Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:48, 30 June 2011

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
Article	Abortion-rights movement
Status	Open
Request date	22:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Requesting party	-- Eraserhead1 <talk>
Parties involved	Eraserhead1, Anthony Appleyard, Roscelese, HuskyHuskie, NYyankees51, Andrew c, CWenger, among others
Mediator(s)	User:Steven Zhang, User:NickDupree
Comment	Presented a proposed solution, awaiting opinions.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Talk:Abortion-rights movement#Move?, but previous discussion has occurred on the other article talk pages.

Who is involved?

• User:Eraserhead1
• User:Anthony Appleyard
• User:Roscelese
• User:HuskyHuskie
• User:NYyankees51
• User:Andrew c
• User:CWenger
• User:Binksternet
• User:Haymaker

Acceptance of Mediation

Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:

• -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• I accept, but we need to invite more involved people - see here. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• I accept, and as one of the main users involved in starting the last few move discussions, I would be happy to provide background on my motivations for doing so. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• –CWenger (^ • @) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• DeCausa (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• LedRush LedRush (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oh look... Another pro-life move discussion! Well, it's not like I have a Wikiproject to run, or a portal to get to Featured, or anything like that. Sign me up! I really have nothing better to do. Maybe we can get a couple hundred more editors signed up and bring the whole Pedia to a standstill. – Lionel 21:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• I added myself. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• I added myself, too, en passantbecause I wasn't sure I had to. PhGustaf (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• I accept, and hope this discussion can be without the hyperbole brought by a few editors from both sides. Dave Dial (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• As I so often do, I've arrived late to the party, but am glad to be here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Better late than never. - Haymaker (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't have much online time... but I'll do what I can.-Andrew c  14:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?

The issue is that the Abortion articles have become confused, we can't decide what the best title for the pro-life and pro-choice articles are, and whether they should actually be merged into Abortion Debate. Move requests have been made but have failed to be closed promptly and haven't been conducted particularly well.

What would you like to change about this?

I would like the discussion to come to a sensible conclusion so we can decide how to structure the content in a way that everyone is happy with.

How do you think we can help?

Help us work out what the best way of structuring the content is, possibly with some less conventional methods of figuring out the best solution (e.g. straw polling). Some outside eyes would be useful here.

Mediator notes

Taking case. Will have a look over discussions then post my thoughts. Steven Zhang 23:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a lot of reading of the discussions, and have a few points to make. For the side of the debate in favour of pro-life/pro-choice, people have stated it is in common use on the internet, that they are parallel terms which don't present either subject in a more favourable light. Opposition to this name state that these terms are ambiguous, propagandist, loaded, and not of a neutral way that can be used on Misplaced Pages. There was also the issue that Pro-life is not a specific term, and that it could also refer to other topics.

The other side of the debate, which is accepting of the Abortion-rights/Anti-abortion state that the term is clear and encyclopedic and of a neutral point of view, with the main objection being that it presents one side of the debate (Abortion-rights) in a positive light with the other side (Anti-abortion) in a negative light.

This is a contentious topic, and opinions are clearly split pretty much down the middle. This one is going to require a compromise, and I don't think it's going to involve either of the names. We need to agree on two different names, that neutrally describe the articles. While one term might be clean and encyclopedic, with the other being commonly used, simply restating it here over and over again won't get us anywhere. Something needs to be done to stop these constant move discussions.

After doing some thought, I've thought of 2 possible names that the respective articles can be moved to. While not in common use, they are encyclopedic, and factual, and don't present either in a more positive light to the other.

Proposed:

• Move Abortion-rights movement -> Support for legalized abortion
• Move Pro-life movement -> Opposition to legalized abortion

These are not commonly used terms, however I feel is a reasonable compromise I feel we could agree to. The discussions have been going on for too long, and this a contentious dispute where real-life opinions weigh in. This isn't a case where discussions will change opinions of appropriate page names to be used (for the names that have been discussed). I feel the names I've proposed should work, not because they're in common use by RS, which generally is needed, but because they're neutral and factual descriptions of the articles, without any of the discussed issues associated with them. Sometimes we need to IAR in order to come up with a good solution. Let me know what you think of this proposal, but at the moment these discussions have been a tug-of-war, and I hope this proposal cuts the rope. Steven Zhang 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@LedRush- You say that one of these names has a tinge of non-neutrality. Could you clarify which one, and why you feel that way, as I am unclear as to how the names I've proposed could not be neutral. Simply put, both articles discuss the topic of legalized abortion, with one being in support of the idea, the other being opposed to the idea. These proposed names state basic facts, the article contains information on the viewpoints, whether in support or opposition, on the matter of legalized abortion. I'm not sure how more neutral we can get there, but if you feel there's a way we could improve this, please let me know. Steven Zhang 01:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@LedRush- It depends on how you look at it. It's more about the context of how it's used. Personally, I don't see "support of legalized abortion" more favourable than "opposition to legalized abortion". They're facts. Some people support the idea of legalized abortion, and some do not. The title isn't there to convey a viewpoint as much is it's to describe the content in the article. I agree it might not be a page name that ticks all the boxes for common usage as such, but it accurately conveys the topic of the article. The lead of the article can clarify commonly used names, but I feel this title would be the best compromise possible in this case. Steven Zhang 03:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nyyankee- From my reading and review of the discussions, there's no clear consensus for either article name. In the most recent discussion, opinions are split quite evenly, with reasonable arguments for both sides. From my reading of the discussions, an alternative article name is required, one that all can agree to. Hence why I've proposed this. Disruptive or not, an article name all can agree to is necessary, and from my assessment as a mediator, a change is needed. Simply discussing over and over the current article names has clearly not accomplished anything, and I think this will solve the issues. Steven Zhang 05:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Lionelt - As for your edit summary, it should end here. I'd like to point to my original comment, this dispute involves real-life opinions. We need to push these aside. Whether people who edit the article support or oppose abortion is irrelevant, and should not be reflected in the article title. Changing the title to what I've proposed would do that, and would end this debate, if all will agree to it. See my comments above. Steven Zhang 05:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the issue of how a consensus here would be implemented, it's quite simple. If there is a consensus to implement the changes I have proposed, I will make them, citing this mediation case. A requested move will not be required, as consensus will already have been made. Steven Zhang 07:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@TheFreeloader - Sometimes we need to IAR in order to have a complex dispute resolved. This has been discussed ad nauseaum, and no consensus has been reached. This is a solution that still accurately describes the subject of the article. As for common usage, of course there's going to be more usage for pro-life and pro-choice, most sources here come from the US, but this article covers the issue at large. I've thought of this for a long time, because nothing else has worked in the long discussions that have occured on the talk page. You (all parties) can either decide to continue this tug-of-war forever, or agree to cut your losses and come up with a compromise. Steven Zhang 08:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Lionel- I don't think speaking for everyone here is wise, as it seems there is a lot of people involved in this dispute, with varying opinions. I'd like to direct you to my previous comments, all of you. This dispute has absolutely nothing to do with how you feel about the subject of abortion in real life, which it is quite evident that it is. Stuff like common name, use in RS etc, is generally relevant and in any other situation I wouldn't propose this sort of compromise, but it's been going on for ages. Please consider a compromise here, as it is evident nothing else here will work. Regardless of your opinion, you have to acknowledge that the proposed article names on the talk page have had no consensus, so something else does need to be done. I hope we can work out something here. A compromise would suit everyone. The administrator that closed the discussion has also acknowledged that the debate is split down the middle, and that a compromise is required. Please consider my suggestion, otherwise I don't know how we can proceed from here.

@TheFreeloader - I've spoken with a few of my colleagues on Misplaced Pages who also do dispute resolution about this, and in a normal situation ignoring policies is not something I'd advise against in a normal situation, but in this instance, there is a lot of dispute over the name of the article, and in situations like this, we agree that this would be a situation where invoking IAR would be appropriate. That said, there seems to be dispute about which is a common name (with pro-life/pro-choice being primarily used in the United States), but abortion-rights/anti-abortion used commonly elsewhere. I'm from Australia, and I've never heard anyone use the terms pro-life, or pro-choice, when the subject of abortion comes up, we simply support it or oppose it. Maintaining a worldwide view of the subject is important, and at present these articles seem to heavily emphasise discussion of the subject in an American view. Of course a simple majority of the sources are going to use pro-life or pro-choice. Most sources used on Misplaced Pages are from an American origin, and systematic bias is common. I don't feel it's appropriate in this instance to name the articles based on common name, mainly because the name appears to be most common in the States, therefore somewhat not presenting a worldwide view of the subject. As the names of the article have been in dispute for a long time, and the same reasons for each name have been repeated over and over, I don't see it wise to keep with the status quo. This is why I've proposed these two names, they're factual, accurately describe the subject of article, and are neutral, and myself and my colleagues feel it's the best way to move forward here. Steven Zhang 02:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nyyankee - I don't think that your assessment to keep the article names as they are is a good one. The move discussion was for both proposals, either a move to pro-life/pro choice or to abortion-rights/anti-abortion. As neither option has a consensus, both should be thrown out of the window and two new titles should be worked on as a compromise. Otherwise, merely keeping the status quo in effect would defeat the purpose of the move discussion, and one option would be selected regardless of the fact there was no consensus for the option, which would simply cause move discussions to happen, over and over again. Please consider my proposal, as I feel it's somewhat of a middle ground. Steven Zhang 02:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

@All Parties - I'd like to remind you all that while Abortion is a very contentious topic, that your opinion of abortion in real life, should have no effect on articles on Misplaced Pages, whatsoever, and I have noticed that this is the case in this dispute. Please ensure that you are considering the interests of the encyclopedia above your own opinions. Consider the fact that the names of these articles have been under dispute for a long time, and that without a resolution all will agree to, these discussions will just continue on forever. Some of you support abortion, some of you do not. Misplaced Pages isn't going to change that, but you shouldn't change Misplaced Pages because of it. From the most recent move discussion, it is evident that there is no consensus for either the current names of the article, or any of the names that were proposed in that discussion. Discussing it again will not change that. Merely keeping the status quo (the articles as they presently are) would defeat the purpose of consensus and discussions on Misplaced Pages, as the move discussions were for both options. This is why I feel coming to a compromise, such as the one I've proposed, would be the best way to move forward. Sure, the names I've proposed aren't perfect, but I feel in a situation like this one it's the best option there is to take, which would hopefully put this dispute on article naming, to rest. Steven Zhang 03:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nyyankee - No. There was no consensus for either the current option or proposed options, so neither should be used, and a new proposal should be made. Otherwise, we're stuck in the status quo, which has the least support out of any proposal. What I've proposed is a middle ground. Simply repeating that because the move discussion did not form a consensus does not mean that what is currently the case in terms of naming should stay, and a change needs to be made. Steven Zhang 23:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

@All Parties - I've been approached by a user, NickDupree (talk · contribs) who has an interest into getting into dispute resolution. I've added him as a co-mediator to the case, and he will at times make comments or give suggestions. Cheers. Steven Zhang 12:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nyyankee, HuskyHuskie - Agreed, this needs a lot of discussion from a lot of users involved in the dispute. Time isn't an issue here, but I would think more than a few months would a bit long. There's a fine line between giving time for discussion, and postponing implementing a proposal due to users doing a silent veto of a discussion. Things are slow right now, which may partly be due to the discussion at the Abortion talk page, but it seems that dispute to an extent is working itself out, so I see no need, at least for the time being, to interfere with that. Steven Zhang 00:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

@All Parties - Stepping in, I would like to urge all sides to reconsider a rename to solve the dispute.

Please understand that we must comply with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, especially where article titles are concerned. NPOV means all sides must be given "a fair shake" in Misplaced Pages's coverage of disputed and controversial issues; the term "pro-life" is inherently POV because it implies that opponents are anti-life, and by the same token, the term "pro-choice" implies that opponents are anti-choice, and both political slants are against WP:NPOV. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here, as these terms have been avoided in the American press for years: the AP calls for the term “anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice” in its Stylebook (see pg 9 of the AP Stylebook). U.S. media has moved past the editorial spin of both labels years ago, even the magazine Christianity Today uses the AP Stylebook-recommended "anti-abortion" term now (see GetReligion.org: Style choices on abortion talk. The New York Times uses "abortion opponents" and "advocates for abortion rights." Every day parlance outside the United States (i.e. UK, Canada, Australia) has already abandoned these polarizing labels. Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style may reflect that soon anyhow.

Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are inherently POV statements and should be avoided in the titles of encyclopedia entries. The old terminology, however, will get a fair shake, remaining as explanatory within the articles' content, and as redirect names under Misplaced Pages's WP:RNEUTRAL policy. Please consider renaming options. NickDupree (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes

Discussion

Initial responses to Steve's proposal

The last move request is unfortunately going to be extremely difficult to close. I did push quite hard to argue no-consensus so we could come back to it later, but its quite clear that noone else really agrees with me. This way hopefully we can look at all the options, including moving the articles back to where they started, or merging them, or moving them to abortion-rights/anti-abortion. The reason I've asked for mediation is to help solve this dispute. I'm not particularly interested in which way its solved, but I feel this is a better approach than letting the current move discussion run on for two months and then get closed unsatisfactorily to quite a few people like the last ones have. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Steven, that sounds great. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Steven, Gordian Knot. Totally support your proposal. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I also like Steven's suggestion. The alternatives we've tried are weighty, imprecise, or both — these are clear. I'm sure some won't be happy with them, but I suggest they consider the amount of futile struggle this issue has caused and think hard before starting it up again. PhGustaf (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I can get behind this too. The names are virtually never used but they are most definitely neutral. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The names are not commonly used, and one still has the tinge of non-neutrality, but I'll sign up to end this never-ending dramafest. A solution could be much worse than this, and Steven is to be commended for thinking outside of where we all were.LedRush (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Steve: Well, the clear improvement would be to keep things the way they are or use pro-life movement and pro-choice movement. These are well used, have established meanings, and are self identifiers. As with anti-abortion rights, there is generally a little negativity associated with an "anti" position (or an opposition). Sure, opposition to slavery and Hitler is all peaches and rainbows, but it is generally considered better to be for something than against it. For example, I would doubt that many people would prefer to be called the "opposition to fetal rights movement". However, your solution sucks less than the endless wikilawyering going on here but a few entrenched editors and their POV terms, so that's why I reluctantly agree.LedRush (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Steve's solution would be a good one, but it's not needed - consensus in 'two discussions with a wide range of editors was clear not to move pro-life, and there was no consensus to move pro-choice. A few editors are being disruptive by making a new move request every month because they don't like the results of the others. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Zhang compromise suggestion of Support for legalized abortion and Opposition to legalized abortion is inspired. I think it should be implemented. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with NYY. The proposal to "move pro-life to anti-abortion" has failed at pro-life repeatedly. Now the strategy seems to be start a discussion to move pro-life in every venue except pro-life. In the last month or so there have been discussions at Abortion, Abortion-rights, user:Eraserhead, and now here. Yes, you read that correctly: they started a discussion at a user talk page, closed it as "Support", and them merged the article. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious. Dozens of editors have been wasting away with this issue all year instead of improving the pedia. Why can't the pro-abortioners just give it up??? 05:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs)

I am so sick of this canard that everyone who does not want "Pro-life" to be the title is pro-abortion. I for one, am passionately opposed to this holocaust, but I am also capable of thinking along neutral lines. You're right that too much time has been wasted on this, but at least part of the reason is that some of us believe that the pro-life and pro-choice titles violate WP:NPOV. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a totally non-involved editor, I have to say this seems an eminently sensible solution that Steve has proposed, and one which you guys should all go for. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How would we go about adopting this solution anyway? I assume this would have to be presented as a normal move request and gain consensus like any other? –CWenger (^ • @) 05:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I presume Steven will tell us in due course, but everyone who was listed on the talk page has been informed, so I don't know if its necessary to do a move request if a consensus is found here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do not find Steve's idea "inspired". Hyperbole, to say the least. But I do consider it to be superior to the POV "pro-" titles, and it is certainly (because of its parallel nature) better than the status quo. I would be willing to support it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:POVTITLE

I don't think ignoring WP:COMMONNAME is a good solution at all. WP:POVTITLE clearly states that common name overrides concerns about neutrality. I don't think we as editors have any right to be the judge over whether or not Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are appropriate names for these movements. Reliable sources have already made that choice for us. The main objective of Misplaced Pages should be to describe things the way they are described by reliable sources, not to make normative judgments about how things should be described.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What have reliable sources chosen? To my eyes reliable sources use both terms - the numbers using pro-life certainly isn't significantly higher enough to definitely require using that if you feel anti-abortion is more neutral - thus you will have an endless discussion - and thus why Steven's compromise is required. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, how about just looking at Google books hits which shows about a four or five to one ratio in favor of pro life. Google news archives shows about the same ratio. To me that looks like pro life is pretty clearly the common name.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In my experience the ratio usually drops quite a lot when you put quotes around both statements, but fundamentally it doesn't really matter, what counts is that the ratio is small enough that a significant number of people argue the point that anti-abortion is a better title on the ground of supposed neutrality and that its usage isn't that much less. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Steve But the problem is that the compromise you have proposed does not take WP:UCN into concern, which is my main concern. To me this is a discussion of common name versus neutrality, and you have chosen to completely side with neutrality. That to me isn't much of a compromise. Although I think compromises are rarely to be found in general in naming debates, as WP:TITLECHANGES also points out.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Steven I guess that if your proposal is the only way to get back to parallel titles, then that is probably more important than using common names for now.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking for everyone, and I think that I can, the only issue here is Pro-life. Noone cares what the pro-abortion article is called. Pro-abortion, pro-choice, abortion rights. Who cares? No one cares. That article was moved, renamed, merged, and 2 maybe 3 people objected. But try to move Po-life and as Bette said "It's gonna be a bumpy night." All year Pro-life has been the target of intense move efforts and the only inroad was to add "movement." Proponents of moving Pro-life have invented all manner of schemes to eradicate it, this latest one included. We need to call a spade a spade. This discussion really is about excising a term highly objectionable to Pro-abortionists: "pro-life." Yea. I said it. This is a scheme to get rid of pro-life, part of a larger war of attrition, of ad nauseaum discussion. Well, it aint going down like dat.– Lionel 08:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking for everyone, and I think that I can. Boy, I sure hope that's meant to be facetious, because if it's not it's offensive. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Pro-life is just a name for one particular group. It's not an umbrella term for all anti-abortion groups. In order to cover the entire movement, you have to have an umbrella name for it, and not just a (possibly) US-centric one. No reason at all why "Pro-Life" can't have its own headed section, giving the history etc. of that one group, within the general 'Against legalising abortion' article. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If anything, pro-life is the umbrella group and "anti-abortion" would be under it. But really, trying to distinguish the two is pretty pointless.LedRush (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? There are many anti-abortionists in the world who don't use the term "pro-life" (and similarly for "pro-choice") - these are labels that some people (mainly in the US, I think) have adopted for themselves.--Kotniski (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Lionel: Noone cares what the pro-abortion article is called. Pro-abortion, pro-choice, abortion rights. Who cares? No one cares. Sorry to disagree with you, Lionel, but I care. I despise the deceptive name "pro-choice". It's one thing to be vague, like "pro-life" is, but "pro-choice" is patently offensive because it frames the discussion on the ability to kill another person in terms of the most American principle of all: Freedom. They make it sound like they're a "pro-freedom" group when they are actually "pro-murder". Now mind you, I realize that a substantial number of them do not actually believe that it is murder that they support. But that's not the point--they chose the term "pro-choice" because it sounds eminently American. No one cares? Bullshit. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Was consensus ever achieved?

Another problem - if you're against legalizing abortion, you're probably against abortion in general, legal or not, so it would have to be "opposition to abortion". The best solution is to keep everything at pro-life and pro-choice. Anything else would be a victory for the disruptive minority who has been keeping this fight going despite clear consensus. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This "clear consensus" isn't clear to me - if there's one thing we don't seem to have it's consensus, and therefore it's perfectly in order to keep the "fight" (i.e. discussion) going until we do.--Kotniski (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus, which is why we are here. There is no "disruptive minority fighting to keep this going", just the majority who wish to maintain a neutral tone on Misplaced Pages. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant that consensus was clear against every proposal, meaning what was the status quo (pro-life/pro-choice) should remain. A move requires clear consensus to move. Pro-life had clear consensus to keep, and pro-choice had no clear consensus, meaning it should have stayed pro-choice. Those who don't like the consensus on pro-life and the lack thereof on pro-choice are going to keep proposing moves until they get their preference. Changing anything would be a victory for them, the disruptive. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly pro-life wasn't closed with a "clear consensus to keep" it was closed as "no consensus". The two are fundamentally different - the former implies there weren't any substantial support arguments at all for the move, which was clearly false. Secondly regardless of the merits of the close pro-choice was closed as a move request. As far as that is concerned what is done is done, and trying to complain about it now is counter-productive to the process of moving forward from where we are now. Fundamentally as shown in the previous move request about half the community think pro-life/pro-choice are the better names and half think that anti-abortion/abortion rights are the better names. The fair and sensible way forward is to split the difference and go for something like Steven has proposed here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

When there is no consensus for a change the status quo should remain. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that what is being called "consensus" really refers to the "status quo" which came into existence because there was a lack of a consensus. If true consensus was ever achieved, can anyone point me to it? I realize I may be mistaken (I haven't been around this discussion near as long as many of you). HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus was clear here to keep pro-life; note that this was the largest discussion of all of them. There was no consensus at pro-choice here, but it was closed anyway with a questionable-at-best rationale. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Your first link shows a large discussion that went into tangents (as usual) but the arguments for each side were just as strong as each other. There was no consensus at that discussion. It was never closed as showing consensus. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

@NYYif you're against legalizing abortion, you're probably against abortion in general, legal or not, so it would have to be opposition to abortion. That's a good observation and point of logic, Yankee, but I don't agree with your next conclusion about

this rendering "pro-life" and "pro-choice" the proper titles. Don't see the connection at all. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Largely arbitrary break

That's a very good suggestion Steven Zhang, and I agree with several other editors here that the naming you propose is acceptable. On another note, I would just like to say that most of the comments on this page are very helpful and in the spirit of mediation. A sure way to avoid this process from devolving into another ideological fight is to not respond, or ignore, to obvious attempts to bait users into conflicts. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

1. Mediation can't just start from the point of "well, moving 'pro-life movement' to 'anti-abortion movement' is out of the question." The move discussion which supposedly implemented this rock-solid consensus to keep "pro-life" where it is was flawed in many ways, particularly compared to the "pro-choice" move. We've got to look at the discussions that got us here and address the long-standing problems with those - namely, as Andrew C has pointed out, the fact that the admin who closed one discussion was involved while the other was not, and that the different admins applied a different standard to the closes which, if the same standard had been applied to both, would have resulted in a status-quo other than the one we have now.
2. Keeping the status-quo for lack of a consensus for either of the other options is an extremely poor idea. There's a strong consensus that the titles should be parallel; there was no consensus to keep the status-quo in a discussion where it was presented as an option alongside several other options. The status-quo enjoys less support than almost any other option, and particularly because of the sketchy way we got here, keeping it is a poor idea.
3. It would be lovely if other users would stop the smokescreen that claims it's about users' political opinions rather than the best way to title the articles. Perhaps you view Misplaced Pages as a tool for promoting your own political views, but most of us do not.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@ 1) and 2) Fundamentally if you have different people making the decision they are going to come to different conclusions. Additionally Anthony hadn't been involved in the discussion until the original move was carried out, so possibly it wasn't a perfect move, but ultimately that's life. You probably can legitimately argue that the escalation process for moves is broken, but frankly I think the move processes are in significantly better shape than some other admin processes and solving that issue is significantly outside the scope of the case. @ 3) Fair point, but there is still an issue that we cannot settle on appropriate titles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Status check on Steve's proposal

It's not looking like this mediation is doing any good. I think the only solution is to start from scratch with a centralized discussion and notify everyone who was involved with the regular two, have a big discussion, and see if we can find any sort of consensus. This mediation involves only a fraction of the users who were originally involved. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think good discussion is occurring here, and that this mediation can be conclusive. There's no need to start yet another process when this one can be successful. Nothing is stopping more folks from discussing. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion here has been highly productive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I do think that if people are unhappy with Steven's suggestion that they should suggest something of their own beyond doing a straight move of the articles to pro-life/pro-choice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! I think it's WAY premature to write this off. Part of the problem is that we need much more participation, and that takes time. The usual procedures for determining consensus in 5 or 7 days is completely bogus here. I would personally reject calling this consensus right now if the "vote" was 14-2 in favor, because we need to have a lot of people chiming in on this. I'd say we should leave this proposal open for a minimum of 30 days, and I'd really recommend three months. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. I was under the impression that this wouldn't last long. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Move to speedy close without prejudice

• Misplaced Pages Medcab active cases