Wikipedia

Talk:United States anti-abortion movement/Archive 6

< Talk:United States anti-abortion movement
Latest comment: 13 years ago by DrKiernan in topic Move?
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

New discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Obviously, the move as suggested failed to gain consensus, however, there was significant agreement that the title/topic of the page was inherently pov. Therefore, I am opening this thread to discuss changes to the article to remedy concerns raised during the move. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 01:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"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." --B (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
If we were following that, then we would have renamed it. The Associated Press, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and most other neutral publications prefer anti-abortion. Let's not get into that again. I thought there seemed to be some agreement for expanding the scope of the article to other "pro-life" viewpoints? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 02:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Without agreeing with anything in your first sentence (but, as you said, not getting into it) ... what I think (and have proposed) is that things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the pro-life movement (eg most of #Religion and pro-life movements) should be somewhere else (opposition to abortion or some such article) and pro-life movement should be an article about the actual movement over the last half-century; pro-life would be a redirect to one of the two. --B (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
That idea is definitely workable. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 02:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
So how do we make it happen? I think we lost some of our friends who participated up above when the suggestion is going to take more finger work... WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 17:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, try cutting another slice of the cake? Collect (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Section on violence

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As it was written, the section goes straight from discussing violence against abortion providers to discussing violence against right-to-lifers, with no transition sentence. This was confusing. Therefore, I added a topic sentence to the section on violence against right-to-lifers: "Right-to-lifers have occasionally suffered violence as well", in order to clear this up. 207.237.243.185 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Other non-abortion issues

Latest comment: 13 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

I agree for the most part with Kenatipo's recent edit - the new wording is more felicitous in general. However, it called my attention to some information that was added recently, namely the description of other issues associated with the "pro-life" movement. I think we can agree that opposition to assisted suicide and stem-cell research (as well as socially conservative values) are generally found together with opposition to abortion, but is there really such a strong correlation between support for a living wage and opposition to capital punishment, and opposition to abortion, that it should be mentioned in the lead? I would say no. It may be that in some cases these positions are motivated by the same core beliefs that motivate opposition to abortion, but given that the correlation seems actually to run the opposite way (with people who support abortion rights also supporting a living wage and opposing capital punishment), I don't think it should be in the lead. It can be mentioned in the body, of course. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it by 15 minutes! I got here via the same route. I think it's dangerous to spread this topic any wider than the abortion issue. That support or otherwise for the other issues (capital punishment, assisted suicide, etc, even war) has any strong correlation with an anti-abortion stand has not been demonstrated. To include it in the lead is totally wrong. I'd suggest that it's even wrong anywhere else in the article unless we are shown very good sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. My edit was mainly to make the English sound better. That last sentence is still awkward. In my own experience, and I'm no expert in the abortion area, many prolife people do not believe capital punishment, for example, should be abolished. The American Life League (ALL) says it is for the protection of all innocent human life, which would exclude most folks on death row. Like I say, I'm no expert, but has anyone done a poll that shows what the pro-life movement thinks across a spectrum of issues? --Kenatipo speak! 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Ros. May I call you Ros? I like your last edit. Those last four words needed to go. One question: on "family values", does the comma go inside or outside the quote mark? --Kenatipo speak! 03:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Heh, I think I'll answer to anything that remotely resembles my username (I have also been called Rosecleese and Roscoe in the recent past). Comma placement depends on your usage: see logical punctuation vs. traditional punctuation. I personally prefer logical, because it is logical, but I've had traditional drummed into me through schooling. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
"Punctuation is extremely important to me, but I insist on doing it my own way." — Donald Knuth PhGustaf (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I better read that essay again. I'm pretty sure I'm a traditionalist. Gustaf, it reminds me of "I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way." --Kenatipo speak! 04:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, Ros. I agree with your edits. But after thinking about it, my feeling is that some of what we took out should probably find its way back in for the following reason: there is a "difference of opinion" among prolife Catholics (is there any other kind?) who could be categorized as "traditionalist" on the one hand, or "social justice" on the other on the issues of the death penalty, the living wage and just war. If this disagreement is described to some extent in the body of the article, it should probably be in the lead. I'm no expert here, but has any polling been done of what the prolife movement thinks across a range of issues? If there's no sampling of opinion then we end up with anecdotes and mealy-mouth wording and he-said she-said. Just letting you know whats on my mind; I have no intention of bold edits at this time. --Kenatipo speak! 15:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it might be a good idea to have a "other issues sometimes associated with the PLM" section? Of course I'm aware of the consistent life ethic philosophy and so forth, but that notwithstanding, the correlation is still likely very small, and to put it in the lead would give undue weight. I agree that it would be good to have survey numbers. If we had a section that was well-sourced and possibly included statistics, the lead could say "opposition to abortion is sometimes associated with other socially conservative issues and (find some neutral way of phrasing the other ones)." But going into that specific difference of opinion, in the lead, is probably too much.
(As for your aside, yes, there is "another kind" of Catholic - indeed, depending on where you go you may find that a majority of Catholics are pro-choice.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Roscelese that the correlation isn't as strong with those other issues, and should probably be omitted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Without any stats, aren't we guessing about how strong the correlation is? My intuition tells me that the consistent life ethic philosophy will become stronger as the magisterium continues to teach it. Regarding the pro-choice CINOs, they've excommunicated themselves latae sententiae (is that the right one?) and are only nominally Catholic. Any Catholic who commits a grave sin has separated himself from the Church. (Let's not open this can of worms, Ros. I will not debate it.) --Kenatipo speak! 19:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I started looking for polls, and I found this one on stem cell research and abortion. Maybe there are more.
You've apparently been misinformed, at best. To avoid taking up space on the article talk page, I can explain on your talk page or on mine, if you'd like to be more knowledgeable about the subject. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Those dad-burn ratch-a-fratch Jesuits! I just knew they were misinforming me. Is it too late to get my money back? Seriously, Ros, you may very well be correct on a technicality, but that kind of hair-splitting on this issue I don't care to be "educated" about. There are only 2 paths: the path towards the light and the path towards darkness. And we all have to make a choice. --Kenatipo speak! 21:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It's nice that you feel that way, but there's clearly disagreement on what constitutes the path to light and the path to darkness, and neither are within the scope of this talk page. Please stay on topic - this is for discussion of the pro-life article, not general discussion of whether opposition to abortion is morally superior. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You're the one who opened the "can of worms". Nobody asked you to define other people based on your own beliefs, or to make up some disdaining label for them(CINO). You do not get to define other people or decide what religion they are. The overwhelming facts do not back up your claims, as most American Catholics both have historically voted Democrat and are at best split on the choice issue. If you "will not debate it", then stop making personal attacks and insinuating people who do not agree with you cannot be "Catholics" and/or chose a "path towards darkness". In other words, stop that right now. Dave Dial (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't be so judgmental. --Kenatipo speak! 22:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, and finally, there's nothing complicated about what a Catholic is. A Catholic is someone who accepts the Church's teaching and tries his best to live up to it. End of discussion. --Kenatipo speak! 22:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, accurately defining who is a Catholic, or a Christian, or any other faith, is one of the least clear matters going around. Countries run censuses where people self declare religious alliance. I can guarantee that many who tick the Catholic box would not satisfy your criteria. But if you were asked to tell us how many Catholics there were, you would probably count them. Many certainly would. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
But that discussion is not for this page. As far as wikipedia goes, a Catholic is someone a preponderance of reliable sources identifies as such. Self-identification as Catholic works too. PhGustaf (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Amen, Br. Gustaf! Verifiability will set us free! --Kenatipo speak! 00:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
My point is that on these types of matters reliable sources and self-identification can be guaranteed to differ quite frequently. As soon a self-identified member says or does something that others think they shouldn't, a reliable source will report that "x said that y is not a real Catholic". HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Idea for a category

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

NYyankees51 and I have been discussing a potential new category, to group together people like Bernard Nathanson, Abby Johnson, and Marjorie Dannenfelser, who formerly supported abortion rights and now are (or I suppose, "more recently were") active against them. However, there were a few things we weren't sure of, so we decided to bring it to a broader forum:

  1. What criteria should determine inclusion in this category? Nathanson was a pro-choice activist, founding NARAL, before he changed his mind and opposed abortion. Johnson was not an activist, but rather a Planned Parenthood clinic manager; does that count? Norma McCorvey and Aleck Bourne were not activists, but they were involved in important abortion-related court cases on the side of allowing abortion. How much of a pro-choice activist was Dannenfelser, and does it matter? In short, how broad should the scope of this proposed category be?
  2. What should it be called?
  3. Would it create a POV or balance problem? We'd really only be able to make a category for "conversions" from support for abortion rights to opposition - not because the converse doesn't happen, but because the "pro-life" side makes a huge deal out of every "conversion" while the other side does not. We'd need to weigh "we only have verifiable information for one direction, because only one side cares" vs. "this makes it look as though it's a one-way street."

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "Pro-choice apostates"? Frankly, I don't see the great need. People change their minds about things all the time, and unless there's something connecting these people beyond their changes of mind, they're too independent to be catted together. PhGustaf (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There are many prominent people whose change of mind influenced the course of their lives and society at large in some way. Examples - Norma McCorvey, Bernard Nathanson, Abby Johnson (activist), Aleck Bourne, Marjorie Dannenfelser. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Here was my thought process. First thing I thought of was [[Arlen Specter], because he used to be a Republican, but now is a Democrat. I found no such category to describe such a change. The only categorization which I can think of that relates to this may be Category:Religious conversion. It has both categories for "Former X" and "Converts to X". But I don't know of anything besides religion that is categorized like this. Do we have Category:Former vegetarians? And clearly, unless you were raised that way, most vegetarians would be a Category:Convert to vegetarianism or something like that. While it may be an interesting trait, I don't think it is defining enough of a trait to deserve it's own category. Therefore, I would oppose any such creation of that category. Can anyone give an example of a non-religious categorization scheme that categorizes people by their former beliefs? (and I wonder, is there anyone out there where the opposite applies, or is it just a one way street? Are any current pro-choices former pro-lifers??) -Andrew c [talk] 01:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Dennis Kucinich was the only one that occurred to me off the top of my head, though obviously his change of opinion has received press because he is a politician rather than an activist. The problem, as I alluded to above, is simply that the pro-choice movement doesn't set up a great hurrah every time they win someone over, meaning that the press around "conversions" is all one way.
Anyway, what you're saying makes sense. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

American Social Conservatism template at bottom

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article is about more than just the American viewpoint, so I removed the {{American Social Conservatism}} template which was placed at the bottom. Lionelt added it back without comment. I think having it at the bottom trivialized other nations' viewpoint. What do other editors think? Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nav templates are about navigation, and there is nothing preventing the addition of templates for other countries. There is no reason to exclude a country-specific nav template on an article with a global scope. Lionel (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
"The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, influenced by Conservative Christian values, especially in the United States" - obviously related and appropriate. Lionel (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life movement template

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This incredibly useful nav box, which perfectly encapsulates the pro-life movement, and will provide ease-of-navigation for readers for centuries to come, is up for deletion. I know, say it aint so. You can express your opinion here. Now back to our regularly scheduled program. Lionel (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You could work to bind a bunch of articles together, and create a topic article, before making a nav template that does not meet criteria. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abortion-rights movement which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Move?

Latest comment: 13 years ago149 comments32 people in discussion
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: no consensus. I don't see any convincing arguments for the move. For example, the suggested target isn't demonstrably the common name. To take another example, one argument for the move is that the current title is POV. Well, yes, I could be persuaded of that. It does seem to be favored by conservatives, but "anti-abortion" appears to be favored by liberals. The neutrality argument fails when proposing a move from one possibly POV title to one which is also perceived as POV; in my view, a move on that basis would need to suggest an article title perceived as neutral by both sides.

I note that another multiple move discussion is now open. I presume the outcome of that will be decided separately. DrKiernan (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life movement → Anti-abortion movement –

Well, that would be a POV push from people who consider themselves pro-life, as it moves them from a name with which they self-identify to one that carries with it strongly negative connotations. It's like suggesting that abortion-rights movement article be renamed the "anti-life" or the "pro-baby killing" article. It's easier to allow each article to be named as that group self identifies, especially seeing as each name is heavily supported by reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that this was all gone through just over a month ago? DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that Anthony just closed the RM at Pro-choice by moving it to Abortion-rights movement. This article should parallel that one, either at Pro-life/Pro-choice or Abortion-rights movement/Anti-abortion movement (or similar title). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Um, note also that Anti-abortion movement is a redirect to this page, not a parallel version... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this page should follow. Is the term "Abortion-rights" considered to be negative by anyone? I would agree if the title were the equally frank "pro-abortion" but it seems to me that the term "abortion-rights" is still preferential. - Haymaker (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, that would be a pretty unfair way of effecting a change for which there is clearly no consensus. I would prefer that the two articles have parallel names (I strongly prefer symetry and consistency), but in this case there is no parallel except pro-life/pro-choice. Anti-abortion is not equivalent in terms of connotations as abortion-rights. And trying to force a move through this method would be supremely unfair.LedRush (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support In light of the move to Abortion-rights movement the context of this move proposal is very different to the last move proposal. "Pro Life" is by its nature a propagandist name, implying that opponents are anti-life. The only justification, IMHO, was that the article on the opponents had an equally propagandist name. That is now gone. So symmetry requires both have NPOV names. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
As made clear above, there is no symmetry with the two names. Perhaps "Right-to-life movement" would be symmetrical, but this is being brought up in a very unfair manner.LedRush (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
As made clear! No, I don't think so! DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you arguing that, in English, the connotations of having a "pro-something" group are not more positive than those of an "anti-something" group? I find that position strange. If there weren't a negative connotation (or less positive one, at least) to "anti-groups" why would there be so much wrangling to ensure that groups are named "pro-somthings"?LedRush (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Nazi League etc etc. You're confusing an NPOV point with the PR advice given to the leadership of the anti-abortion movement on how to be more successful with U.S voters. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Anti-gay marriage groups? Nope, defense of marriage or pro-family. Anti-immigration? Nope, pro-America (obviously US-centric). Anti-guns movement? Nope, pro-gun control. There is so much wrangling because taking a positive position is seen generally as being better than taking a negative position. Of course, the underlying reason for the position is ultimately the most important factor but that doesn't mean there is no effect from the choice of language.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
And the anti-Nazi group (which I'd never heard of before and seems to have existed for about 5 years only) seemed to be an attempt of a leftist group to disparage a rightist group by calling them Nazis. I am sure you can find groups which self-identify as "anti-somthing", but that one is obviously not one for this discussion. Also, it seems impossible to honestly argue that more groups don't try to identify as a positive name rather than a negative one.LedRush (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The antimasons were pretty important for a few years. PhGustaf (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You've never heard of them because it's British. Can't speak for anti-gun as it's not an issue here. But Anti-globalization movement, Anti-nuclear movement, National Anti-Vivisection Society, the list goes on. If you look a little more broadly than some trite US-oriented PR advice you would get a better picture. DeCausa (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems that you are as prejudiced as you are incapable of addressing the someone's argument. It's good to know, I guess...LedRush (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
*TWEEEEEEET* *hands out yellow cards all around* Cut that out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Prejudiced? You need to calm down. I've given you a list of "anti's" used in the UK. How's that not answering your point?
When I've explicitly conceded that you will find many examples of "anti" groups, yet argued that (1) there is a connotation with respect to the term; and (2) that groups often fight for, and generally prefer, to give positive names to their groups. Instead of addressing my point, you give a list of things I've already conceded exists. Your position on this is quite surprising to me.LedRush (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
And "abortion rights" isn't propagandist? It presupposes the view that abortion is a right. As I suggested before, if you want neutral names, those are "support for legalized abortion" and "opposition to legalized abortion". --B (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
While better options, even those aren't completely neutral as support for a position is generally regarded more positively than opposition to something. (Obviously, other aspects of a name can affect the connotation more strongly than merely having it worded as a "pro" or an "anti", but that doesn't make my comment untrue).LedRush (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. One can seek to make anything "a right". It doesn't make it "a right". DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "support for legalized abortion" and "opposition to legalized abortion" are also good proposals. I would support them as well. But these are the recommendations of neutrality by the Associated Press. An "X rights movement" does not imply that X is a right, only that the movement thinks it should be a right. Which is exactly the situation here. — kwami (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The close at Abortion Rights is being questioned. Lionel (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Good grief, not this again. Pro-life movement makes more sense as a name than just "pro-life", but for all of the reasons given in the previous discussion, anti-abortion movement is not an appropriate move. --B (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • By the way, unless there is stringent opposition to doing so, I'm going to be bold and move the article to pro-life movement. Regardless of whether you would rather call it "anti-abortion", I think everyone can agree that "pro-life movement" is a better title than "pro-life". There's no reason to hold the clearly better naming convention (having "movement" in the name) hostage just because we have some need for the process of rehashing a month of emotional debate over pro-life vs anti-abortion. --B (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with "good grief, not this again". And I'm appalled the pro-choice article was actually moved. Shame on someone... -Andrew c [talk] 18:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and stop making these silly suggestions. I am also left speechless that the "Pro-choice movement" has been moved. How did that happen? "Pro-life movement" and "Pro-choice movement" are clearly in line with WP:UCN. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is way too early to make this suggestion IMO. The last move request had a discussion ending just last month - see Talk:United_States_anti-abortion_movement/Archive_5#Requested_move. And it resulted in no move. Someone should close this down without prejudice. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support parallel names, don't care which set. It's ridiculous that one article should have a neutral name while the other has a propagandic name ("pro-life" is explicitly disallowed by the AP and BBC stylebooks; the latter doesn't mention "pro-choice" but the former disallows it as well). I move that this discussion be immediately closed and the two articles nominated together. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Excellent point. Even if we disagree on what the name should be, I agree with the basic premise. It really seems like some sort of bias where we allow one side of a debate to use self-identifying terms, but not the other side (and also goes to show how 'consensus' is actually driven by the whims of majority rule based on selective participation.)-Andrew c [talk] 20:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that one group has a widely accepted, non-negative, accurate name (abortion rights) while the other doesn't (anti-abortion). I'd rather both get to self identify with positive-connotation names than have one get an accurate positive connotation name, and the other get an accurate negative connotation name.LedRush (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see what's so negative about "anti-abortion." If you think abortion is bad, being against it isn't negative. Cf. "anti-war." As far as I can tell, the objections to "anti-abortion" have been "waaaaah you're not using our propaganda term" rather than an actual problem with the connotations of "anti-abortion." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is clear that is not my position, so perhaps you could address what I'm saying and not an insulting characture of something else. Groups try extremely hard to make their groups "pro-something" instead of "anti-something". Additionally, the "accurate" pro-choice term is even less neutral as it supports rights. Who doesn't like rights? Bad people...that's who.LedRush (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support parallel names There's no obvious nonflawed way to handle this, but given the earlier change "Anti-abortion movement" seems the least bad. And note the "pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion". Nobody likes abortions. PhGustaf (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Do we really need to do this again? There was clear consensus against moving after hundreds of comments (or at least no consensus for moving). A parallel name would be "Anti-abortion-rights movement", and that's awkward. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • That would be a ridiculous name. "Anti-abortion movement" is a ridiculous name - there's no such thing. There is a "pro-life movement". There are people who hold an anti-abortion viewpoint. There is no such thing as the "anti-abortion-rights movement" or the "anti-abortion movement". As established before, we don't make up a name just because Wikipedians are offended by the term "pro-life". --B (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Brings the two opposing articles into symmetry name-wise. "Anti-abortion" is not a negative construction. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • In what way are "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" symmetry? "Abortion rights" is a self-identification name (along with "pro-choice"). "Pro-life" is the self-identification name. No pro-life person identifies their movement as "anti-abortion". --B (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary move break 1

  • Oppose: we just went through this. This article encompasses more than abortion opposition: it also includes opposition to euthanasia, stem cell research, and the death penalty. Lionel (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. The lede opens with "Pro-life describes the moral, political and ethical opposition to elective abortion and support for its legal prohibition or restriction." This is almost entirely about abortion; any other pro-life issue is merely consequential.
I would support an article at pro-life movement that covers all pro-life issues. But it shouldn't be focused on abortion, as the current one is. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The other article has already been moved. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know - that's why it's particularly urgent that we discuss both together, so we don't end up with another decision with the same problems as the first (people cherry-picking policy to support their views rather than forming a view based on policy, not all users participating in both move discussions) that'll only lend more weight to things as they are. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Why not suggest to the closing admin that, if they close on a move, that they do so under the condition that any future RfM be made with both articles considered together? A note to that effect could be placed at the top of the talk pages of both articles. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Quote, "Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice." (Norm Goldstein/Associated Press (2004:5) The Associated Press stylebook and briefing on media law[1])
I also support a second article at pro-life movement which would cover all pro-life issues, such as Jainism, opposition to the death penalty, the environmental movement, the living-wage movement, etc. The coverage of those movements in the current article amount to little more than their relationship to the anti-abortion movement. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Umm ... you think Jainism is a part of the "pro-life movement"? There was nothing called the "pro-life movement" until the 1970s. As for environmentalism, 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.[2][3][4] Trying to redefine terms to mean what you wish they meant instead of what they really are is ridiculous. --B (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it's clearly not part of "the" PL movement, but then that's a very narrow perspective. And sure, vegetarianism and anti-vivisection can be included. There is no single "pro-life" movement; many vegetarians support the right to legal abortion. It would all have to be sourced too, of course, but we can leave that to the people writing the article.
Basically, one of the arguments against this move is that "pro-life" is not synonymous with "anti-abortion", though you'd never know it from reading the article. My position is that any such non-synonymous uses of the term "pro-life" can be covered in a separate article, and so should not be a reason to oppose the move. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kwami's point is a good one. If "'Pro-life' covers more than just abortion" is an argument against changing the title, the article needs to cover other "pro-life" issues - otherwise the argument is a very thinly veiled "I like the phrase 'pro-life'." (For what it's worth, I think the proposed article would be beyond terrible - it would combine far too many separate issues, many of which don't correlate at all with opposition to abortion - but all this proves is that that argument against a page move falls flat.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
That's nice, but Wikipedia doesn't operate based on what the AP says. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Assuming the pro-choice article has been permanently moved and that is the consensus there, and no chance of undoing that, then I think it is 100% required and a must that we not allow this side of the debate to use their preferred term either. I know this sounds like a "pointy" vote, but it isn't. I'll concede that some journalism style guidelines have rules regarding the abortion debate, such as the aforementioned AP stylebook (but I'm not convinced that the majority of sources use this guide, nor that contrived attempts at "neutrality" for non-neutral topics supersedes individual identity in terms of our naming conventions). My number one preference is to use the term of self identity for BOTH. It is unacceptable to allow one side to do it, but not the other (I understand sometimes the world isn't fair, and there may not be parity in all situations, however given the AP style guide, we have at least some sources that treat these topics with such parity). So if we aren't ever going to get a "pro-choice" article back, I'm fine taking away the "pro-life" article as well, and bowing to the style guidelines of the associated press, as a compromise and to at least have consistency between topics. Good grief. This is a lesser of two evils vote. I feel like if I block this move based on my previous feelings and take on policy, even though it didn't work over at pro-choice, that I could stand in the way of consistency. So I think consistency and parity in these topics are MORE important that my personal preference and take on our naming conventions. So I reluctantly support this move, given the other article has been moved and that it won't be soon overturned.-Andrew c [talk] 00:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if we were to move this and then revert the other to 'pro-choice', that would indeed be a dirty trick, but I don't think anyone would stand for it.
Remember too that this article started off life as a description of the phrase "pro-life" and its self identification. It was distinct from the article on the topic itself, which was at "anti-abortion movement" (which is why there is still a page history there to preserve). The article on the topic was then merged into the article on the name. — kwami (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • (1) shut down discussion as premature under WP:BURO  or (2) move Pro-life to Pro-life movement as the article about the self-identifying anti-abortion group  then (3) split Pro-life movement with Anti-abortion  This last point came out in discussion following the move attempt last month, that the two are not the same.  Also, I have never heard of "anti-abortion movement", sounds like a Wiki-neologism.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Blanchard (1996) The anti-abortion movement: references and resources — kwami (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment  It is not a Wiki-neologism, a quick Google search and the first link I picked shows that "anti-abortion movement" has been co-opted by "Pro-life" people who say, "The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the only way to be pro-life is to be pro-choice." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscintillating (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment An editor has raised questions about the close over at Pro-choice, excuse me, Abortion rights. After reading the discussion over there, it does appear, to me anyway, it was no consensus. The next time someone brings an RfC, which will be any minute now, it's going back to Pro-choice. You can take that to the Wiki-bank. Lionel (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
He merely asked for clarification on the reasoning behind the decision. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
We should not base the naming of this article on Abortion rights. The discussion over there was contentious, the close is being questioned, and if that name returns to Pro-choice in a future RfC what happens here? This article should be based on self-identification. Lionel (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:Crystal Ball. It's not an issue: If that move is reversed, it will happen before this discussion is closed, in which case anyone who voted 'support' here based on the name of the other article can change their vote to 'oppose'. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want to get involved in the political, philosophical and ideological parts of the debate, but it does seem weird to me to have a Wikipedia article about an adjective. Even a change to Pro-life movement would make me happier. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that. Anti-abortion would be the same problem. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some editors have cited the AP stylebook, which favors the use of the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion". The AP, however, is not a neutral source. Most U.S. journalists and editors are liberal and pro-choice. Because they are the majority, their view predominates on editorial pages, front-page articles, news coverage, and stylebooks. Two pollsters (Gallup Poll and Rasmussen Reports) instead use the self-identifying names: "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
"More Americans "Pro-Life" Than "Pro-Choice" for First Time: Also, fewer think abortion should be legal "under any circumstances"". Gallup, Inc. May 15, 2009.
"Majority of Americans now 'pro-life,' poll says". Associated Press. May 15, 2009.
"Americans Think New State Laws Will Reduce Number of Abortions". Rasmussen Reports, LLC. March 10, 2011.
"Half of U.S. Voters are Pro-Choice, But 53% Say Abortion's Usually Morally Wrong". Rasmussen Reports, LLC. February 17, 2011.
Eagle4000 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
As a non-American I would describe that as an All-American post. The article attempts to portray the situation for much more than just the USA, perhaps even globally. Such data may be suitable for Pro-life in the USA, but inappropriate here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. "Pro-life" is ambiguous and completely meaningless to non-Americans. "Anti-abortion" is what it's all about. Barsoomian (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support since several "pro-life" activists are murderers, and others support the death penalty, it's not very "pro-life". (You're not a pacifist if you only fight a few wars; you're not a vegan if you only eat a few animals) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Since it has been determined that we are going to abuse process by going through this again, only a month after the last one, I will reiterate my arguments from before. I support moving to "pro-life movement", so don't let the lack of the word "movement" in the article title create a false dilemma for moving to "anti-abortion movement".
    1. If you look over in the article at the links to Wikipedias in other languages, ALL OF THEM use something that means "pro-life" or "pro-life movement" as their name for the article. Strangely, even those Wikipedias that aren't influenced by evil Americans know that "pro-life" is the right name for it.
    2. Real reference sources know that the correct term is "pro-life". Encarta's dictionary has a link for pro-life, but not for anti-abortion. Ditto for Princeton WordNet and the American Heritage Dictionary. Three online dictionaries had both. No online dictionaries that we could find in the previous debate had only "anti-abortion", but not "pro-life". Only on Wikipedia, where we think that reality will readjust according to Wikipedians' points of views, is anyone even arguing for "anti-abortion" movement. Even the far-left RationalWiki thinks "pro-life" is the right term [5].
    3. Wikipedia:TITLE#Neutrality_in_article_titles says that where there is a common name for a topic, we use the common name rather than focusing on whether a name is perceived to be neutral. "Pro-life movement" is unquestionably the more common name.
    4. For g-hits, it's not even close. Pro-life gets 55 million g-hits and anti-abortion gets 4 million.
    5. Even among UK publications, pro-life was the preferred term (these numbers are from a month and a half ago, I copied and pasted the table, you may get slightly different numbers now)
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
--B (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To repeat my comment from the last time on this table: this is a pretty unreliable reflection of UK usage. First, you will see only the right-leaning papers have pro-life as more hits (you have to remember that newspapers are much more partisan in the UK than the US, whereas TV is more NPOV in the UK than in the US). Secondly, you have to examine the hits more closely and see that significant propoortions are opinion pieces, quotes from "pro-life" campaigners etc. Whilst I accept that "pro-life" is used in the UK, I believe it is used differently than in the US: it is much more consciously used to express support for the "pro-life" side. Look at the BBC usage. DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

But our standard is that we use the "more common" term, not the term preferred by opponents of the subject. Your argument is that if you throw out usage of the term by pro-lifers themselves, then pro-life is used less commonly. Regardless of whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant. --B (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, if newspapers are more partisan, let's try the broadcasters with a quick Google check. BBC website is 26K for "pro-life", 9,930 for "anti-abortion" (in spite of their expressed preference in their style guide for not using "pro-life"). Channel 4 is 752 for "pro-life", 290 for "anti-abortion". ITV.com is equal: four each. ITN is 3 for "pro-life" and 5 for "anti-abortion". Sky News (news.sky.com) has 221 for "pro-life" and 171 for "anti-abortion". This, and the fact that the main pro-life/anti-abortion groups in the UK are the ProLife Alliance, 'LIFE' and 40 Days of Life. Interestingly, the "Pro Life All Party Parliamentary Group" (website) seem to be more concerned about euthanasia, stem-cell-based experimentation and eugenics than they do abortion, indeed supporting the current situation with the 1967 Act. That said, the idea that "pro-life" is an Americanism strikes me as a Brit as slightly silly.
    • When you compare news.bbc.co.uk for both terms you get 3630 for pro life vs 1380 for anti-abortion, which is consistent with your other searches. And there is also the issue that as anti-abortion is more neutral there have to be a lot more hits for pro-life for that to be the more appropriate name. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would support anti-abortion/pro-abortion or opposition to abortion/support for abortion but the proposed language does not seem particularly level. From where I'm sitting, the pro-life outlook isn't about being opposed to abortion, it is about trying to secure a right to life for unborn children. Allowing the pro-choice side the preferential language of saying they're all out about providing people a right while constricting the pro-life side to the negative language of saying they're all about constricting a right is less than equal. - Haymaker (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. I've spent about 10 posts trying to say what you've said far more concisely and intelligently than I could have.LedRush (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I, for one, would not oppose moving the current opposite of this article back to pro-choice. - Haymaker (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think "pro-choice" or "pro-life" are very good titles - they should be "pro-life movement" and "pro-choice movement". Unfortunately, both this discussion and the other one are presenting the false dilemma of "pro-life" vs "anti-abortion movement" and "pro-choice" vs "abortion rights movement". --B (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I wouldn't mind "pro-life movement"/"pro-choice movement". - Haymaker (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree as well, pro-choice should not have been moved, and I would support "____ movement". NYyankees51 (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary move break 2

  • Comment I would like more of the supporters of the Pro-life name to respond to my earlier comment that they are wanting an article about an adjective. Vey unusual in Wikipedia. If I don't see such responses, I will continue to think that they are less well educated. All I asked for was a change to Pro-life movement. I can guarantee that it would keep a lot of people happier. HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree, the current adjective name is bizarre. I would certainly support a move to Pro-life movement. –CWenger (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe I should brush up on my grammar, but, while I acknowledge "pro-life" can be an adjective, I feel it may also act as a noun, so this hasn't ever been a concern for me (and then, we can move back and ask, should the article be about an organized movement, or about a view people take on an issue. Tons of people who don't like abortion and who may identify as "pro-life" have nothing to do with the "movement". It can also involve the religious and philosophical arguments in the debate, and not the movement). That said, I'm entirely fine with adding "movement" to the end of the article, as long as BOTH have the word "movement" in them. And I'm fine with pro-life/pro-choice movement (first choice), or anti-abortion/abortion rights movement (far 2nd), over any mixture of a self-identifying name with a media "neutral" name. -Andrew c [talk] 23:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Can you use pro-life as a noun in a sentence? I don't think it is possible. On the "movement" issue, I think if somebody is pro-life it is OK to say they are part of the movement, even if they don't actively participate in it. The alternative would be something like Pro-life position, which might not fully cover the content of the article. –CWenger (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per DeCausa, above. "In light of the move to Abortion-rights movement the context of this move proposal is very different to the last move proposal. "Pro Life" is by its nature a propagandist name, implying that opponents are anti-life. The only justification, IMHO, was that the article on the opponents had an equally propagandist name. That is now gone. So symmetry requires both have NPOV names." although I would also say the last umpteen move proposals, rather than simply the last single. :-) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    If we are going to say abortion "rights" the reciprocal name should also include "rights". - Haymaker (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    Non-sequitur DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    (re to CWenger) I would have preferred they both stayed at Pro-Life and Pro-choice, but as Pro-choice has been moved, then either Anti-abortion movement or Pro-life movement would work for me. But Right-to-Life movement is used by virtually no-one. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    Interesting - I would have thought that having "movement" (regardless of what the movement is called) would be non-controversially the better choice than not having "movement". Most encyclopedia articles are about nouns (Antarctica, George W. Bush, allegations of such and such, etc). I can't think of very many about adjectives. Can you clarify the reason you would prefer not to use "movement"? --B (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    Its not that I would have preferred not to use "movement" - its that I would have preferred the articles stayed where they were, which has been stable for years now. *sigh*. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps the thing to do is wait until this move is closed, then propose a multi-move from Abortion-rights movement → Pro-choice movement and Pro-life → Pro-life movement. –CWenger (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    Or move Abortion rights movement back to Pro-choice, which would restore the symmetry and simply remove the "movement" verbiage in the titles. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been advocating an immediate close for the purpose of a unified discussion since the proposal was opened. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Same reasoning as last move request. As PBS and other agencies refer to both sides as Abortion right supporters and anti-abortion right supporters. It's the most neutral reference and should follow Wikipedia guidelines. The first sentence in each article can outline what each group consider themselves to be, but calling one 'Pro-life' infers that the other side is 'anti-life', as well as calling one side 'pro-choice' infers the other is 'anti-choice'. This should all be common sense, and there are vast amounts of sourcing to make these moves to adhere to Wikipedia's own guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Full disclosure For what it's worth, and this may or may not be germane, but it should be pointed out that the editor who has re-opened this discussion was the editor who closed debate on moving "Pro-choice" to "Abortion rights movement."[6] Lionel (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment  There is a problem with objectifying the name and the topic.  The Google snippet for www.prolife.com states, "Christian group that argues against abortion and premarital sex...".  I think that the current article needs to be split, with the points about Judaism, Hinduism and Islam being moved away from "Pro-life", just as issues about premarital sex are not related to the title Opposition to legalized abortion (or whatever other name is chosen).  Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, proposed title makes it clear to everyone what the article is about, and is parallel to the title of the pro abortion rights article.--Kotniski (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Motion for a snow keep

We went through this process a month ago with clear consensus against moving. Consensus here is the same. Seems like most folks want to close this and put both articles up together for moves to "Pro-life movement" and "Pro-choice movement". In any case, this proposal should be closed as keep as per WP:SNOW. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the page you are linking to. This is not a case of snow. Considering that the proposal at pro-choice resulted in a move, I imagine a motivated admin could close this one as move as well... -Andrew c [talk] 02:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Second. Same people as last time. Same points as last time. Same result as last time. Lionel (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Not true, more than one editor has changed their votes to move the article, and at least a couple more editors last time insisted that they would support a move here if "Pro-Choice" was moved. Which it was. So if this is a vote(which it's not), I Oppose a "snow keep". Dave Dial (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose snow keep per clear absence of consensus for it, support immediate close, as I said, for purpose of dual nomination. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
How is this a "snow" keep??? From simple vote-counting, the idea seems very competitive. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Oppose I honestly don't understand how anyone can think something as obviously controversial as this is worthy of a snow keep. We already went over this point last time, and this discussion is also reasonably split down the middle. Snow keeps are only appropriate when the discussion is very one sided, this discussion quite clearly isn't one of them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary move break 3

What about the table of search results in UK publications above? –CWenger (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/search?q=%22anti+abortion%22&target=guardian gets over 1000 hits, whereas http://www.guardian.co.uk/search?q=%22pro+life%22&target=guardian only gets 700. Possibly the Google hits didn't put the phrases in quotes... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You are right, a Google site search with quotes shows the same trend. But even still it is only slightly more hits for anti-abortion over pro-life, so both are fairly common in the UK and likely elsewhere outside the U.S. I would argue the relative popularity of pro-life in the U.S. (as evidenced by global Google search results) should put it over the top. –CWenger (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support If this articles subject was the pro-life movement I would feel differently but is not. It covers a broad range of anti-abortion topics and as such a move is warranted so the title better describes the article. Tmckeage (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some editors have cited "symmetry" as a reason for re-naming as "Anti-abortion rights" (instead of "Pro-life"), i.e., vis-a-vis "Abortion-rights movement". There is, however, no requirement of symmetry in article names. Wikipedia's articles on the slavery issue are titled "Abolitionism" (not "Anti-slavery") and "Proslavery". Eagle4000 (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless, it seems like a reasonable thing for an encyclopedia to do for an evenly divided (at least in the U.S.), highly contentious current issue, does it not? The slavery debate is over, we are allowed to take sides on that, but I don't think we should do so on abortion. –CWenger (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - per favored term by New York Times, Washington Post, and other major publications. Note that a flat comparison of results for each term is irrelevant as that would include self identification. Both publications I mentioned use that as their term when reporting on the movement in news due to its non-pov. BelloWello (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Symmetry or no symmetry, "pro-life" is bound to eventually be confusing and ambiguous, since it could in the conceivably near future (or even now) refer to, or seem to refer to, other matters including anti-euthanasia, veganism, vegetarianism, PETA-type issues, anti-war, anti-capital punishment, and so on. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - usual reasons. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support because anti-abortion movement is less POV than "pro-life movement" - you could certainly argue that being against the death penalty or against euthanasia would be pro-life positions - so I'm not sure this title completely meets the accuracy part of WP:TITLE (you could even argue that allowing abortion is pro life as it allows women to make the choice not to have a child when it might ruin their life and not allow them to complete their education etc.). Additionally because pro-life hasn't got significantly higher usage (especially outside the US) to refer to anti-abortionists so per WP:TITLE the more POV title of pro life doesn't appear to be the more appropriate name for use here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - This whole discussion was brought in bad faith, about a month after consensus was reached not to move this article. The renaming of the "pro-choice" article seems to have been done in bad faith as many of the editors on that article explicitly said that it was their hope that that name change would force this one. We have conclusively proven that the term "pro-life" is used far, far more than "anti-abortion", and that the term is not merely an American term. Furthermore, it is my belief, one that is nearly impossible to argue against, that the term "anti-abortion rights" casts the movement in a negative light - by being an "anti" group and by opposing "rights". Sure, you can make up examples were it is good to be against thing, and where it is good to oppose rights, but generally, it is considered more attractive to be for something, not against something; and generally, it is seen as positive to defend rights, not to attack rights. So, because there is no parity in the terms, and because we have proven that the current term is both neutral and far more used, the title of this article should not be changed. For the record, I think that the "abortion rights" article should be moved back to "pro-choice" per WP naming conventions, but I do not think so a move is necessary for us to decide not to move this article.LedRush (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I think throwing around accusations of bad faith on the part of the move requester is inappropriate. After closing the discussion on pro-choice opening a similar one here seems perfectly reasonable and sensible as the articles are similar. That there were two discussions close together is unfortunate, but as the other article had been moved opening this one seems reasonable enough - especially as I remember several people in the first discussion opposed due to the other article having not been moved.
    • With regards to anti-abortion casting the movement in a "bad light" so does being the anti-nuclear movement. And actually the same applies to describing anyone as left wing rather than right wing as left wing has a lot of negative connotations - I think to an extent you have to accept that kind of descriptive term will be used. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Methinks you need to look up the word "generally".LedRush (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point - that you feel it is bad for anti-abortionists to be seen as taking rights away - I just don't think in terms of the title that any possible implication on those lines is as important as not using a self descriptive term that has more issues as its more clearly POV and it's an ambiguous term. the other thing is that if you feel abortion is bad then being against it should be a good thing. Like being anti-corruption is usually seen as a good thing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
There are people who are pro life (meaning they don't like or condone abortions) but who believe that women should have the right to choose. These people are not anti-abortion rights, they are anti-abortion (or more accurately and neutrally, pro-life). Pro-life is the most used term, the most accurate, the most neutral and the one the group self-identitifies with. There is no good reason to entertain this move, except as a cynical POV push.LedRush (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, your comment just undermined your own vote. No one's suggesting a move to "anti-abortion rights," and since you've just admitted that "anti-abortion" is an accurate descriptor for people who oppose abortion, what is the problem? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, didn't I just say something completely different from what you're saying I said? Read the above post for my opinion as to whether "anti-abortion" is neutral or accurate. Sorry for confusing the POV push to move the article to "anti-abortion" and "anti-abortion rights", though both have been suggested.LedRush (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
If this is the case then the discussion we should be having is to merge the "pro choice" and "pro life" articles together. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I would be fine with that.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note about Pro-Life Movement Also keep in mind that Anti-abortion Movement is not even entirely accurate because Pro-Life is also very commonly associated with opposition to euthanasia, and stem cell research. Neither of which fall under the heading of "abortion." PeRshGo (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    • ...Which is a minor sidebar for some but not all pro-lifers, and is utterly unimportant to the topic of this article. Check out the lead section: nothing about those concepts. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The national organizations spoke of in the article consider opposition euthanasia, human cloning, and stem cell research as issues they take part in. The same is true for state level organizations. In Michigan in particular Pro-life groups spent a great deal of money campaigning against stem cell research. It was much more than a “minor sidebar.” PeRshGo (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Yet there is no agreement on these issues among other American groups or among international groups. Some pro-lifers are okay with the death penalty while others are not. Some are okay with assisted suicide for the terminally ill while others are not. Because there is no agreement on these issues, the one issue of abortion is rightfully the subject of this article. It is also the one issue which was selected by the 1973 group of Roe v Wade protesters who coined the term "pro-life". Abortion is the correct topic of this article. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Just because there isn't agreement doesn't mean it's not important.LedRush (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It means this article is not about that. It is about abortion, and only abortion. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Except, of course, when it's not. Except for that.LedRush (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you point out the content that isn't about abortion? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Irregular close

  • Undo this move please. The person who made the move request has closed the discussion themselves, and done so in the manner they were suggesting. That should not happen. Also, the same editor closed the discussion a week ago as no consensus/no move and then reopened the discussion 2 days later, and now has closed it again as a success for his own requested move. I want to give him an opportunity to reverse his action himself but will revert the move myself if he does not do so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  •   Done OK, OK, OK, I have reverted the move and the close. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. I see thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to rename this page via ANI

An editor has placed a biased request to move this page to Anti-abortion movement. Many of you have been worn down by repeated move requests. I recommend that you express your opinion one last time here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A page move request. Lionel (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

TO CLOSING ADMIN, consider this. Not that this matters, as I support the terms of self identity for both articles, but looking through the discussion, there are around 18 support and 7 oppose. There are some grey area votes, and people who think the move shouldn't have been proposed in this manner either because it was too soon, or because both articles should be discussed together, so there are a few neutral votes as well. If we are to assume that the pro-choice discussion is not to be reviewed, that was closed as moved with only 12 supporters and 8 opposes (and a couple neutral supporters). There is WAY more consensus here than there based on vote counting. Even when reviewing the arguments, at pro-choice there isn't much agreement towards the end, while here there appears to be more support towards the end, and no ongoing discussions... if you, the closing admin, decide there is no consensus here for move, I strongly, STRONGLY urge you to review the closure here Talk:Pro-choice#move_2011 as well, as the closing admin also commented, and based on votes alone, there is clearly less support for that move. -Andrew c [talk] 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
TO CLOSING ADMIN, consider this. I don't know if my opposition is being included in the above summary or not, but this entire discussion was inappropriate as it was opened an extremely short time (about a month) after a consensus to keep the the article where it was. The discussion has been ongoing for about four months. People have tired of the conversation and only the editors who feel most strongly about the necessity to move the article remain. Allowing the move not only is blind to the fact that the new names would not be parrellel (something the people who want the move knew and planned when they changed the title of "pro-choice"), but rewards move requests made in bad faith (immediately after consensus) and fillibustering.LedRush (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an argument I agreed with and made strongly on Talk:Abortion-rights movement as it was the third such move in a short time, however I don't think this is a legitimate argument here. Opening a move request after closing the one on pro choice seems perfectly sensible to me - and it was only the second one, so the number wasn't that excessive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

Further discussion has taken place at Talk:Abortion-rights_movement#Requested_move.2C_again which relates to this move request and possibly Talk:Abortion-rights_movement#move_2011 as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:08, 12 May 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.

This discussion is too chaotic, and will accomplish nothing in its current state

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I can't even tell who is discussing what, and where. I stayed away the last two weeks because this made it seem clear the the discussion was unified over at Talk:Abortion-rights movement; now I come back and find out that it's been going on for two weeks here, pretty much non-stop. But it gets closed and reopened and etc and etc. What a friggin' mess! How can anyone look at this and believe they can ascertain "consensus"?

For the record, I am a pro-lifer who prefers the neutral (non-propagandic) terms "Anti-abortion movement" and "Abortion rights movement", and I've got plenty of good reasons. But that's not what's important now. Someone needs to find a way to corral this discussion into an easy to follow, organized layout. Nothing will get settled with this crap going on like this. (And maybe that's what some people want). How can we get a fresh (and disciplined) start to this discussion? HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This should have been closed because consensus not to move the page was reached about a month before this discussion reopened. The amount of bad faith and wikilawyering by certain editors who will not stop unti this move occurs is shameful.LedRush (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
And do what? Open another move request? The best is just to let an uninvolved admin close the discussion. There may be some discussion here, and some on Talk:Abortion rights movement, but I'm sure in due time someone will make a decision.
If the arguments for one side or the other are clearer than the other then the article should be moved or not moved, if not then it should be closed as no consensus.
Given its just sitting here, its essentially "no consensus" for now, so it doesn't seem like a big deal if we have to wait a little longer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing. That's the point. The debate happened. No move was made. Full stop.LedRush (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
<shrug> I think its important to let an uninvolved admin make that decision. I'd much rather talk about merging the articles though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I also agree (with HH) but in a less partisan way as both "sides" come out of this with no credit. The irony is that both articles are not very good - C-classers. Everyone's more interested in winning their POV on the title than actually creating decent encyclopedia articles. I previously suggestted collapsing the two into the much better Abortion debate article...oh well... DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Taking a look at the three articles, pro-life movement currently has about 25000 characters, abortion-rights movement has about 10000 and abortion debate has 35000, so unless the content can be slimmed down without losing detail having at least "pro life" as a separate article is probably going to need to continue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It covers a lot of the same issues, lots of repetion bewteen the three. Abortion debate does it fairly well, the other two, IMHO, are lucky to be C-class. Anyway, it's never going to happen, too many editors are too attached to having an article for "their side". DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Eraserhead, I don't follow that logic at all. Are you saying that because one article is two or three times bigger than the other they can't be merged? What do you think the mergers would do? Just cut and paste the two (or three) articles together? I don't think that would be the plan at all. As I see it, there's no reason that the two articles can't or shouldn't be merged. Frankly, it's the most logical way out of this morass and will save us the title/move arguments in the future. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the content in detail, but I think giving the articles size is useful/interesting to see. I think given abortion-rights movement's size that it probably doesn't justify its own article, pro-life I'm not so sure on, but if you are saying there is a lot of duplicated content maybe "pro life" could be merged in too - that would also solve the issue of arguing about titles, so even if abortion debate was pretty long it would probably be worth it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_anti-abortion_movement/Archive_6&oldid=1169472441"