Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:06, 27 June 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States anti-abortion movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Abortion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States anti-abortion movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Move? (2)

Please discuss this move at Talk:Abortion-rights movement#Move? and not here, as these 2 suggested moves are related. The discussion has been transcluded here for your convenience. Note that you must watchlist Abortion-rights movement to see Recent Changes.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States anti-abortion movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Abortion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Reproductive Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance). Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Women's Health Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: Not moved, 11 November 2012, from Abortion-rights movements to Pro-abortion movements, see discussion. Not moved, 17 April 2023, from Abortion-rights movements to Pro-abortion movements, see discussion. Moved, 13 August 2024, from Abortion-rights movements to Abortion rights movements, see discussion.

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as consensus to not move as per WP:SNOW and the obvious POV issues with this title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Abortion-rights movements → Pro-abortion movements – This is a new article, discussing the abortion debate globally, rather just in the USA. The problem is what the title should be. The American article is United States pro-choice movement, but "pro-choice" seems to be an American euphemism. The most neutral and global title seems to be "pro-abortion". For example, see Pro-abortion activists rally in Argentina and Pro-abortion group fined in mainstream media outlets in Australia. Unfortunately, the article creator has already attacked me personally for even suggesting such a title. But the evidence suggests "pro-abortion" is both the most common and the most neutral designation. It also corresponds to the companion article also created recently, Anti-abortion movements (not "pro-life movements"). StAnselm (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strongest conceivable oppose. Seriously, we just managed to, against all odds, close WP:RFC/AAMC with a sensible and balanced result, and within 8 hours we have over-the-top POV pushing on the international articles refactored as a result? We couldn't take a break from that for an entire day? Unbelievable. So, yeah, okay. Describing movements in support of legal access to abortion as "pro-abortion" -- that is, in favor of abortion itself rather than against having the option forcibly taken away -- is a spectacular violation of WP:NPOV, designed as political propaganda, a demonization tactic that is anathema to everything Misplaced Pages stands for. So no, not neutral. And the assertion that this terminology is more common in the global media is, besides not being demonstrated by two cherry-picked links, a febrile, self-serving and transparent lie, as easily demonstrated by actual research, such as that below:

As we can see, the language the current title is based on is five times more common than the propagandist construction proposed. This POV-pushing nonsense, while nice for a break due to its hilarious self-caricature, does not have any place whatsoever on Misplaced Pages. The end. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, leave off the personal attacks. StAnselm (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I note the lack of specificity, which makes sense given that all my extremely irritated and disgusted language is reserved for your actions as a Misplaced Pages editor, not yourself as a person. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That is absolute rubbish. You have described my requested move as a "demonization tactic", and called my assertion a "a febrile, self-serving and transparent lie". "Self-serving" is a comment on the contributor. Comment on content, not on the contributor. It is ridiculous to suggest that this does not include comments on people "as editors". If you are so irritated and disgusted can't discuss this topic sensibly and calmly, you should withdraw. StAnselm (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this article is not about pro-abortion movements, it is about abortion rights movements. I don't seen anything about eugenics or population control here. And there have been abortion movements based on those stands in the past. "opening access to abortions movements" would work as a different name (a descriptive name). -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, analysis of the reliable independent secondary sources shows prevalence of term usage as current title of the page, therefore should not be moved, but redirects to this page title are cheap. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of course not - what a ridiculous time-wasting proposal to destroy accuracy and make WP into a propaganda engine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, and speedy close - and really surprised, StAnselm is usually a sensible editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and permanently topic-ban the nom. --213.196.209.251 (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  It is not sufficient to topic ban someone for making a poor suggestion. A simple oppose or support, with reasons is enough, and the discussion will run its course and be closed soon enough. Often RM's are closed with a single support or oppose, and six to one, with valid reasoning, is sufficient to insure that this page will not be moved. Note to proposer, everyone is anti-abortion, no one is pro-abortion, just like everyone is anti-cancer or anti-falling into a river, or anti-getting run over by a car, but that does not stop people from being in favor of actions that lead to cancer, falling in a river or getting run over (going to the beach, kayaking, and crossing streets). Some people and some countries use abortion as a normal and accepted form of birth control. Some people abhor abortion as if it was some sort of plague, and think that anyone who obtains one is certain to go to someplace not nice. And abortion is one of the most hotly argued topics on Misplaced Pages, with editors of both viewpoints participating, until they get out of control and get topic banned. Apteva (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to topic ban someone for making a poor suggestion -- "Making a poor suggestion"? How about turning right around after a grueling RFC and forumshop to make a point and to aggressively and openly push a POV? --87.79.47.181 (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm as irritated as you, but however we construct the situation it wouldn't be reasonable to topic-ban StAnselm based on it. Topic bans are extreme measures that cope with prolonged and intractable patterns of disruptive behavior, and even if this incident were much more disruptive than it is (it's a waste of all our time and stress-management capacity, but we're big kids, we can handle it), it wouldn't demonstrate a pattern of anything. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is inconceivable that anyone could seriously think this to be a neutral descriptor. Many abortion-rights advocates are anti-abortion. Powers 18:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Expanding (and some contracting) article

I've posted about this on that article's talk page, but now that United States pro-choice movement has been determined to have as its scope the United States and renamed accordingly, there is more general material there that should probably be moved or copied here. (Also from Abortion debate, although there's also less material there than there ought to be.) This should be the article where we discuss general philosophy behind the position, any forms of activism or historical facts that can be generalized across countries, ..., ... As well, I recommend removing unnecessary information about the legal status of abortion where it does not serve as context for the activities of pro-choice/abortion rights groups. There are other articles on the legality of abortion by country. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I generally concur, except that I would argue that all of the "movement" articles should be very light on general philosophy, with the bulk of material on the points of debate going in Abortion debate, Abortion in the United States, Ethical aspects of abortion and so on. This helps avoid the "dueling POVFORKs" situation where each of the two "opposed" articles winds up becoming a polemic for the position of its topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Would you agree though that covering abortion-rights movements does ask that we include some discussion of their reasoning, even if the main debate is in another article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. I envision something like the usual Misplaced Pages "summary section with a {{Main}} crossreference" convention. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Maintain focus

I see I've posted about this before, but we should be making an effort to keep this article focused on movements, not simply on the legal status of abortion in these various countries. How did it come about that abortion was legalized in Iran and Japan (to take the recently added material as an example, though similar issues exist in other sections) - through the efforts of pro-choice advocates? That is what's in the scope of the article, really. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Name NPOV?

I honestly don't know what the answer to this question is, but calling this Abortion-rights movements, while we call the Pro-Life counterpart page 'Anti-Abortion movements' seems like we're breaking with NPOV and COMMONNAME, aren't we? Shouldn't they be 'Pro-Life Movements' and 'Pro-Choice' Movements? 72.224.172.14 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting to the current names took an unbelievably long discussion-consensus process: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I assumed that there's been one of those, so thanks for the link! 72.224.172.14 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Article Review

I think this article was done very well. However, since several countries are brought up I am concerned why all countries aren't mentioned. I think the recent abortion rights movement in Poland should be referenced heavily due to the fact that there is so much going on over there right now with the protests. I also see a lack of religious reference. I think religion has a very big part on the abortion rights views. Because this has such a heavy influence on what people believe, this article should express the severity of that. Ttayloranne (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC: parity for abortion activism

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.

Background: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles from 2012. Misplaced Pages has never been quite sure how to refer to the abortion activism movements, and currently the article titles are set from a narrow consensus at Abortion-rights movements and Anti-abortion movements. This RFC instead asks the question: how can we refer to the movements in article prose? This question is necessary because the status quo has gradually settled on a certain balance and I contend that that status is entirely out of balance, a clear and present violation of Misplaced Pages's core neutrality policy and an affront to the supporters of both movements.

• What is the current status quo? Abortion-rights movements are referred to as "pro-choice" for example NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood and Category:Pro-choice organizations in the United States. The only place "pro-life" survives is Category:American pro-life activists, a holdout from the Great Renaming in which cats were mostly moved to "anti-abortion", which is the current status quo term for the so-called anti-abortion movements. Editors simply will not allow anyone or anything to be called "pro-life", whether or not the topic in question clearly transcends anti-abortion, or a preponderance of WP:RS describe the topic as "pro-life", which would seem to violate WP:V and WP:OR.

Therefore, the logic would suggest that "pro-choice", a biased non-neutral term used only by supporters to describe themselves, should be eliminated in order to level the playing field. It is the only way to comply with WP:NPOV if we are to avoid accusations of WP:SYSTEMIC bias which would be indicated by the way that the pro-abortion position is given the largesse to self-identify while pro-life is not. So the questions before us are:

1. How will we refer to abortion-rights movements in article prose? (a) pro-abortion (b) pro-choice (c) abortion rights
2. How will we refer to anti-abortion movements in article prose? (a) anti-abortion (b) pro-life (c) opposition to abortion rights

I suggest that the outcome of this RFC should become binding project-wide so that we have a clear and consistent method of referring to these topics that will not be the subject of constant contention and edit-wars without any clear resolution. Elizium23 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• pro-life/pro-choice for US-centric articles I think the better solution is to use the commonplace terms that have been widely agreed in the US: pro-life/pro-choice. I have to agree with TParis in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, in the context of US-centric articles: "The scientific sources seem to support pro-life/pro-choice despite that they would appear on the surface to us to be the ambiguous option." I can see the use of the term "anti-abortion" in a number of contexts as valid, such as those topics where the term "pro-life" is not commonplace, but for those US-centric topics I would think it less appropriate. I do also want to note that, in my opinion, in the context of such a controversial subject, in the context of previous RfCs which hold these terms as preferred, in the context of the recognized lack of viewpoint diversity on Misplaced Pages (recognized as mostly liberal, likely pro-choice), your recommended solution that "pro-choice" be purged seems, to be blunt, quarrelsome. (Noting that, in my opinion, "quarrelsome" defines the character of debate on the subject, and many if not most participants, on all sides, consider it acceptable.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I only suggest that it be purged because it has been decreed that "pro-life" be purged as well, and I find that equally quarrelsome. Elizium23 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    • (Yes, quarrelsome seems to define the character of debate. Equally so.) Was this a decision as part of an RfC? Or are you identifying a systemic process? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
      • The process has occurred mostly by editing, across a wide range of articles. Sometimes talk page discussions occur but the consensus has always landed on "anti-abortion". Elizium23 (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• The submission of this RfC, like the the edit the submitter just did to the NARAL Pro-Choice America article, in which the organization's position was characterized as "pro-abortion", seems like mere tenditious editing to me. The "pro-abortion" characterization is obviously not going to receive consensus support as NPOV terminology on Misplaced Pages. The topics in question are not about people encouraging other people to have abortions or saying that abortions are somehow desirable – they are only about people saying that abortion shouldn't be criminalized and prosecuted as a violation of law. The difference is really rather obvious. The RfC poster said that "pro-choice" is "a biased non-neutral term" for the concept of people being able to choose for themselves whether to have an abortion without facing criminal penalties, but has not said how that term is biased or non-neutral. This RfC just seems like a way to provoke contentious discussion and waste time. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support or opposition for your comment is not why I removed it, but rather that it has no content contributing to the two three-part questions posed in the RFC, only content intended to disparage me, my goals, and my good faith. It is on these grounds that I objected to it and duly issued a warning template to your talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't see how my comment could be interpreted as having "no content contributing to the two three-part questions posed in the RFC". Five of the six sentences of my comment discussed your suggestion to consider using the term "pro-abortion" and your assertion that "pro-choice" is "a biased non-neutral term", which are obviously part of the question posed in the RFC. In fact "pro-abortion" was the first of the three suggestions you listed for describing "How will we refer to abortion-rights movements in article prose". I suggest that deleting my comment was out of line. I don't think it is a personal attack to say that, and I also don't think my comment itself was out of line (and I was not the first to suggest that some aspect of the RfC submission seemed "to be blunt, quarrelsome"). To me it is very obvious that "pro-abortion" is not a neutral term that could be a reasonable candidate for receiving consensus support for widespread use on Misplaced Pages. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
      • After a bit of further thought and side discussion, I accept that this RfC was submitted in good faith. It is hard to keep a cool head on this topic, but I also pledge to try. —BarrelProof (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• pro-choice/pro-life - for WP:COMMONNAME and these better support the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA goal of consistency - this gives both a similar style of "pro" prefix and a philosophical point suffix, and more importantly is how they each self-identify. (i.e. the "Pro-Life Journal") Slightly improves conciseness by being shorter. Slightly increases precision too as 'abortion rights' would literally be about a legal framing Rights and all parties are proposing different flavors of that, & the arguments are over what the rights are and implementation access. I would recommend caution about the "binding project-wide" though to allow some coverage for quoted lines and article titles, and that the groups are not limited to just the abortion topic -- pro-life would include Euthanasia; pro-choice would include Sex education and Birth control. Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to the current abortion-rights/anti-abortion, but would lean towards "pro-choice"/"pro-life" as per WP:COMMONNAME. Yes both are "loaded" since they are both "pro" something, but I think they've entered common speech. It's not uncommon for groups on one side to use both terms. Like a brand that has genericised. I don't think pro-abortion is accurate at all, since (i) it is only used by pro-life/anti-abortion campaigners, and (most importantly) (ii) it's inaccurate, since pro-choice/abortion-rights groups are pro abortion, they are pro people being able to choose an abortion. If the "pro-abortion" is to be considered, then so should "anti-choice" (I think both are too biased to be considered BTW). I'm not really sure what this RFC is about, since I've seen "pro life" being used on wikipedia articles. ____Ebelular (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I inserted a "" above, since the context seems to imply that it was accidentally omitted. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • As was thoroughly established in debate in the course of WP:RFC/AAT and WP:RFC/AAMC, WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable to these terms where article titling is concerned; the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE must be applied. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose all goals of this RFC. I was the primary organizer of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, a process that ended an intractable rolling maintenance war that had gone on for years and tied it up with a neat bow. This RFC now proposes to restart that maintenance war for flimsy reasons. The partisans for "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have their propaganda goals catered to in the form of United States pro-life movement and United States pro-choice movement, and this is as much of a bone as they deserve to be thrown and then some. When we are not covering specific, named movements like those, but are discussing these movements in abstract, as the list articles Anti-abortion movements and Abortion-rights movements do, it is entirely appropriate to use the generic terminology commonly adopted in the international press. The world is not the United States and the names of the United States abortion advocacy movements are not the WP:COMMONNAMEs for these movements from a WP:GLOBAL perspective, and even if they were, WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant to a situation like this because the higher standard in WP:POVTITLE must be applied. Leave the situation alone. No good will come of tampering with it. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Broadly agree with you (mostly for the 'don't open the can of worms' point). I must point out that, yes, the world is not the USA, but "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are used a lot in the Anglosphere outside the USA. (e.g. in Ireland we have the Pro Life Campaign). ____Ebelular (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Pro-life & pro-choice per WP:COMMONNAME. Instaurare (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • As was thoroughly established in debate in the course of WP:RFC/AAT and WP:RFC/AAMC, WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable to these terms where article titling is concerned; the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE must be applied. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose any change and Comment 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are both essentially 'marketing' slogans and not neutral, their use may be widespread in the US (less so in UK), but at best they are 'shorthand', each term attempts to demonise the other position, (who after all could be anti-life or anti-choice except in relation to specific issues?) Similarly 'pro-abortion' is very 'loaded', I've never in my life met anyone who thought abortion was a good thing, though I know thousands of people who feel that in some circumstances, it is the right outcome and should not be banned by law. Essentially the debate is between those who feel it should be banned in (almost?) all circumstances and those who feel it is the right of the mother to decide (in many/most circumstances). I endorse what is said by Chaos5023, present terms seem straightforward, neutral, easily understood and accurate, while many of the proffered alternatives do not. Pincrete (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What do you "oppose"? You do realize that currently, "pro-choice" is in widespread usage here? Do you oppose its usage? What would you suggest as a replacement term? Elizium23 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Pro-life/choice for US articles. No comment on others, since, per previous discussions, life/choice seems to be mainly US terminology. However, care should be given to be consistent. Anti abortion should probably be paired with pro-abortion, and choice with life, unless there is an outstanding reason to do otherwise. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This one is rather complicated. In general, I would say abortion-rights and anti-abortion, as it is my belief that we should avoid POVish terminology. COMMONNAME applies unless there are issues with NPOV, and in this case I would say there are such issues: both the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" have been chosen to depict those movements positively (how you can you be anti-choice? how can you be anti-life?) and there is no reason for us to buy into that process. "abortion-rights" is a precise descriptor, because that movement advocates for the option, not for the use of abortion: "anti-abortion" is also precise, because that movement advocates against abortion, period. Vanamonde (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"Pro-choice"/"pro-life" are the most common terms so we should use them. Plus, being "pro-choice" doesn't necessarily mean you are "pro-abortion". Many "pro-choice" people actually personally oppose abortion. Summoned by bot. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Pro-choice/pro-life - Summoned by bot. Both are the more neutral descriptions most commonly used in reliable sources. The alternatives present a negative connotation, which we must avoid. Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose all goals of this RFC for reasons similar to those given by chaos5023. The NPOV goal of Misplaced Pages should not be abandoned on some topics because a majority of editors want to push a non-neutral point of view. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, but that is the very crux of consensus-based editing. NPOV is whatever the community says it is. It is routinely overridden, such as in the case that brought me to open this RFC. The systemic bias on Misplaced Pages dictates what is and what is not regarded as "neutral", as does the everyday negative evaluation and sidelining of reliable secondary sources which do not comport with Wikipedians' idea of neutrality. The fact that you oppose the premise, which is "parity for both sides", indicates that you accept the inherent bias of the status quo. And you may well be in the majority opinion. How does that feel? Elizium23 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and stick to the status quo of WP:RFC/AAT and WP:RFC/AAMC. Bondegezou (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement of faith

As my good faith has been called into question, I wish to address the misgivings head-on. Yes, I am pro-life, so I have a built-in bias for that side of the argument. No, I have not let my bias influence any of my editing behavior so as to contravene Misplaced Pages policies. On the contrary, I seek to balance Misplaced Pages and uphold its policies and guidelines to the best of my ability, and I always have, in my nearly-nine-year career here. I have never been sanctioned for POV-pushing, or any other distasteful behavior, and I intend quite earnestly to keep that record as clear as the day I started. I specialize in dispute resolution. When others are edit-warring and bickering over the correct way to do something, I will be the one seeking compromise, collegiality, and resolution to difficult situations. I believe in countering systemic bias, but I reject the idea that I am here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am only one man, so I do what I can in my corner of the universe, and if I fail, I retreat and regroup, having learned my lesson. I am a good-faith editor, and I would therefore ask everyone, especially my opponents in this long-standing and bitter debate, to put aside our biases for the sake of Misplaced Pages's goals, and evaluate our own actions in light of the letter and spirit of policy. Whatever the outcome of this RFC, I solemnly promise to obey the consensus established herein. Thank you for participating, and God bless. Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Right to choose redirects here

Right to choose redirects here, but probably deserves its own article for Euthanasia, Abortion and other "choices" wrapped up together, similar to Right to life. Thoughts? L32007 (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Explanation for change to last sentence of intro

This doesn’t seem NPOV: “Abortion-rights supporters themselves are frequently divided as to the types of abortion services that should be available and to the circumstances, for example different periods in the pregnancy such as late term abortions, in which access may be restricted.”

Yes, people take a wide range of positions in the abortion-rights debate; and yes, if you exclude one rather narrow set of positions (those which involve being opposed to abortion rights under **all** circumstances), there are still a lot of positions left. Which means those remaining positions can be described as “divided”. But using that terminology makes abortion-rights supporters sound particularly fractious.

(One could as easily say, “Abortion-rights opponents themselves are frequently divided as to the types of abortion services that should be denied and to the circumstances, for example rape, in which access may be allowed.”)

So here’s my attempt at NPOV: “Non-absolute positions on abortion rights sometimes take the form of an absolute position with exceptions. For example, a person may support abortion rights in all circumstances except late term abortions, or oppose abortion rights in all circumstances except rape.” 97.115.71.30 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence of your proposal is not helping "clear things up". Also, your attempt at making this NPOV has had the reverse effect, you now make it sound like all abortion-rights activists have limits. I agree the existing statement is somewhat weird, but your re-wording has just turned it on its head. StarHOG (Talk) 13:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

How about a whole new lead: "Abortion-rights movements, also referred to as pro-choice movements, advocate for legal access to induced abortion services. The right to have an abortion, or not, muddled with issues such as: how long in to the pregnancy, under what circumstances, the health of the fetus and the mother, the viability of the fetus out of the womb, and many more, are often complicated, personal, and many times religious issues for abortion-rights and anti-abortion individuals alike. Worldwide, abortion-rights issues are historically controversial. In the US, many rights stem from the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing abortions in Roe v. Wade (1973)." StarHOG (Talk) 14:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the new language was harder to parse, but the point about how "pro-life" supporters are also not all absolutists is fair - the question is just about whether or not it's appropriate for the lede of this article. Since this is the article on abortion rights movements, it doesn't seem to require a similar statement about the other side to balance it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

References

1. https://family.findlaw.com/reproductive-rights/abortion-rights-faqs.html

Added changes

In the United States section I added two different paragraphs the first one was “One of the largest protest marches on the nation’s capital and soon after, the high court refused to endorse Pennsylvania’s new restrictions and left the Roe v. Wade decision intact.” (History.com). Including this shows an actual movement that happened about abortions and pro choice and how it left a positive impact leading to the higher court not furthering abortion restrictions. Including more information about protests that have happened and have left a positive impact shows actual abortion rights movements rather than just laws to compare from each country shows how different countries respond to the topic. To the United States section I also added how "90 percent of abortions take place in free-standing clinics. And these clinics, their funding networks, and their legal support are typically run by non-profits that receive federal Title X funding" (Cicerchia, Lillian). This shows the reader why even when abortions are legal why it is so difficult to obain them. The last thing I added was in Irelands section and it was about how in Ireland a women was raped and even though she did not want to and tried to attempt suicide “She was eventually forced to give birth by C-section. At every step of the way, the Irish authorities’ concern for the protection of the fetus trumped any consideration of Ms Y’s mental and physical health.” (Newbery, Gher). Including this shows a real example of consequences women go through when they are denied their right. Seeing that it is from a different country help the reader understand the similaries/differences in each country of abortions restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devshreebhatt (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the tone of these entries was not encyclopedic. By that I mean that Misplaced Pages writing is dispassionate and neutral, and does not attempt to persuade the reader of a particular point of view, for example pro-abortion. The text you added contained several clauses that seemed designed as persuasive, and overall the writing was not appropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Devshreebhatt: if you were able to source statements that eg. Ms. Y's case spurred abortion-rights activism, or the (extraordinary, imo) claim that the protest march you name had an impact on the court's decision, they might be appropriate for the article in a revised form, but since this article is meant to be specifically on abortion-rights movements, not abortion or abortion access generally, they would not be appropriate in their current form. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Breaks Every Policy, Guideline We Have. Tried Editing To Compliance, Couldn't. Deleting It.

First Paragraph Under Heading "United States":

The first known legalization of abortion in the United States was passed by the state of Connecticut in the year of 1821, where women barred abortions following quickening, usually performed by administering a poisoning to the mother up to four months into her pregnancy. Up to the year of 1856, women in their first trimester were legally allowed to have an abortion in most states, but not all. It (abortion) was considered a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure that was common enough to appear on medical records. This happened far before the official abortion laws appeared in the United States. No legal, social, or religious force stopped women who wanted an abortion in the New England part of America between the 17th and 18th centuries. There were people, such as Dr. Horatio Storer who pushed efforts to drive the legalization of abortion. Nearly a century later, Colorado was named the first state to liberalize abortion in 1970. Just a few short years after women had finally begun to see the hope within legal abortions, in 1973, Roe vs. Wade occurred, which ended all previously made laws that made abortion legal. Nearly forty years later, in 2009 polls were released that showed 51% of Americans advocate pro-life. However, Congress still passed a healthcare reformation that possibly will be tax-funded abortions. Abortion was an issue that was tossed and contemplated for years prior to its first legalizations, and it will continue to be an issue for years long after present day.

???

Full of claims, no citations. "Poisoning" without naming substances used, "women had finally begun to see the hope," entire last sentence all imply strong bias. Last sentence includes conjecture based on a political talking point. Refers to "the official abortion laws" without stating what those laws were. Unclear what "liberalize abortion" means, also what it means to be "named the first state" to do it. Etc.

I tried to edit it.

Sources contradicted the claims. Dr. "legalization of abortion" Horatio Storer: was an anti-abortion advocate. Colorado, the "liberalize abortion in 1970" state: decriminalized abortion in 1967 (nothing in 1970) and only in cases of rape, incest, or health issues. Etc.

The bias made editing to an NPOV impossible. First sentence became: "In 1821, Connecticut codified a pre-existing common law prohibiting the sale of drugs to those intending to induce abortion with those drugs, becoming the first state to pass a statute criminalizing participation in abortion." That sentence, while informative, doesn't belong in "Abortion-rights movement" category. Other edits follow a similar vein.

This paragraph doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. I'm deleting it.

P.S.: This edit will be my first on Misplaced Pages. I tried to follow all the applicable policies and procedures. If I made any mistakes, or you have any advice for future edits, please let me know. --24.217.32.13 (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Horatio_Storer
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Abortion_in_Colorado#Legislative_history

Possible Improvements

I think the article’s focus is on the “Pro-Choice movement”, when it should be multiple movements, or at least the most prominent two: Pro- Choice movement and Pro-Life movement. I would like to make this article more unbiased and neutral. This would mean changing some word choice. I am hoping to add data that is more up to date and include the most common arguments of both movements. Therefore, I would create two sections: one for each movement. Zen916 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing! 1) The "pro-life" movements has its own article: Anti-abortion movements. 2) As far as naming goes, this has been dicsussed extensively: Please see Talk:Anti-abortion movements/FAQ Q: "Should this article's title be pro-life movement?" A: No. Misplaced Pages does not use euphemisms. The term "pro-life" is a branding or marketing device and does not reflect the sole focus of the movement, which is opposition to abortion. The fact that the two sides officially call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is not a reason for Misplaced Pages to prefer those terms, since neither is neutral, nor accurately describes their positions. ---Avatar317 03:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding "Legal Rights" as a section to Abortion-rights movements

Added a new section to the page titled "Legal Rights" as an overview of recent legislation to change abortion-related healthcare access. I feel it's important to more distinctly document how recent pro-life initiatives have changed the lives of people seeking abortions, especially in America. The goal for this section is to highlight research by Caitlin Gerdts, PhD, MHS, which evaluates the often unseen burdens for Texas abortion patients who were affected by closures of facilities that closed after House Bill 2 was introduced in 2013. Gerdts, Caitlin, et al. “Impact of Clinic Closures on Women Obtaining Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 106, no. 5, 2016, pp. 857–64. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303134 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyche-D40 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the section title is meant to indicate. The entire article is virtually all about legal rights. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to change tittle to pro-abortion movement

Hey the anti-abortion movement article is called anti abortion so shouldnt this be opposite of that? 86.114.249.202 (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you figure? _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I have started a requested move below. Feel free to participate. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe this comes from a belief that consistency is important. I think that the other article should be called the Unborn-rights movement. However a solution that supports consistency is a good idea. Cookiegator (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closed early per snowball clause . (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks (contribs) 00:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Abortion-rights movements → Pro-abortion movements – This new title maintains a consistency with Anti-abortion movements. Also maintains neutral point of view. What are your thoughts on this? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose - This must be an April Fool's Joke just two weeks late, right? The proposed move actually violates WP:NPOV, rather than maintaining it. "Pro-abortion" is used in absolutely no results in google ngrams , and barely appears in trends. . While the nom may be correct that consistency is an issue, it is almost certainly the other article that would be moved (though according to the AP, both are at their best titles). Obvious snow close. Estar8806 (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I saw a possible consensus with the discussion right on top of this move. It's why I did it. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the nomination is violating NPOV. "Pro" and "Anti" are opposite of each other. This new title keeps everything balanced compared to what we have here, and also maintains consistency. "Abortion rights" seem to skew in favor of "Anti-abortion". Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You need to add the hyphen to get proper ngram viewer results. "Pro-abortion movement" was actually the more common term until around the late 1980s, though it's significantly less common today. Colin M (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• oppose seriously what!?—blindlynx 12:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - "abortion-rights" is the term for people who support the RIGHT to have an abortion, and it is the common term because abortion-rights supporters don't say that abortion is a good or desirable thing as the term "pro-abortion" implies; free and available birth control is better and safer and would lead to less abortions, so the movement is now named more accurately based on what they support, which is NOT lots of abortions.---Avatar317 23:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pro-choice would be better. Pro-abortion is misleading, it's not like the activists encourage abortion for every pregnancy. Although we should consider what is the most common terminology used in related discourse - and such analysis is totally missing from the RM proposal, which makes mostly pointless from the start. (But such an analysis was done in the previous RM at the top of this page and it confirms the current title is better, although it ommitted the pro-choice variant, which could be considered for another RM I guess - I did not review the archives in case this is a dead horse too).

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Pro-choice is just the term used by supporters. It would only be acceptable to move it to pro choice is anti abortion is moved to pro life PalauanReich (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose to Pro-abortion movements, but I think Pro-abortion rights movements is the best option. PalauanReich (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose -- most in the abortion rights movement would be glad for there to never be another abortion, because no one ever again found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy nor at medical risk due to a pregnancy they desired. But until that day is reached, they want abortions to be available for people who find themselves in such situations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed term "pro-abortion" is simply a slur against the abortion-rights movement that's used by its opponents. It completely misstates what the movement believes and what it campaigns for. In general, abortions are no less common in countries where women lack abortion rights than in countries where women have reproductive rights. But many women die from unsafe illegal abortions, and that's what the movement wants to stop. NightHeron (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Protection inconsistency

Why does Anti-abortion movements have the blue lock but this doesn't? Both are controversial, no? G'year         — Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Some critics say abortion is genocide

As seen in these sources: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/684239?journalCode=signs

https://elpais.com/sociedad/2023-03-26/el-giro-de-bukele-con-el-aborto-de-defenderlo-a-calificarlo-de-genocidio.html?outputType=amp

https://academic.oup.com/sp/article-abstract/14/1/126/2259045?redirectedFrom=PDF

https://www.elespectador.com/judicial/ministerio-de-salud-retira-concepto-que-equiparaba-al-aborto-con-el-genocidio-article/%3foutputType=amp

https://www.lavanguardia.com/local/lleida/20210304/6263553/entidades-tarrega-critican-obispo-solsona-califique-aborto-genocidio-crimen-abominable.amp.html

Should it be mentioned in the article?

Pancho507 (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ended up adding the word "genocide" to Abortion debate Pancho507 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Add pro-abortion as one of the self-styled phrases in the lead.

I have noticed that there have been attempts to change the article's title to be titled as "Pro-abortion movements," yet it appears there is already a consensus against doing that. This is not a request to change the title of an article, but rather to amend the lead sentence to:

Abortion-rights movements, also self-styled as pro-choice or pro-abortion movements, advocate for the right to have legal access to induced abortion services including elective abortion.

The claim that the only use of the phrase "pro-abortion" is by anti-abortion advocates is false. Pro-abortion does not mean people love abortion, it literally means that you favor its legalization and availability. Just like pro-capital-punishment doesn't mean you love the death penalty, but rather that you support it in certain circumstances as a punishment.

"Pro-abortion" is becoming increasingly common in the abortion debate, as it is a neutral descriptor that is equal in tone to the "anti-abortion" descriptor. Whether you like the phrase or not doesn't change the fact that it is one of the self-styled terms that people within the abortion-rights movement use or are starting to use.

Pro-abortion is widely defined by reliable dictionaries in the following ways:

• in favor of the availability of medically induced abortion as a means of ending a pregnancy. (Oxford)
• supporting the belief that women should have the right to have an abortion (= the intentional ending of a pregnancy) if they need or want one. (Cambridge)
• favoring the legalization of abortion (Merriam-Webster)

Nowhere do these dictionaries say that it is a derogatory or hurtful term that only anti-abortion activists use.

Here are numerous examples of the use and promotion of the term "pro-abortion" by numerous organizations within the abortion-rights movement:

1. Planned Parenthood: "Show that you're ready to elect pro-abortion, pro-sexual & reproductive rights candidates in the 2022 elections!"
2. Planned Parenthood: "It’s 100% fine to support abortion — be proud to be pro-abortion."
3. Planned Parenthood: "Well-meaning folks often contrast “pro-choice” with “pro-abortion,” as in, I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion. But that’s hurtful to people who’ve had abortions. It implies that abortion isn’t a good thing, that legal abortion is important but somehow bad, undesirable. That’s deeply stigmatizing, and contributes to the shame and silence around abortion, making people who’ve had abortions feel isolated and ashamed. At least one in four people who can get pregnant will have an abortion during their lives, and they should be supported and celebrated. It’s time to retire the phrase “pro-choice, not pro-abortion” for good. So what can someone say instead of just “pro-choice”? You can absolutely say pro-abortion."
4. National Women's Law Center: "Being Pro-Abortion is Good, Actually! So next time, before trying to distinguish yourself as NOT “pro-abortion,” think about what it would look like if everyone who wanted an abortion could have one. Why wouldn’t you be pro- that?"
5. Whole Woman's Health Alliance: "It’s not uncommon for people to say 'I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion.' If you are one of those folks or know someone who is, we know your heart is in the right place. But this framing is hurtful to people who’ve had abortions and those who might need abortions in the future. It implies that abortion isn’t a moral good and that while legal abortions are needed, they are somehow bad. As we navigate this tremendously fraught time for abortion access, we are asking you to stand with us and commit to being pro-abortion."
6. Secular Humanism: "I believe that abortion care is a positive social good—and I think it’s time people said so. I am pro-abortion like I’m pro–knee replacement and pro-chemotherapy and pro–cataract surgery."
7. ShoutYourAbortion: "We’ve cultivated a robust and very active pro-abortion community."

Finally, in reference to the anti-abortion movements article... If we are going to include the abolitionist movements descriptor, a quite rare and minority stance and term within the anti-abortion movement, then why not be consistent for the abortion-rights movements article and include pro-abortion as one of the self-styled descriptors as well?

There are numerous people in the abortion-rights movement who not only think and advocate that pro-abortion is the proper and best term for this movement, but also say that the term pro-choice "demonizes women who have abortions." So no, it isn't a term solely used by anti-abortion activists. Just as anti-abortion isn't a term solely used by pro-abortion (aka abortion rights) activists.

Feel free to respond with your thoughts about this proposal. I am very open to compromise and civil discussion so long as the other person demonstrates both respect and civility as well. DocZach (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

None of your examples use "pro-abortion" with "movement". Some individuals in the abortion-rights movement feel comfortable using the term about themselves, and some don't. Most abortion-rights advocates are also strongly in favor of legal and readily available contraceptives and sex education in the schools, and many of them would say that part of the reason is to make abortion less common.

The uses of pro-abortion and anti-abortion are not symmetrical. Members of the latter movement are unambiguously anti-abortion, and someone who's not willing to say that they are "anti-abortion" would not be welcome in that movement. In contrast, you don't have to be willing to call yourself "pro-abortion" in order to be an active member of the abortion-rights movement. The fact that all the people you quote are arguing against others in the abortion-rights movement that the term "pro-abortion" is okay is an indication that there's no agreement about that among abortion-rights advocates. NightHeron (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There's not an agreement in the anti-abortion movement either for the use of "abolitionist." Whilst I personally think pro-abortion and anti-abortion are symmetrical, one does not need to see them as such to include it as one of the terms in the "self styled" part of the lead sentence. Pro-abortion is equally as contestable to the abortion-rights movement as abolitionism is contestable to the anti-abortion movement. I don't think the clarification word "movement" is necessary to understand that if someone is saying they are a pro-abortion activist, then they are clearly part of a pro-abortion movement.

Either way, here are examples of "pro-abortion movement" being used:

"But now it’s really about the LGBTQ community as well, and how it affects trans men. That was just absent in the older pro-abortion movement, and something that the younger generation has added." https://prospect.org/justice/the-new-pro-abortion-generation/

"As the struggle for reproductive rights and justice continues in the United States, abortion advocates must continue to document the dangerous strategies used by abortion opponents and learn from the global pro-abortion movement to develop strategies that will restore these rights." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10098009/

"Because our pro-abortion movement is about busting stigma and spreading joy, all new members receive a gift." https://abortionfunds.org/get-involved/become-an-individual-member/

"The pañuelo verde is a lasting testament to the joy and inventiveness of the global pro-abortion movement and I will be wearing mine with pride this International Safe Abortion Day." https://abortionrights.org.uk/the-panuelo-verde-joy-and-solidarity-in-pro-abortion-organising/

"The case has galvanised the pro-abortion movement, and highlighted British abortion law which states that in the majority of cases, after 24-weeks abortion is a criminal offence." https://news.sky.com/story/thousands-march-in-london-in-support-of-woman-jailed-for-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-limit-12904463 DocZach (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

First, I agree with you that "abolitionist movement" is not a common term the anti-abortion movement uses for itself, and I don't think it belongs in the first sentence of Anti-abortion movements. Should I remove it, and see if other editors object?

Just because it's possible to cherry-pick quotes that use the rhetorical device of calling the whole abortion-rights movement the "pro-abortion movement" -- apparently because they think doing so will reduce "abortion stigma" -- that does not mean that it's correct to refer to "pro-abortion movement" as a term the abortion-rights movement commonly uses about itself.

One problem with the term is that it doesn't distinguish between different stages of pregnancy, a distinction that was the hallmark of Roe v. Wade. Hardly anyone in the abortion-rights movement is in favor of 3rd-trimester abortion except in extreme situations. NightHeron (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The term "pro-abortion" doesn't mean you love or support abortion up to birth. It means that you generally support the legality and availability of abortion. Just like the term "pro-capital-punishment" doesn't mean you support the death penalty in all cases for everyone, and certainly doesn't mean you "like" the death penalty. DocZach (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, "pro-abortion" certainly does not mean that one of the reasons many in the abortion-rights movement support wide availability of contraception and sex education is to reduce the number of abortions. Anyway, after stating that "pro-abortion" doesn't mean you support abortion up to birth, in your next comment below you say the opposite, that is, you repeat the disinformation of the anti-abortion movement to the effect that it does mean supporting abortion up to birth. In reality, even in places like Canada with the most liberal laws it is permitted and expected that the medical profession imposes ethical limits on the circumstances when doctors perform late abortions. My statement that hardly anyone advocates 3rd trimester abortions except in extreme situations is correct. NightHeron (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, numerous states allow abortion up until the moment of birth: Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont. United States abortion laws are similar to Canada and North Korea in that they have no national gestational limits on abortion. So, I would disagree that "hardly anyone" is in favor of the availability of 3rd-trimester abortions. They are still performed to this day, and contrary to popular narrative, the majority are elective and not in extreme situations. Roe v. Wade practically guaranteed abortion up to birth, because it said that "states can restrict abortion in the 3rd-trimester so long as there is an exception for health." Health was not clearly defined, and was interpreted to include all forms of health: social, economic, mental, physical, financial, spiritual, etc... therefore practically guaranteeing abortion up to birth. Planned Parenthood v. Casey had an even stranger standard of an "undue burden," which had no clear definition whatsoever. DocZach (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@NightHeron

"Anyway, after stating that "pro-abortion" doesn't mean you support abortion up to birth, in your next comment below you say the opposite, that is, you repeat the disinformation of the anti-abortion movement to the effect that it does mean supporting abortion up to birth."

You completely misread what I said. I was replying to your statement that "hardly anyone is in favor of 3rd-trimester abortion except in extreme situations," I never once said that pro-abortion meant that you support abortion up to birth. DocZach (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at that whole paragraph, you're repeating the bogus claim of the anti-abortion movement that the abortion-rights movement and even the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade have essentially wanted abortion to be completely unrestricted in 3rd trimester. My statement earlier was that hardly anyone is opposed to reasonable 3rd trimester restrictions, although in some places it's common to believe that such restrictions should be imposed by the medical profession rather than by state or provincial legislatures. NightHeron (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I never said that the abortion-rights movement wanted it to be completely unrestricted. I did not even say the majority of abortion advocates support it up to birth. What I did say is that it is not true that hardly anyone is in favor of elective 3rd trimester abortions. Quite a few are, but I never said it was the majority, or even close to the majority. And in regards to the Supreme Court, I never said that the Supreme Court wanted abortion to be unrestricted in the 3rd trimester, I'm saying that was the practical outcome because they failed to precisely define what "health" really meant in Roe v. Wade, opening up any abortion ban later in pregnancy to persistent litigation and lawsuits.

I agree with you that most pro-abortion advocates do not support elective abortion up to birth. However, that does not mean "hardly anyone" or "nobody" does. According to Gallup, 30% of Americans support abortion up until birth for any reason (https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx). That isn't "hardly anyone," that's a fairly large group of people, and a fairly common viewpoint - despite not being the majority. DocZach (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not the way the question was worded. There was no "up until birth" in the wording of the option that 34% voted for; it was asking whether the respondents "think abortions should be legal under any circumstances". It's poorly worded, because it doesn't specify whether it means "most abortions", "the vast majority of abortions", or "all abortions". Most abortion-rights advocates are aware that over 90% of abortions are early, and so shouldn't be restricted; it's very possible that those are what they think of as "abortions". Most of the 3rd trimester the fetus is already viable. If the question had been worded "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, including in the 3rd trimester after viability?", the percent saying "yes" would have been far, far smaller. Only a tiny tiny minority would be in favor of legal 3rd trimester abortion on demand.

Another issue with the wording of the question is that it's asking only about legality. Someone can be in favor of legality of a practice without being "pro" that practice. Legality just means decriminalizing, it doesn't mean endorsing. In particular, many people (especially in certain places like Canada and also among doctors) believe that the medical profession and not state or provincial legislatures should decide what medical practices are ethically permissible. NightHeron (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are in favor of the legality of abortion, then you are pro-abortion. That's how the word is defined, and that's what the word means. DocZach (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The way to settle disputes like this (which has strayed WAY off subject) is to follow Misplaced Pages policy: we say what Reliable Sources say. (This makes discussions easier and to the point.)

The sources DocZach has found seem to show (in my opinion) no more than that RECENTLY (2020 and newer), SOME in the Abortion-rights movement support using the term "pro-abortion". This does NOT mean that the MAJORITY of the sources talking about the movement use that term.

It would be ok to use those sources for a statement somewhere in the article like: "Since 2020, some in the movement have been advocating for calling themselves "pro-abortion" as a way to de-stigmatize abortion." But this unless you can find "pro-abortion" being used INTERCHANGEABLY with "anti-abortion" in a large majority of mainstream sources which refer to the movement, (which we DEFINITELY do not have) than we don't call it that in Wikivoice in the lead.---Avatar317 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The same is true for the abolitionists classifier in the anti-abortion article. Very little in the anti-abortion movement use that label, and it is way less common than "pro-abortion" is. DocZach (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, as per our earlier discussion. I've removed "abolitionist" from that article's first sentence. NightHeron (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that article, and if that article has problems, that is irrelevant to this discussion. ---Avatar317 05:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we can conclude this discussion. NightHeron (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

1. ""Proud Abortion Rights Voter" Social Media Toolkit". www.plannedparenthoodaction.org. Retrieved 2024-03-30.
2. "Abortion Stigma". Planned Parenthood.
3. "What's wrong with choice?: Why we need to go beyond choice language when we're talking about abortion". www.plannedparenthoodaction.org. Retrieved 2024-03-30.
4. jadehurley (2021-05-28). "Destigmatizing Abortion: Being Pro-Abortion is Good, Actually!". National Women's Law Center. Retrieved 2024-03-30.
5. "Why We All Need to Be Pro-Abortion". Whole Woman’s Health Alliance. 2021-10-26. Retrieved 2024-03-30.
6. kreidler, Marc (2016-07-08). "Why I Am Pro-Abortion, Not Just Pro-Choice | Free Inquiry". Retrieved 2024-03-30.
7. "Ready to take your activism to the next level? — Shout Your Abortion". shoutyourabortion.com. Retrieved 2024-03-30.

Why does "anti-choice" re-direct to the anti-abortion article, but "anti-life" doesn't re-direct to this article?

Seems very inconsistent and biased to me. The pro-abortion movement uses "pro-choice" as their phrase, and the anti-abortion movement uses "pro-life" as their phrase. So if we are going to re-direct based on the opposite of their preferred phrases (as it seems people have already done with "anti-choice movements" re-directing to the anti-abortion article), then wouldn't it make sense to add an "anti-life movements" re-direct here as well? DocZach (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There's already a disambiguation page called Anti-life, which includes a link to this article. Toughpigs (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. DocZach (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

They're not analogous terms. "Anti-life" is a slur, and anyone in the abortion-rights movement would say that they're very much in favor of protecting the life and wellbeing of the woman, and believe that her life should have priority over that of a zygote, embryo, or fetus. In contrast, the anti-abortion movement sometimes does mock the notion of choice with slogans such as "It's a child, Not a choice!" NightHeron (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's incorrect that "anyone" would, there are people who are very much pro-abortion and have no regard for fetal life, and some who actually fetishize it or celebrate the killing of a child-in-utero. Anti-choice is a broad, ambiguous term that can be interpreted to be a lot of different things. So is anti-life. So it only makes sense to either have both re-directs, or have neither. Both are "slurs" in their own meanings. DocZach (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK the words I used "very much in favor of protecting the life and wellbeing of the woman, and believe that her life should have priority over that of a zygote, embryo, or fetus" is a fair statement of what the entire abortion-rights movement believes, and that's why I used the word anyone. Your outrageous claim that "some" in the abortion-rights movement "fetishize" or "celebrate the killing of a child" mirrors the rhetoric of the extremists in the anti-abortion movement. You're really losing credibility at this point. NightHeron (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You are making a generalized statement about an entire group of people. I'm very certain that most pro-abortion people don't love abortion, but that doesn't mean there is nobody in the entire world who loves it. There is such thing as abortion addiction, and also there is such thing as "abortion parties" and "abortion cakes," look it up.

You seem to consider anyone who is anti-abortion "extremists", so I'm not sure how that is a useful modifier. And furthermore, I am also completely aware and completely agree that there are people in the anti-abortion movement who have outrageous views as well (such as some who hate women or want control). I acknowledge that these groups of people are the minority in each movement, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Either way, that is irrelevant to the issue at-hand. The phrase "anti-choice" is a completely ambiguous and vague term, meant to be a "gotchya" to the anti-abortion movement. So is the "anti-life" term. There shouldn't be a re-direct to this page from "anti-choice movement." Anti-choice could mean a wide variety of things, such as "anti the choice to slap someone" or "anti the choice to use drugs" or "anti the choice to get an abortion." And anti-life can mean a wide variety of things as well.

Both anti-choice and anti-life are biased, POV language that has no place on Misplaced Pages. Either be consistent with applying those terms equally, or don't apply them as re-directs at all. I am in favor of the latter. DocZach (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that all opponents of abortion are extremists. There's no reason for you to assume that. The fallacy in what you're saying is that "anti-choice" in the context of abortion is a reasonable term for those who believe that abortion should be illegal or severely restricted by law rather than a matter for the woman and her doctor to decide. If something is illegal, it is not a "choice" unless one wants to be considered a criminal. In contrast, "anti-life" as a term for the abortion-rights movement is nothing but a slur. But if other editors like the idea of dropping the "anti-choice" redirect, I have no problem with that. I see no harm in having it and no harm in dropping it. NightHeron (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The proper place for discussing removal of a redirect is WP:RfD. Also you should read: WP:R (what they are and why they exist); neutrality doesn't matter for redirects, see WP:POFR ---Avatar317 20:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"No, I don't believe that all opponents of abortion are extremists." Perhaps not, but extremists are setting the various political agendas of the anti-abortion movement. In recent years, they are determined to incarcerate their opponents. See some of the laws in Abortion law in the United States by state: "Performing an abortion is a Class A felony with up to 99 years in prison, and attempted abortion is a Class C felony punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison" Dimadick (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not extremism... That's literally just the standpoint of the anti-abortion movement.. The common belief in the anti-abortion movement is that the abortionist should be charged with murder or a similar crime, and the mother should not receive any criminal penalty. DocZach (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this isn't a place to debate abortion or the movements around it. I appreciate @Avatar317 for informing me of what and where RfD is, and I'll probably propose something there later on. DocZach (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

What about anti-natalists? It's certainly the exception, but they could be considered "anti-(human) life" and are often pro-abortion rights for that reason. Misplaced Pages's Biggest Fan (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Abortion-rights movement; consensus against removing the hyphen. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Abortion-rights movements → Abortion rights movements
• United States abortion-rights movement → United States abortion rights movement

– Per WP:COMMONNAME. No other rights movement uses the hyphenated version of the title (e.g. civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc.) on Misplaced Pages. Google Books shows "abortion rights" and "abortion rights movement" are at least 10x more common than their counterparts, and a quick Google Scholar and Pubmed search shows almost unanimous use of "abortion rights" without the hyphen. PassedDown (talk | contribs) 14:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral. I believe the need to have consistent punctuation across Misplaced Pages trumps WP:COMMONNAME, and MOS:HYPHEN states that a hyphen should be used in a compound modifier like "abortion-rights movement" ("abortion rights" by itself should not be hyphenated). However, I see much less need for a hyphen in this formulation with - , as compared to say "anti-abortion movement" where the hyphen is clearly needed. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. this is a minor change of punctuation that is uncontroversial... Jorahm (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. I agree with Amakuru's reasoning. The hyphen between abortion-rights helps provide context and maintain a NPOV. Excluding the hyphen would suggest that it is widely recognized as a "rights movement" for the same purposes that the gay rights movement and civil rights movement are. However, to do so would be uncalled for, as the abortion-rights movement is about preserving access to a procedure, not for protecting a specific population.

DocZach (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Relisting comment - per the discussion in the collapsed section immediately above this, the closer Iwaqarhashmi has given permission for me to vacate that close and relist this discussion, which I am now doing. I will add a !vote under my name shortly. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Abortion-rights movement. I agree with the discussion held at Iwaqarhashmi's talk page, indicating that the title should be in singular rather than plural... However, I don't agree with the original premise. MOS:HYPHEN tells us that in general we should hyphenate compound modifiers, to ease understanding and avoid confusion between <Abortion rights> <movement> vs <Abortion> <rights movement>. This guideline is generally applied even where not all reliable sources do so, for example in Box-office bomb and African-American music, just to name a couple. And style decisions are often cited as being exempt from WP:COMMONNAME. As such, I think the page is correctly titled as it stands. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Hyphen is correct, and the timing and results of the various countries' movements should be considered separately. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – The hyphenated forms are common enough, and the hyphen provides a valuable cue to the reader. It is common for writers to omit this cue, while assuming that readers will be familiar enough with the topic to avoid the possibly ambiguous parse, but nevertheless, as a kindness to novice readers, it's still a good idea to use the standard affordance that English grammar offers to make the reader's job easier. Or as SarekOfVulcan says, "Hyphen is correct." Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Abortion-rights movement, for the same reason as Amakuru pointed out. The hyphen is fine, but generally we avoid plural titles as per WP:PLURAL, and this topic doesn't appear to meet the exceptions laid out there. ASUKITE 18:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Singular per WP:SINGULAR. Once noticed, the plural makes me wonder if it's some kind of WP:EDITORIALIZING to imply a lack of unity. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Abortion-rights movement. I was previously unsure about the hyphen, despite MOS:HYPHEN, but found Amakuru's comments persuasive. I think "movements" refers to each country, versus United States "movement", but this isn't sufficient to meet one of the criteria at WP:PLURAL in my judgement. Also Anti-abortion movements should be moved to the singular form in parallel. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Title Consistency

It's a minor thing, but the "Anti-abortion movements" page has an "s" on the end of "movements" (meaning plural), unlike the title of this page. Also, the lead of this article uses the plural "movements." Why the inconsistency? Misplaced Pages's Biggest Fan (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Try reading back about ten lines before your post. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"Occasionally"

Taking out the word "occasionally" places undue weight on the few scattered incidences of violence against "Pro-life people". Compared to the the violence against abortion-providers (which warrants a separate article), these incidences are indeed taking place "occasionally" and this should be stated. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-life campaigners have suffered violence as well" is an unequivocally true statement. "Pro-life campaigners have occasionally suffered violence as well" is not because "occasionally" is subjective. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

there is nothing subjective about it when the section only comes up with two incidents and some cartoon while the other section has to have a "main article"-link at the top. It's simple math. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Occasionally is appropriate in this case because the relative occurrence of violence against pro-choicers vs pro-lifers is much more heavily weighted against pro-choicers. The weighting is described neatly by the word under discussion. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be appropriate, but is there a need for it? NYyankees51 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Depends on weight. Would you agree that violence against abortion providers is more common and/or notable than abortion against pro-life individuals/organizations? How much more common? Do you believe the article currently establishes that disparity between the two? How so? These are weight considerations. We cannot present the two types of violence as equal if they are not. A qualifying word such as "occasionally" may help to do this, but also may not go far enough to make the weight clear. But perhaps I am mistaken, and we don't need weight considerations here. -Andrew c  17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Violence against abortionists gets two full paragraphs while violence against pro-lifers gets two short ones. Weight is already established and "occasionally" is not needed to dilute the pro-life side. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Except for, the two short paragraphs on violence against pro-lifers cover everything there ever happened while the other two long paragraphs are just a snippet of what took place. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. We can't possibly hope to make the paragraph ratio equal to the violence ratio - that would be some sort of poem or text-based art piece, not an encyclopedia article. The best we can do is to use words to convey the relative weight of each thing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Define occasionally. I don't think that we do need weight considerations here and if we do I want them to be actual weight considerations used by sources, so subjective eyeballing stated as fact. - Haymaker (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Twice in recorded history" sounds a lot like "occasionally" to me. PhGustaf (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So if it is more than twice you'll walk away from that term? - Haymaker (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll walk away from the term if the sources start not supporting it. PhGustaf (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

How many sources say "occasionally" now? - Haymaker (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's not sourced, then it has to go go go... Lionel (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the statement sourced without the word "occasionally"? That's a rhetorical question, so I'll answer for you: no, it is not. The paragraph documents a couple of individual incidents, none of whose sources connect any one to any other. Are we justified in including the statement as an introductory sentence to sum up the content of the section? Of course we are. But if you argue for the removal of one part of this summing-up because it is unsourced, you cannot then claim that the rest of the unsourced sentence is totally okay. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I have removed the second paragraph completely due to WP:WEIGHT: For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Isolated local news reports have to go. It has nothing to do with the larger topic of systematic violence against pro-lifers. There is no secondary source synthesis. With this paragraph gone, perhaps this will balance the weight a little.-Andrew c  03:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. PeRshGo (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't that was particularly disruptive; in principle, Andrew is right (that's what I meant by weight considerations). It seems that the last to lines about the cartoon and some guy showing a gun (the source does not say he was waving it around and shouting "I'm gonna kill you") are written because of "yeah, but but but, we've been assaulted, too" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Cho. Reasonable edit. Not WP:POINT. Can we try some AGF for a change? Lionel (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

When someone writes "occassionally goes, this goes. see talk" as their edit summary when removing sourced material they give the appearance that their edit was retaliatory in nature and thus disruptive. This is already a very petty dispute and this sort of thing isn’t going to help move the debate along. Either way we've had our B, R, and now we're on D. PeRshGo (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What? I cannot understand how you got "disruptive" out of the removal of text per WP:UNDUE. You cited the guideline at WP:POINT but that is far outside of what is happening here. Rather, there is a valid concern that the widespread violence against abortion providers is being made less prominent by the discussion of the very few instances of violence against pro-life activists. Binksternet (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

They literally wrote "occassionally goes, this goes" That is a statement of retaliation. The Pro-life side of the debate was going to fight over something petty as the word "occasionally" so Andrew c deletes half the section. Now strategically speaking the Pro-life side of the debate has been pressed to move their fight to just saving the section, and keeping occasionally has become a sure thing. Such tactics are the cornerstone of WP:POINT. Now this is my opinion on the matter, and Andrew c certainly has the opportunity defend his actions and achieve his edits through consensus but that's how the BRD cycle works. It’s also noteworthy to point out that you have now restored his edits thus defeating the BRD cycle. PeRshGo (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope no-one is here to strategically support a particular side of the debate. But it does seem to me that if we're going to remove the word "occasionally" from the statement, then it's better to remove the statement as a whole, since without some modifier like "occasionally" it risks creating undue weight on a comparatively rare phenomenon.--Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry PeRshGo doesn't like my edit summary. I wrote a bit explaining my edit in more detail here on the talk page. Would the substance of that be considered instead of a brief summary in a location that isn't intended for discussion? I am sorry it came off as retaliatory. I was reading the rationales on the talk page for removing the word "occasionally", and I was agreeing with them, and thought, "along those same lines, we should also remove this other content for similar reasons". I can see now how it sounds like I was being spiteful or whatever, but I was in agreement with BOTH removals. I don't posit that it's either all or nothing. That the article would be OK if occasionally was restored along with the second paragraph. Asd I explained above, and quoted Misplaced Pages guidelines, isolated news stories are not notable within the context of the larger topic being discussed. The incidents which site only isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Therefore, under these guidelines, they should be removed. Which I did. Again, can we not focus on my poorly worded edit summary, and get to the ACTUAL (not made up) reasons for why I removed the content.... -Andrew c  14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As an anti-abortionist and "pro-lifer", I think the inclusion of "occasionally" was entirely reasonable, and that anyone objecting to the obvious common sense usage is, intentionally or unintentionally, being exactly the kind of horse's ass that makes it so hard for us to talk about important things on these articles. Please give it up. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I support Binksternet's solution of eliminating the lead sentence altogether. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Haymaker, why did you restore the paragraph. Being "sourced" is not good enough, and I've twice quoted Misplaced Pages guidelines explaining why. Would you care to discuss these changes instead of continue edit warring? -Andrew c  23:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

that was Haymaker. S/he can participate in this discussion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51. The argument isn't undue weight, per se. It's much more specific than just that and what I've quoted twice before. isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Furthermore, if you are suggesting deleting the first paragraph, why didn't you do that, assuming you agree with the weight problems. If not, then why mention deletion the first paragraph at all if that was never your intention? I wish people would discuss things, and stop being so trigger happy about reverting. A local news article from 1994 is not appropriate for this article and has very little relation (without original synthesis) to the topic of violence against the pro-life movement. Same thing for the other local news story which doesn't actually involve violence (or the animated, fictional violence). None of those sources are appropriate. And no one has even attempted to address this, yet they are more than happy to edit war to keep the content in. Bravo. -Andrew c  01:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that violence not reported regionally or nationally is not notable enough for this larger article, and violence that is depicted by cartoon is similarly not important enough as nobody was actually hurt. The weight given to cartoon violence cannot be made equivalent to shootings that result in death! To implement WP:UNDUE, the cartoon violence, and purely local violence should be struck. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I see policy being quoted but no reasonable argument being made as to why this section should be removed, that is capable of standing on its own merit. If we hop on over to the Anti-abortion violence article you see several bare news articles listing everything from murders to isolated vandalism. As anyone here who is interested in intellectual honesty is willing to admit there is OF COURSE more acts of violence towards the pro-choice movement so due to the section’s size it was spun off into a separate article, but that doesn’t mean that somehow the handful of incidences directed towards the pro-life movement aren’t worthy of a paragraph on the pro-life article. There has been no logical rational presented for that. It just seems like once again one side of the debate is trying to get a leg up on the other. Personally I put my vote in leaving it exactly how it was and for everyone to stop making huge debates over these petty issues. The abortion issue makes people do stupid things. Occasionally it becomes violent, and occasionally, though far more often it makes people try to push their view on Misplaced Pages. PeRshGo (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry this isn't the talk page of that other article you mention. I'd be 100% in support of removing any content there which represents: isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Local news reports of isolated events rarely are appropriate for Wikipeida. Whether it is this article or another article. If you can find me any other secondary or tertiary source discussing the 1994 incident, then I'd totally reconsider it's inclusion in this article. But as it stands, I don't support it based on guidelines quoted. DO I really need to explain further how the content relates to the quote? Furthermore, accusing me of trying to get a leg up, and sticking to partisan divides is offensive. Please don't continue with such assumptions. -Andrew c  12:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You have continued to copy and paste the same line of text from WP:Weight but are treating it like a unilateral policy on all local news sources. The rationale you need to explain both here and now at Anti-abortion violence is why the local news articles were giving undue weight. I would argue that mention of such local violence is reasonable in both cases simply because on both sides of the issue we’re dealing with a VERY small number of incidences. To put this all in perspective all the pro-life and pro-choice violence combined in this century won’t even begin to equal this year’s violent crime in New Orleans. This isn’t to belittle the issue but to say that when dealing with so few cases every one counts. PeRshGo (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently the violence against pro-choicers subsection has 278 words; against pro-lifers has 127 words. Less than half. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Word count is not the only determining factor. The guidelines make that clear. Are there any other reasons for your restoration? I find your rationale for restoring the content very weak.-Andrew c  14:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is a notable topic, then there will be analysis by secondary sources. In terms of anti-abortion violence, there are organizations which compile statistical information on this, reports in scholarly journals, articles by the BBC, New York Times, and Time Magazine, all discussing the topic generally, and mentioning specific incidents. If an incident doesn't make national headlines, or otherwise find it's way into the existing literature on this topic, then the quoted guideline applies. It isn't our job to compile statistics, or make note of every incident, if the actual secondary sources aren't doing it first. Demonstrate that these incidents had more significant coverage outside of a local news story. I don't believe every case counts at all, and this guideline I keep quoting explains why. We clearly have a large body of literature analyzing and discussing the topic of anti-abortion violence. Holding up this standard does not gut the anti-abortion violence article, and leave it mostly empty. Almost all of the sources already there hold up, and many other incidents just needed additional sourcing to meet the criteria. However, some needed to be removed. I'm not sure the same thing applies here, because the topic has such fewer secondary sources and general notability. But because our sources are lacking, doesn't mean we need to pick up the slack and do the job of the mainstream media. No, if we have to resort to pulling content from 15 year old local news stories for one side, yet can site scholarly articles and the BBC on the other side, we clearly have a problem of parity. -Andrew c  14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the support here, but I don't appreciate you continuing the edit war. Good thing I am an involved admin, because if it were up to me, you'd be blocked for edit warring on an article under general sanctions. -Andrew c  15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I noted that I had not touched the article space for three days, and I judged this thread to be concluded. On the latter, I jumped the gun. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem that has been created now is that we had a near comprehensive list of violence on the issue and now the lists are incomplete. Misplaced Pages has become worse. In truth we could even cut away more from the Anti-abortion violence article using the standard you're advocating, the question just becomes "why?" What possible motivation do we have to continue to remove relevant information from Misplaced Pages? Why make a near comprehensive list incomplete while only quoting a very subjective standard? PeRshGo (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The "near comprehensive list of violence" included instances of near violence that did not result in bodily harm. The value of the list is not damaged by removing somebody waving a gun without shooting people, or publishing a cartoon depicting violence. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2011

The Anti-abortion violence article also includes instances of near violence such as hoaxes and marketing schemes. PeRshGo (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea that we had a comprehensive list is nonsense. According to the NAF statistics, since 1977 there have been "41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")". We don't list 173 arsons, we list about 5. I removed one instance. Changing 6 out of 173 to 5 out of 173 doesn't make the list significantly any less incomplete than it was before. If we want to remove near hoaxes or whatever from that article, we can pursue that as well, but I'd really like to stop focusing on that article on this article's talk page. OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And while I understand the topics are related especially because the latter is a spinout article of this, I don't think we need to hold hostage clearly poor content here due to what exists on other articles. Let's agree to remove the junk from here, and then move on to other talk pages. Is the argument "let's not remove the junk here, because other crap exists?" -Andrew c  15:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of OTHERCRAPEXISTING. Your argument is based in a line of text from the policy on weight. Weight is a matter of balance. To make an argument on weight you have to argue that this exceptionally small section gives the subject of violence against the Pro-life movement too much weight. Personally I don't think anything contained in either article qualified as "junk." It was sourced material relevant to the subject, and in the case of the Pro-life movement article properly qualified until someone got it in their head to remove the word "occasionally" and set off the powder keg. PeRshGo (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life renaming being discussed

In case you may not be aware the effort to rename Pro-life continues unabated. The discussion to rename Pro-life for the month of June is here. It is in mediation. The mediator said "I feel mediation could bring a final resolution to this matter." His idea of final is renaming Pro-life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs)

This representation of the mediation proposal is untrue by omission, and I'm sure I don't have to remind you that notifications of discussions intended to incline the invited parties to one side or another constitute canvassing. Please rephrase your notification so that it accurately represents the proposal, if you choose to summarize it, and so that it does not attempt to sway users for or against the proposal. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Same thing at the Conservatism Project. This is too partisan of Lionelt; too POV. Bad move. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What I find far more interesting is that this is yet another discussion on the matter and it has just now been posted on the talk page. PeRshGo (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am very disappointed to see this sort of posting. The idea of mediation is to work together to come up with a solution, and it seems my comments about not letting real-life opinions get in the way of improving the encyclopedia have been ignored. I urge you to all consider putting your feelings aside and working together on this, otherwise we will be running in circles forever. Steve Public (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I apologise for not linking the mediation case to this talk page as soon as I requested it. I didn't think about it, and that wasn't acceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It matters not, what matters is how we proceed from here. this will be my last posting here, as well as on the mediation page, until further discussion occurs there. My role as a mediator is to assist in facilitating discussions, offer advice and present possible solutions. So I will wait. Steve Public (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Without "getting involved", a large part of the problem is that there is not a black/white dichotomy on the issue for most people - most people are either more on the side of "opposing most, but not necessarily all, legalized abortions" or "supporting most, but not necessarily all, legalized abortions." Unless we can clearly state this, status quo ante is likely to be the result. Collect (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Abortion articles
• Top-importance Abortion articles
• WikiProject Abortion articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Top-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Unassessed Abortion articles
• Mid-importance Abortion articles
• Unassessed law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Unassessed Human rights articles
• Top-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Unassessed medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• Unassessed reproductive medicine articles
• Low-importance reproductive medicine articles
• Reproductive medicine task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unassessed sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• Unassessed social movements task force articles
• Unassessed women's health articles
• Mid-importance women's health articles
• WikiProject Women's Health articles