Talk:United States anti-abortion movement

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 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 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. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:59, 14 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)
• 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)

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.