved) doesn't support that. --B (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"One of them, unfortunately, also uses the word "single" when it really shouldn't" says it all about your position. As does your desire to refer to the "old policy". The policy is as it is - it's no good just saying it's wrong because it doesn't fit with your argument. DeCausa (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The point of referring to the old version of the policy was to help you understand why the word was added. According to the discussion, it was added so that people wouldn't wikilawyer over whether Yucca brevifolia or Joshua tree was more "neutral", but would instead use the correct portion of the policy - the most common name. Instead, it is having the opposite effect. If you would read the rest of the paragraph instead of stopping at the word "single", it says this - "True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental." That's directly on point here - we don't impose the opinion that "pro-life" is not neutral when "pro-life" is the more commonly used name. --B (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-life" is only the most common usage in the US. Globally, "anti-abortion" is most common. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Why then do all of the non-English Wikipedias that have an article on the subject use something that means "pro-life"? Surely the evil Americans aren't pushing their POV everywhere. Why does Google say pro-life site:.uk has 407K hits and anti-abortion site:.uk only has 61K hits? The notion that pro-life is only used in the US strains credibility. --B (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I covered this in another part of this debate. I can't remember whether you were involved or not. In the UK, "anti-abortion" is pretty much the only term used by neutrals because "pro life" is normally used to signal support for the cause. A good example is the first page of the 2 google results you produced. For anti-abortion: 7 hits from national newspapers, 2 from the BBC, 1 from a campaigning (non-NPOV) source, 1 from a minor newspaper. For pro-life: 6 from pro-life organisations, 1 from the Catholic Herald, 2 from national newspapers (both on pieces on the US and 1 of which is a blog) and 1 deadlink. All it proves is UK pro-life organisations are prolific on the web. In the US 'pro-life' is more widespread and is not quite as partisan and 'extreme' as here. Back to the original subject: I'm sorry everyone can see the words in the policy in black and white no matter how you want to read secret meanin gs into it. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

undid close

I just undid User:Alpha Quadrant's non-admin close, because I think with a discussion this contentious, there needs to be an admin ruling on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely - a very experienced admin. I would also suggest that it's highly inappropriate for a user displaying the Christian icon on his/her Talk page (as the non-admin had) to be involved in closing this discusion. DeCausa (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that one as well, it would be highly inappropriate for someone with known connections to the movement to close this. I would be hesitant to say all Christians however, Episcopalians seem to have a pretty rational position on this. Your point still stands however, any admin who closes this should have no connections whatsoever with the so-called "pro-life" movement. Thank you Sarek for catching that, I didn't realize it wasn't an admin. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x4 Just for the record, I am not connected with the movement. I often work in Requested moves. I spent over an hour analyzing this discussion, and determined that there was no consensus for the move. I handled this discussion like any other request. I read through the statements and counter statements unbiased. My personal beliefs don't affect my neutrality in determining consensus. Also, Requested Moves do not have to be closed by an administrator. If you desire a administrator look over this discussion, so be it. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? We have absolutely no reason to believe that AQ was acting in bad faith or that zie is in any way associated with any movement to ban or restrict abortion. Please adhere to WP:NPA. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it was somewhat bizarre, and I might say suspicious, for a non-admin to take for himself the role of closing this discusion. Secondly, I don't think that someone with a Christian banner on their Talk page who was acting in good faith (or maybe, I should say intelligently) would think it was a good idea to close this discussion. DeCausa (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The closing instructions state that non-admins should only close "nearly unanimous" moves, which this one clearly was not. So he should not have closed it, but demanding that a non-Christian perform the close is clearly unreasonable and bigoted. Any fair-minded person should be able to look at the discussion and judge whether or not there is a consensus. --B (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Heck, this is like the situation at Talk:Lila Rose where we have three editors insisting on the Catholic Register's reliability for abortion related topics. One of the editors for it is openly catholic (or believes in the Eucharist which is generally catholic) and the other one is Christian. These types of decisions need to be decided by neutral people. I'm not failing to assume good faith, but I insist that it is inappropriate of her to have closed it, whether done in good faith or not. I won't go as far as to say a Christian shouldn't close it, but if they do, they should be very careful to be fair in their evaluation, any hint of favorableness to anti-choice arguments would be inappropriate. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is not appropriate behavior. Please stop attacking other editors on the basis of their religion. Further such comments may get you taken to AN/I, and I can't say either that I'll be sorry or that I won't be the one taking you there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In answerto B, I didn't say a non-Christian. There's a distinction to be made between a Christian and someone who displays 'campaigning' icons on their Talk page. And it's not about whether that particular individual is fair-minded (how are we to make that judgment about any editor?) but it's about reducing to the max extent any appearance of impropriety in a discussion as high profile and contentious as this. DeCausa (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In answer to Roscelese, It's nothing to do with attacking "other editors on the basis of religion" and i'ts everything to do with not having a "judge in his own cause". This is a significant discussion on Wikipedia and whoever closes it must have the creditials of neutrality to the greatest extent possible. Someone who displays a campaigning icon with substantive connections to one of the sides of the argument fails in that. DeCausa (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe AQ is an Episcopalian. Maybe AQ is a Catholic dissenter. It doesn't matter. There are pro-choice religious types, and anti-abortion atheists. This needs to stop now. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Few, if any people are truly "neutral" on the issue of abortion. It is a wedge issue and obviously highly divisive, even amongst people who try to avoid politics. Nor does simple identification as a Christian (78% of the US, 70% of the UK) mean automatically that one is pro-life. What is needed is someone who can put aside their biases, whatever they may be, and realize that 28 is less than 42 evaluate whether or not there is a consensus for a page move. The closing admin is NOT called upon to cast a "supervote" nor to evaluate whether or not they agree with the arguments - only to verify that there is no overriding policy, eliminate socks and unconstructive comments, and judge whether or not a consensus exists. The overwhelming majority of admins on Wikipedia are going to look at this discussion and come to the same conclusion. --B (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, please, that I don't think AQ's close was incorrect -- just that per WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions, contentious discussions should only be closed by admins. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the distinguished ambassador in his revert. --B (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Sarek's re-opening, despite the fact that I agree with the rationale (no consensus). I agree with Roscelese that there is no evidence of bad faith being involved, even though it was inappropriate for a non-admin closing of this argument, because it is hardly a landslide in either direction. I also agree that DeCausa's comments were greatly distasteful in determining that any admin with particular religious backgrounds cannot make a particular closure. Should African-American editors be recused from closing comments or such in articles related to WEB DuBois or Strom Thurmond? Editors may need to show special care, but simply saying "X displays a particular banner, and is ergo defacto prejudiced" is ludicrous. Judge the individual based on their actions, not on the clothing they wear (or the userboxes they display). LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.