Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage

Current progress

Structure

Completed

1 October–19 October

• Review and refine arguments surrounding premises, conclusion, and title choice
• Add or remove title options
• Refine RFC procedure (such as consensus-finding methodology)

Community feedback

In progress

20 October–3 November

• Feedback from the community

Closing

Not yet begun

4 November–9 November

• Closers will review feedback, arguments and comments
• Closing of RFC on or about 9 November

Preamble

The purpose of this RFC is make a decision regarding the fate of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion, as a previous RFC attempted to. In order to avoid issues that plagued that process, this RFC constructs a specific question of an article move, considered as an encyclopedia maintenance issue, built on premises grounded in Wikipedia policy.

From October 1st to October 19th, editors should participate in collaboratively creating a structured overview of the major premises this RFC is based on, the conclusion or conclusions they lead to, and relevant title options, consisting primarily of policy-based arguments regarding each. This summary should focus on being clear, concise, and easy to navigate, presenting the best collaborative analysis of the situation that the participants can arrive at. Procedural elements such as closing methodology may also be revised during this time.

On October 20th, the community feedback phase begins, and a WP:NOTVOTE on the premises, conclusion or conclusions, and title options presented will take place. Please do not register support or opposition regarding summarized elements until that time.

On November 4th, the community feedback phase ends, and the intention is that one or more neutral administrators, as yet undetermined, will close the RFC and carry out any indicated actions. A non-admin closure would also be feasible in the event consensus does not support the Conclusion (administrative privileges are needed to implement the moves called for if the Conclusion is upheld). The mechanics discussed in User:Homunq/WP voting systems, using Continuous Majority Judgment with the 20% supermajority (60/40) option, are recommended to closers as a method of gauging sentiment, though the finding of consensus remains a matter of their judgment.

Please note that if articles moves are carried out, then per WP:TITLE, the new titles will define the scope of the articles moving forward. Current content which is not germane to the defined scope should be refactored appropriately.

Where to conduct working discussion and ask questions

Please carry out working discussion of this RFC, such as procedural questions, discussion regarding options and arguments to present in the summary-building phase, and so on, using the talk page.

Premises

Premise 1: Wikipedia should cover the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements as distinct topics with their own articles

Arguments

Arguments for Topics are clearly notable per WP:NOTABILITY Topics are of extreme cultural impact and focused coverage of them may be validly considered crucial to fulfillment of our mission as an encyclopedia Arguments against none identified Arguments known to be irrelevant WP:NPOV is policy written to address how we cover topics, not which topics we cover, and refraining from covering topics for the sake of neutrality raises the specter of censorship; our standards for determining what topics to cover are primarily encoded in WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT, not WP:NPOV Concerns about global perspective do not argue against articles covering regional topics, so long as the regional topic is clearly and unambiguously identified; like NPOV, global perspective is a question of how we cover topics, not what topics we cover Sometimes arguments stress global perspective when what the people presenting them seem to actually be arguing for is global scope of topic; this is, again, irrelevant to whether we cover these US regional movements, because having these articles does not interfere with having articles on any related globally-scoped topics that may exist (though no evidence has been presented that global abortion advocacy movements exist)

Premise 2: The articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion were originally about the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements, with that scope later expanding to include abortion advocacy movements outside the US

Arguments

Arguments for These articles were originally titled Pro-choice and Pro-life, which may indicate an intention to identify these movements (though using vague adjectivial titles disrecommended by WP:TITLE for exactly the reason that they make topic identification difficult) The original titles Pro-choice and Pro-life are heavily laden terms originating and predominantly used in US politics, which argues against the articles identifying any other regional movements or any non-regional movements as their topics The original content of these articles primarily describes people and organized behavior rather than positions and arguments The current content of the articles is still predominantly about these movements, with the current titles functioning as little more than a WP:COATRACK The main alternate position to this premise (the idea that we have separate, opposing articles covering the pro and con sides of a political issue) would be, if true, completely broken, setting up a situation of dueling WP:POVFORKs that is obviously and on the face of it destructive to WP:NPOV, so we can probably conclude that that interpretation is mistaken simply from assuming good faith on the part of the bulk of the many, many editors who have worked on these articles The template {{Abortion}} has, ever since its conversion to navbox form in 2009, categorized these two articles as about "Movements", separate from the category "Issues" Arguments against It can be argued that the original contents of Pro-choice, at least, were so minimal and vague as to render it impossible to say definitively that the article had any given topic Arguments known to be irrelevant none identified

Conclusion

Conclusion: Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion should be moved so as to clearly and unambiguously identify their topics as being the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements, respectively

Arguments

Arguments for If and only if Premises 1 and 2 are accepted: If we are to have articles on these movements (Premise 1), and the articles in question were originally about them (Premise 2), then we should restore the articles to that scope (for reasons including but not limited to retention of article history in the appropriate place), while WP:TITLE calls for clear and unambiguous identification of their topics The current titles do not identify any useful scope for their articles (speaking as they do, on the one hand, of the specific process of legalization rather than legality or legal access, and on the other hand only of opposition to legal and not illegal abortion), so rescoping to any relevant and useful title consistent with the principles of WP:TITLE would constitute an improvement Since the current titles, if they were actually adhered to, would in fact create the situation of having "dueling POVFORKs" covering two sides of a political issue, WP:NPOV strongly calls for them to be restored to their original, movement-based scopes Arguments against If and only if Premise 1 is rejected: If we should not cover the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements as distinct topics, then even if Premise 2 is accepted, this still has no bearing on what the titles of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion should be If and only if Premise 2 is rejected: If Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion were not originally about the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements, then even if we should cover those movements as topics, it is perfectly acceptable for new articles to be created for the purpose rather than moving existing articles It can be argued that, rather than restoring the original scope of these articles, it is more helpful from an encyclopedia maintenance viewpoint to preserve the relevant article history in articles scoped to international overviews of relevant movements (such as articles titled Abortion-rights movements and Anti-abortion movements -- leaving, if Premise 1 is affirmed, the coverage of the US movements to new articles) Arguments known to be irrelevant none identified

Title options

Title choice is only relevant if consensus is found in favor of the Conclusion. If the Conclusion is upheld, then we need to determine what titles to use to specify the scope of the articles being moved. Editors who oppose the Conclusion may still choose to indicate support or opposition for title options, since even if they oppose any action being taken as a result of this RFC, they may legitimately express a preference for which action is taken in the event one takes place. If the Conclusion is rejected, then no action will be taken on the basis of this RFC.

As the mandate of the Conclusion is that the scope of the articles concerned be set clearly and unambiguously, title options should be added to this section only if they clearly and unambiguously identify the scope of the articles as the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements. Title options must also align with the established community consensus that a situation should not arise where one of these movements is identified using its self-chosen name and the other movement is denied such self-identification.

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles and this RFC's talk page for sourcing statistics. For reasons such as the impossibility of determining, in a large-scale analysis, when sources are talking about the US movements when they use various terms, a strictly statistical argument cannot be relied upon, so sourcing statistics are used only as a general guide here.

Title option 1: Pro-choice movement and Pro-life movement

Arguments

Arguments for The United States pro-choice and pro-life movements are clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the terms Pro-choice movement and Pro-life movement Titles are reasonably concise and not needlessly precise, as recommended by WP:TITLE Does not deny these movements the right to self-identify Sourcing statistics show that "pro-life movement" and "pro-choice movement" are the most frequent names for these movements, especially "pro-life movement", if the US pro-life and right-to-life movements are held to be different things. If usage is predominant enough, WP:POVTITLE may be applied. Arguments against Movements identifying using these names do exist outside of the United States, so there is some ambiguity in them, though WP:PRIMARYTOPIC probably nullifies this concern The POV inherent in these terms is extreme in nature, having been selected for blatant propaganda purposes by the movements involved. This is recognised to such an extent that other names such as "anti-abortion movement" have a reasonable frequency. WP:POVTITLE talks about a general rule when you have a significant majority. Arguably, the majority is not significant enough to apply the general rule in this specific case. The strong POV inherent in these titles violates WP:NPOV, which is only acceptable per policy if the conditions of WP:POVTITLE are found to apply Arguments known to be irrelevant Concerns about the philosophical validity of these movements' self-applied labels are irrelevant because Wikipedia's standards for titles are sourcing-based and do not evaluate said philosophical validity, any more than we examine the validity of the name of the retailer Best Buy Appeals specifically to WP:COMMONNAME are irrelevant because the strong inherent POV of these titles means we should use the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE

Title option 2: United States pro-choice movement and United States pro-life movement

Arguments

Arguments for Titles are completely unambiguous without needing to rely on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Does not deny these movements the right to self-identify Sourcing statistics show that "pro-life movement" and "pro-choice movement" are the most frequent names for these movements, especially "pro-life movement", if the US pro-life and right-to-life movements are held to be different things. If usage is predominant enough, WP:POVTITLE may be applied. (Statistics may be analyzed without the "United States" prefix due to its status as "natural disambiguation" per WP:PRECISION.) Arguments against Titles are verbose and perhaps unnecessarily precise, which WP:TITLE tends to disrecommend The strong POV inherent in these titles violates WP:NPOV, which is only acceptable per policy if the conditions of WP:POVTITLE are found to apply The POV inherent in these terms is extreme in nature, having been selected for blatant propaganda purposes by the movements involved. This is recognised to such an extent that other names such as "anti-abortion movement" have a reasonable frequency. WP:POVTITLE talks about a general rule when you have a significant majority. Arguably, the majority is not significant enough to apply the general rule in this specific case. Arguments known to be irrelevant Concerns about the philosophical validity of these movements' self-applied labels are irrelevant because Wikipedia's standards for titles are sourcing-based and do not evaluate said philosophical validity, any more than we examine the validity of the name of the retailer Best Buy Appeals specifically to WP:COMMONNAME are irrelevant because the strong inherent POV of these titles means we should use the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE

Title option 3: Pro-choice movement and Right-to-life movement

Arguments

Arguments for Titles are completely unambiguous without needing to rely on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if the US right-to-life movement is the same thing as the US pro-life movement Sourcing statistics show that "pro-life movement" and "right-to-life movement" are the most frequent names for these movements, especially "right-to-life movement", if the US pro-life and right-to-life movements are held to be the same thing. If usage is predominant enough, WP:POVTITLE may be applied. Arguably does not deny these movements the right to self-identify Arguments against Movements identifying using these names do exist outside of the United States, so there is some ambiguity in them, though WP:PRIMARYTOPIC probably nullifies this concern Titles are verbose and perhaps unnecessarily precise, which WP:TITLE tends to disrecommend The strong POV inherent in these titles violates WP:NPOV, which is only acceptable per policy if the conditions of WP:POVTITLE are found to apply The POV inherent in these terms is extreme in nature, having been selected for blatant propaganda purposes by the movements involved. This is recognised to such an extent that other names such as "anti-abortion movement" have a reasonable frequency. WP:POVTITLE talks about a general rule when you have a significant majority. Arguably, the majority is not significant enough to apply the general rule in this specific case. Arguments known to be irrelevant Concerns about the philosophical validity of these movements' self-applied labels are irrelevant because Wikipedia's standards for titles are sourcing-based and do not evaluate said philosophical validity, any more than we examine the validity of the name of the retailer Best Buy Appeals specifically to WP:COMMONNAME are irrelevant because the strong inherent POV of these titles means we should use the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE

Title option 4: United States pro-choice movement and United States right-to-life movement

Arguments

Arguments for Titles are completely unambiguous without needing to rely on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if the US right-to-life movement is the same thing as the US pro-life movement Sourcing statistics show that "pro-life movement" and "right-to-life movement" are the most frequent names for these movements, especially "right-to-life movement", if the US pro-life and right-to-life movements are held to be the same thing. If usage is predominant enough, WP:POVTITLE may be applied. (Statistics may be analyzed without the "United States" prefix due to its status as "natural disambiguation" per WP:PRECISION.) Arguably does not deny these movements the right to self-identify Arguments against Titles are verbose and perhaps unnecessarily precise, which WP:TITLE tends to disrecommend The strong POV inherent in these titles violates WP:NPOV, which is only acceptable per policy if the conditions of WP:POVTITLE are found to apply The POV inherent in these terms is extreme in nature, having been selected for blatant propaganda purposes by the movements involved. This is recognised to such an extent that other names such as "anti-abortion movement" have a reasonable frequency. WP:POVTITLE talks about a general rule when you have a significant majority. Arguably, the majority is not significant enough to apply the general rule in this specific case. Arguments known to be irrelevant Concerns about the philosophical validity of these movements' self-applied labels are irrelevant because Wikipedia's standards for titles are sourcing-based and do not evaluate said philosophical validity, any more than we examine the validity of the name of the retailer Best Buy Appeals specifically to WP:COMMONNAME are irrelevant because the strong inherent POV of these titles means we should use the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE

Title option 5: United States abortion-rights movement and United States anti-abortion movement

Arguments

Arguments for United States abortion-rights movement is completely unambiguous; United States anti-abortion movement is, at minimum, unambiguous given WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Arguably benefits WP:NPOV by denying both movements identification using their self-chosen propaganda names, which is a measure frequently recommended by the style guides of reliable sources for the stated purpose of improving neutrality By identifying these regional movements using terminology that is more common in global media, global perspective is arguably better-served Sourcing statistics show "abortion-rights movement" being a very frequent usage and "anti-abortion movement" being fairly frequent (statistics may be analyzed without the "United States" prefix due to its status as "natural disambiguation" per WP:PRECISION) The style guides of sources we consider reliable frequently recommend preference of this terminology for the stated purpose of improving neutrality Arguments against There is POV inherent in these terms (violating WP:NPOV), though it is relatively mild, mostly consisting in that some anti-abortion activists protest that description using the prefix "anti-" has deleterious semiotic impact; abortion-rights activists more frequently voluntarily identify in those terms and there does not seem to be any POV objection from them The word "rights" carries certain connotations that are positive, the same way that the anti- prefix carries a slightly negative connotation. This makes this set of titles more "unbalanced" in terms of neutrality Titles are verbose, which WP:TITLE tends to mildly disrecommend Denies the US pro-life movement the right to self-identify, and arguably the pro-choice movement as well (this is less clear) By identifying the US pro-life movement entirely as an anti-abortion movement, we place ourselves in a problematic position as an encyclopedia in that it becomes unclear where coverage of that movement's involvement in issues like euthanasia and capital punishment would be germane These abstractions only clearly and unambiguously identify the US pro-choice and pro-life movements as their topics so long as the relevant political advocacy remains centered in those movements; if said advocacy becomes centered in otherwise-identified movements, these titles' topic identification fails, making their use potentially a form of slow WP:RECENTISM Identifying the US pro-choice and pro-life movements in these terms privileges those movements as subsuming all relevant regional political advocacy within themselves, which serves their political agendas and so arguably violates WP:NPOV Arguments known to be irrelevant none identified

Title option 6: United States abortion-rights movement and United States right-to-life movement

Arguments

Arguments for United States abortion-rights movement is completely unambiguous; United States right-to-life movement is unambiguous if the US right-to-life and pro-life movements are the same thing Arguably benefits WP:NPOV by identifying both movements using less-frequently-employed terms that are nonetheless commonly used for voluntary self-identification by each, both of which construct their case in terms of "rights" Sourcing statistics show "abortion-rights movement" and "right-to-life movement" both being very frequent usages; if usage is predominant enough, WP:POVTITLE may be applied (statistics may be analyzed without the "United States" prefix due to its status as "natural disambiguation" per WP:PRECISION) Arguably does not deny these movements the right to self-identify Arguments against United States right-to-life movement only validly identifies the US pro-life movement as its topic if those movements are the same thing There is POV inherent in these terms (violating WP:NPOV), mostly consisting in that "right-to-life" is a more propagandist construction than "abortion-rights"; anti-abortion activists more frequently voluntarily identify in these terms and there does not seem to be any POV objection from them These terms are asymmetric because understanding how "right-to-life" applies to the abortion debate requires further assumptions which are rejected by one side of the debate, whereas although "abortion rights" themselves are rejected by one side of the debate the applicability of the term to the movement is not in question. While reliable source style guides recommend the use of "abortion-rights" terminology for the stated purpose of improving neutrality, they recommend against using "right-to-life" for the same reason Titles are verbose, which WP:TITLE tends to mildly disrecommend The abstraction "United States abortion-rights movement" only clearly and unambiguously identifies the US pro-choice movement as its topics so long as the relevant political advocacy remains centered in that movement; if said advocacy becomes centered in an otherwise-identified movement, this title's topic identification fails, making its use potentially a form of slow WP:RECENTISM Identifying the US pro-choice movement this way privileges that movement as subsuming all relevant regional political advocacy within itself, which serves its political agenda and so arguably violates WP:NPOV

Title option 7: United States abortion-rights movement and United States fetal-rights movement

Arguments

Arguments for Symmetrical in that both movements are unambiguously and clearly identified as advocating a right which obviously applies to abortion. Although the term "fetal rights" is mostly used to refer to legal rights, which are only one of several strategic foci of the anti-abortion movement, the broader movement does generally embrace the moral rights of the fetus or unborn child. Arguments against The identification value of "fetal-rights movement" is very questionable given that the movement to be identified neither voluntarily self-identifies in those terms nor is commonly identified in those terms by reliable sources Anti-abortion activists tend to prefer "unborn" to "fetal". However, "unborn-rights" could be read as rights which are unborn, rather than rights of the unborn; "fetal" is clearer in that sense. On the other hand, abortion rights activists often emphasize the distinctions between the zygote, embryo, and fetus. The word "fetal" is thus technically too narrow to cover these rights as conceived by most anti-abortion activists. "Fetal rights movement" may be too specific, referring only to one sub-branch or sub-strategy of the wider movement in question "Fetal rights movement" is less common in reliable sources than most of the other options by about two orders of magnitude Arguments known to be irrelevant none identified

Community feedback

• Beginning October 20th 2012, members of the community are invited to WP:NOTVOTE on the elements of this RFC, giving reasons as to why they support their choices. Comments will be weighed based on strength of argument. Please DO NOT register opinions and arguments here until October 20th. Thank you!
• When feedback is open, please register basic opinions in the form of, for example:
  • Endorse Premises 1, 2, Support Conclusion, Strong Support Title Option 1, Support Title Options 2, 3, 4, 7, Oppose Title Options 5, 6
  • Endorse Premises 1, 2, Support Conclusion, Strong Oppose Title Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, Support Title Option 5
  • Endorse Premise 1, Reject Premise 2, Oppose Conclusion
  • Reject Premises 1, 2, Strong Oppose Conclusion, Support Title Options 1, 2, 3, 4, Oppose Title Options 5, 6, 7

followed by arguments, for ease of review by closers.

• Please use this section for responsive participation in the RFC, not meta discussion of the RFC itself, which should take place on the talk page. If you oppose the very idea of this RFC and wish to see no action taken upon it, your best course is to indicate opposition to the Conclusion, preferably with some rationale given as to on what basis you disagree with either or both Premises, so that your position presents strength of argument. Meta discussion of the RFC may be refactored to the talk page.

---

• Support the conclusion that the article histories that exist now should be returned to US scope, with Title option 1. Propose creation of "Support for legal abortion" and "Opposition to legal abortion" as new articles with blank history, to merge the international information into using edit summary attribution to the old article histories. New articles should have very small sections on the US movement that basically consist of links to the Title option 1 articles. Gigs (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Premises 1, 2, Strong Support Conclusion, Strong Support Title Option 2 - I would follow the proposal of the user above me. I think this will go a long way to reduce conflation of American and international view-points on topics on Wikipedia. This problem has decreasing lately, and this will help put a final nail in that coffin. The whole abortion controversy in the United States is very odd in an international context, and perhaps is an example of American exceptionism. Let's make it clear for readers that this is primarily an American issue, and put information on similar (but different) controversies in other countries at a different location. RGloucester (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Addendum: I've changed my mind. One “abortion debate" article is better than two separate articles. RGloucester (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Premises 1 and 2 and Title 1. Weak support for Conclusion and Title 2. Quick search for sociology books on the theme suggest a strong preference for pro-life/pro-choice naming over the other variants. Let's stick with the scholarly naming. I am not sure if we need to state those movements are US only, as I am not sure if the name is used outside US, however. The issues themselves are certainly international, and while it certainly stands to reason that the US movements are notable to stand on their own, the question is - are the articles geared to be about US movements only, or international? The answer to this should determine the inclusion (or lack of it) of the "United States" in the name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Premises 1, 2, Strong Support Conclusion, Strong Support Title Option 2, Support Title Options 1, 5, Oppose Title Options 3, 4, 6, Strong Oppose Title Option 7. If the objective is to identify these movements, the best titles are those that use the best-sourced terminology, with the regional disambiguators to help make it abundantly clear that we are identifying specific movements, not generalized sentiments. The right-to-life variations would have strong sourcing support if they actually identified the movements, but it's not clear to me that the right-to-life and pro-life movements actually are the same thing, and enough people seem to believe otherwise that using that terminology as primary would be inevitably highly controversial. Incidentally strong oppose Gigs's proposal of creating new generic articles, as this sets up a situation of dueling WP:POVFORKs that is destructive to WP:NPOV; general perspective on the issues should be covered in Abortion debate and relatives, and the only sensible thing to do with articles actually scoped as Gigs proposes would be to merge them to Abortion debate. I contrariwise consider that the material currently present in the articles in question covering non-US abortion-related advocacy movements should be refactored to Abortion-rights movements and Anti-abortion movements as overview articles. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see how moving the non-US movements to those titles is much different than my proposal. Gigs (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Seems very different to me. One identifies general advocacy sentiment on a political issue as its topics, making it a pair of POVFORKs of the general political issue, while the other makes sets of identifiable, related political movements its topics. One creates a situation that promotes each article becoming a polemic for its side of the issue, the other doesn't. (Articles titled Support for legal abortion and Opposition to legal abortion should cover the reasons for such advocacy, Abortion-rights movements and Anti-abortion movements, as list articles, shouldn't.) —chaos5023 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I missed that you wanted them to be list articles. Your way seems fine to me. It's just that we need to do something with the international movement material, not just throw it away. Gigs (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Definitely, couldn't agree more. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Premises 1, 2,Support Conclusion, Oppose Titles 1,3. Support any of 2,4,5,6,7. Anything that depicts the abortion-related debates should be refactored out. I agree with Chaos5023 that we need to keep Abortion debate highlighted. Additionally, I strongly support an Abortion-related advocacy groups article or category. (20040302 (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)) addendum. I see that there are already categories in place that probably do the job. (20040302 (talk))
• Neutral on premise 1. Endorse premise 2 and conclusion. Strong oppose titles 1, 3; neutral titles 2, 4, 6, 7; strong support title 5. Yes, we have WP:POVTITLE which allows titles 2, 4, 6, or 7, but as an encyclopedia we should prefer the most NPOV titles in common use. That is 5. I understand that some people feel that "anti-" is POV, but this is really an unsustainable position; there are too many "anti-something" movements which embrace that terminology for that to be true. Oh, and of course there should be some global articles somewhere, probably with titles along the lines of 5, because of course globally movements' self-identified names vary. Agree with User:Chaos5023 about avoiding POVFORKs. Homunq (࿓) 14:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support premises and conclusion. Strong support titles 1 and 2; oppose titles 3, 4, 6, and 7; strong oppose title 5. As there is no viable title that is NPOV, POVTITLE applies. Titles 1 and 2 are the most balanced, in that each subject gets to choose its own name. They are also the most widely known names, best satisfying COMMONNAME. Titles 3, 4, 6, and 7 put undue focus on the fetus; for many, the culture of life is about the spiritual health of the parents and the broader culture, as much as it is narrowly about the "rights" of the fetus. Titles 3, 4, 6, and 7 are also less commonly used, probably for the reason I just described. Title 5 is particularly POV in that only one side is described as "anti-" and only one side is described as being for "rights". --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• None of the above. The topic has always been Abortion debate, arguably Abortion debate (United States) or Abortion debate within the United States. There should only be one article discussing both sides of the debate, not two articles, one for each position. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  So what is your argument against Premise 1? And when can we expect your proposal that The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo be merged into Cola Wars? —chaos5023 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  I think we all agree that the debate should be covered in a single article that "discusses both sides of the debate". The suggestion here is that the movements be separately covered in their own pages. For example, the suggested page on the pro-choice movement would give details about the relevant organizations, their activities, and their history, but would have only a few sentences on the philosophical justification for their position along with a {{main}} tag for abortion debate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  If the "movement" articles stayed away from pro/con arguments I would support that. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, well, good. That's actually what's being proposed here. See the bits about unambiguous identification of topic and "Current content which is not germane to the defined scope should be refactored appropriately". —chaos5023 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Premise 1, endorse Premise 2 if I understand it, support Conclusion, strongly support Title Option 5 as the only neutral and unambiguous option. If I may wiggle within the straitjacket of this RfC format, I see this as a matter first of scope and second of appropriate naming. It's reasonable to have two separate articles dealing (under whichever names might be chosen) with these two movements as they pertain to the United States. I therefore support the existence of two such articles, and prefer Title Option 5. Procedurally, I endorse Premise 2 because a global article would still exist separately on the legality of abortion—a global article that examines (sorta) the legal history and current status of abortion (as distinct from history of abortion covering medical procedure, philosophical and religious views, etc). On the issue of scope, I endorse having two separate articles on the so-called pro-life/pro-choice movements in the U.S. if these articles focus on the movements as such (their organization, history, stated aims, methods) and aren't just platforms for arguing the issue as such. If a similar division exists notably within other countries, religions, or whatever, that division can get its own pair of articles, or a single article, as seems appropriate. On the issue of naming, the article title should reflect that article scope is confined to the movement in the U.S. Therefore, I strongly oppose Options 1 and 3 as not defining scope. I oppose Options 2 and 4 as self-promotional euphemism and jargon (images of peacocks and weasels come to mind). I oppose Option 6, again because "right-to-life" is a vague euphemism that leaves the scope undefined (unless the article also deals equally with opposition to capital punishment and euthanasia and so on). I weakly oppose Option 7 because "fetal-rights" defines the scope improperly if the topic is opposition to abortion; if the article is truly about "fetal rights"— whether homicide can be committed against a fetus, and whether a pregnant woman can be charged with abusing a child in utero, and legal issues beyond the scope of abortion—then that title would be OK. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  To clarify at least what I consider to make sense in re your feedback on title option 6, the idea is specifically not that we're trying to identify abortion-related advocacy as our topic through the use of these movement labels, it's that whatever labels we use, that movement is our topic. So the US political movement that identifies using the terminology "right-to-life" would be the topic in that event, and to whatever extent it involves itself in capital punishment and euthanasia, that would be germane to the article. (My reason for opposing option 6 is that I'm not sure that it actually identifies the pro-life movement, which is the requirement set by the Conclusion.) —chaos5023 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification, but could you clarify further: do you see the Option 6 article title with the phrase "right to life" as not being confined to abortion, but all aspects of legal issues (not moral or philosophical, since the word "right" is used) pertaining to the relation of individual autonomy vs. the state and its laws and justice system? I oppose "right to life" as a euphemism for opposing abortion. Some groups that oppose abortion also oppose euthanasia or assisted suicide. The Catholic Church takes a coherent "right to life" position, because they oppose abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. So yes, such a thing as a "right to life" movement can probably be defined enough to establish the scope of an article, and my objection is to Option 6 is only if "right to life" is a euphemism for opposing abortion. If it's the more complex topic I outlined, then I don't know what else you'd call it. But in that case, you could justify having both an article on "right to life" issues, and an article on the anti-abortion movement as a spinoff, since the latter has sufficient material for an independent article and might overwhelm the first. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it as anything, really. My only interest in it consists in that reliable sources very frequently use it to identify a political movement (that may or may not be the one we're trying to identify). From the standpoint of encyclopedia maintenance, specifically titling in this case, I literally do not care what that movement's activities are, only whether I can successfully identify it as a coherent and notable topic of coverage. It's just a label, and getting into philosophical debate as to what exactly all these propaganda terms do and/or should mean is a good way to get into a useless tailspin, and is probably best considered a derailment of the discussion. In my opinion, the only way to get through the noise in this area is to immediately stop regarding anything as a code-word for any form of abortion-related advocacy and LET TITLES MEAN WHAT THEY MEAN. That is, we actually use WP:TITLE, meaning the title IDENTIFIES THE TOPIC, the title is not a way to vaguely get at a different topic that exists in some limbo somewhere, and if we identify the US right-to-life movement as our topic, we ARE NOT identifying anti-abortion political advocacy as our topic, we are identifying THE US RIGHT-TO-LIFE MOVEMENT, whatever that consists of, as our topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'll endorse premise 1 and premise 2, and I'll oppose title option 1 and title option 3 on the basis that the title should be US-specific. If this was about any other country, "pro-life" would mean "opposed to the death penalty".—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Premises 1, 2, Strongly Support Conclusion, Strong Support Title Options 2 and 4, Would Support Title Options 1, 3, Oppose Title Options 6, 7, Strongly Oppose Title Option 5. Title Options 2 and 4 seem the best fit. I oppose title options 6 and 7 because they feel clumsy, but title option 5 is definitely wrong. To use "anti" in a title is a mental nudge in the opposite direction, and I would consider it biased. Go with 2. Respectfully, Light-jet pilot (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Premises 1, 2, Support Conclusion, Strongly support Title 5, weakly support Title 1 due to arguments given. I was originally opposed to these articles being maintained as US-centric, but given the premises, they need to be titled appropriately.  / Per Edman 21:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Premises 1, 2, Support Conclusion, Strongly support Title 5, Oppose Titles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. because all titles other than 5 are attempts to put some kind of spin on it. Chris the speller ^yack 01:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)