Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:35, 26 February 2012

• WP:RFC/AAT
• WP:RFC/ABORTION

1 Preamble
2 Proposals on titles
3 Discussion
4 Comments by the community

• Collect systematic evidence of the frequency with which the proposed titles are used in various English-speaking countries
• Cite Misplaced Pages policies

• Consultation from the community (voting and discussing)

• Administrators will review comments
• Issuance of binding solution on 1 May

Preamble

The Arbitration Committee has requested a binding, structured community discussion on the article titles "Support for the legalization of abortion" and "Opposition to the legalization of abortion". From commencement, editors should collect systematic evidence of the frequency with which the proposed titles are used in various English-speaking countries, as well as any other material which is relevant to the appropriateness of any proposed title, and present that evidence in an organised, structured and easy to navigate manner. After a period of one month from the commencement of the RFC (on March 23 at 00:00 UTC), comments from the community and a vote will take place. This will be closed by three neutral administrators (HJ Mitchell, Black Kite and EyeSerene), who shall report to ArbCom. The vote's result shall be binding for a period of three years.

At this structured discussion, participants should maintain civility and decorum, and the discussion should remain focused on the topic. The various proposed variants of titles are presented below, each with its own section. In each section, editors are welcome to provide reasoned arguments and appropriate references that support that section's title.

If you have any questions about the process, feel free to leave a message on the talk pages of Steven Zhang (talk · contribs) or Whenaxis (talk · contribs) or both, or at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.

Regards, Steven Zhang (talk · contribs) and Whenaxis (talk · contribs)

Arguments and policies regarding Pro-choice movement / Pro-life movement

Sources

• Encyclopaedia Britannica uses pro-life movement and pro-choice movement as "redirects".
• None of the links given below say "pro-choice movement" or "pro-life movement", so they don't fully support this proposal.
  • Used by the BBC in their US elections glossary.
  • Planned Parenthood uses pro-choice.
  • South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) (Same as below for anti-abortion) "pro-choice activists say that shows exactly why he did the right thing."
  • China Post (Taiwan) (Same as below for anti-abortion) "On the other side of the debate, about 60 demonstrators, mostly women belonging to pro-choice or feminist associations" and "With Democrats mostly pro-choice and Republicans mostly pro-life"
  • Philippine Star (Philippines) "Indeed, the pro-life groups face a formidable battle"
  • Daily Beast/Newsweek (USA) " Now top Santorum aides are denying the former Pennyslvania senator’s supposedly pro-choice past." and "“Rick Santorum has always been pro-life,” insists his spokesman"
  • Indian Express (India) "Asserting that his presidency would be a pro-life presidency"
  • Telegraph (UK) "amid clashes between pro-choice and pro-life campaigners and within the Coalition."
  • France24 (France) "Seven states already mandate pre-abortion ultrasounds, which pro-life activists believe would discourage women from terminating their pregnancies"
  • New Yorker (USA) "The President is pro-choice, and he has signalled some misgivings about the Stupak amendment."
  • Huffington Post Canada (Canada) "When pro-life Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth"

Policy based arguments

For

• Succinctly identifies each movement with what they consider most important.
• Parallel naming insofar as each movement is identified by the name it prefers for itself.
• Does not limit global perspective; articles entitled Pro-life movement and Pro-choice movement can, and arguably should, be specifically about the United States movements that use those names, with different articles addressing global perspective on related issues.

Against

• Of questionable neutrality. The movements are identified by their self-chosen names, each of which is designed to stigmatize their opposition. (It can be argued that using both achieves a kind of neutrality.)
• "Pro-life" can be ambiguous. It might also refer to opposition to stem cell research or euthanasia (source).
• Outside the United States the names aren't only used to refer to abortion. e.g. a gym in Glasgow, a recruitment firm in Nottingham.
• Descriptiveness questionable: it is possible to be "pro-life" and still support legal access to abortion.
• Implies the existence of a single, worldwide "movement" on each side of the debate, which is dubious.

Arguments and policies regarding Abortion-rights movement / Anti-abortion movement

Sources

• None of these sources say "movement", so they don't fully support the proposal.
  • BBC (UK) "Apple denies claims that Siri is anti-abortion"
  • Economic Times (India) "Some suspected Siri of being anti-abortion but Apple rallied to explain that the innovative "personal assistant" in iPhones is a work in progress"
  • Fox News (USA) "Apple's Siri Is Not Anti-Abortion"
  • The Guardian (UK) "Except it isn't. Anti-abortion that is."
  • Straits Times (Singapore) "Apple's voice software Siri irks abortion rights advocates"
  • South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) (As above for pro-choice) "There are hundreds of ways to make a political, anti-abortion statement."
  • The Hindu (India) "The letter said that first of all abortion should not be referred to as foeticide, which had anti-abortion implications"
  • The Economist (UK) "In April 2011 he signed a broad anti-abortion bill." and "Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights."
  • New York Times (USA) "a rule that anti-abortion forces hope will cause some women to change their minds"
  • China Post (Taiwan) (same as above) "Organizing the anti-abortion protest was March for Life"
  • The Star (Malaysia) "Apple's Siri irks abortion rights advocates"
  • ArsTechnica (USA) "the company was showing an anti-abortion stance in its search results"
  • AFP "like the anti-abortion crusade and limits on gay marriage are written into the law of the land"
  • Indian Express (India) "Tech glitch, or is Apple’s Siri anti-abortion?"
  • FT (UK) "Mississippi voters reject anti-abortion initiative"
  • CBS News (USA) "Anti-abortion bills spark heated debate in Virginia"

Policy based arguments

For

• Preferred by the AP Stylebook - "Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice. Avoid abortionist, which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions."
• Clearly and unambiguously refers to the relevant topics.
• Abortion rights and anti-abortion are more precise than pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-choice is used to refer to things other than Abortion, e.g. Smoking, Boxing and Euthanasia. Pro-life also refers to opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia.
• Parallel naming insofar as each movement is identified by a somewhat-neutral, common term used for it rather than its own preferred name.

Against

• Not neutral. Gives preferential treatment to abortion-rights by suggesting that they are for the protection of a right, while anti-abortion is against that right. Describes abortion-rights using a term which they use themselves, while describing anti-abortion with a term they do not often use and may object to.
• Not strictly parallel, since the syntax of "abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion" is different.
• Descriptiveness questionable: it is possible to be both for abortion rights and against abortion itself.
• Implies the existence of a single, worldwide "movement" on each side of the debate, which is dubious.

Arguments and policies regarding constructed "support for" and "opposition to" titles

Arguments common to all variations

For

• Has precedent on Misplaced Pages: Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, Opposition to the Iraq War, Opposition to immigration.
• WP:NPOV is a WP:PILLAR, whereas other policies in play aren't.
• Avoids the dubious implication that there is a single, worldwide "movement" on each side of the debate.

Against

• Specifically contraindicated by WP:TITLECHANGES as compromise titles made up to quell contention.
• Neutrality issues surrounding the more common names may not be significant to many people outside the US.

Other descriptions

• Xinhua (China) "Thousands rally against abortion", "Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of the Campaign Life Coalition, said she believed about 60 out of Canada's 308 members of parliament were opposed to abortion, too."

Arguments regarding Support for the legalization of abortion / Opposition to the legalization of abortion

For

• Arguably meets WP:NPOV by not using names that are considered biased (but see Against section).
• Supported by previous consensus at the mediation cabal
• Strictly parallel naming.
• Well scoped and clearly defined topics both deserving of articles.

Against

• Least concise option.
• Overly precise – exclude content on support and opposition for criminalization of abortion (in locales where abortion is legal).
• Stigmatize abortion by implying that the baseline state of affairs is for it to be illegal, which violates WP:NPOV.
• Non-descriptive: nonsensical as considered in any jurisdiction where abortion is not illegal, especially ones where it has never been illegal.
• Non-descriptive: opponents of abortion do not oppose it being "legalized", they oppose it happening at all

Arguments regarding Support for legal abortion / Opposition to legal abortion

For

• Arguably meets WP:NPOV by not using names that are considered biased (but see Against section)
• Reasonably concise
• Strictly parallel naming

Against

• "Opposition to legal abortion" may be considered POV if misread as "support for illegal abortion"
• "Support for legal abortion" may be considered POV if misread as "support for abortion as long as it's legal"
• Non-descriptive: opponents of abortion do not merely oppose it being legal, they oppose it happening at all

Arguments regarding Support for legal abortion / Opposition to abortion

For

• Arguably meets WP:NPOV by not using names that are considered biased (but see Against section)
• Descriptive
• Reasonably concise
• Parallel naming to within a reasonable degree of fidelity

Against

• "Support for legal abortion" may be considered POV if misread as "support for abortion as long as it's legal"

Arguments regarding Support for abortion legality / Opposition to abortion

For

• Meets WP:NPOV by not using names that are considered biased
• Descriptive
• Reasonably concise
• Parallel naming to within a reasonable degree of fidelity

Against

Arguments regarding Support for abortion legality / Support for abortion prohibition

For

• Meets WP:NPOV by not using names that are considered biased
• Descriptive
• Reasonably concise
• Strictly parallel naming

Against

Discussion on possible alternative tites/questions regarding process

This section is for discussing the proposed titles only (such as additions and suggestions). It is not for detailing ones preferred option for a title, that will commence on March 23

• Query. Will the result of this discussion apply only to article titles, or will it also apply in-text to other articles, eg. "X is pro-life" vs. "X is anti-abortion"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe that the result of this discussion will only affect the current article titles: "Support for the legalization of abortion" and "Opposition to the legalization of abortion". Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep, article titles only. Steven Zhang 00:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• (Sorry, posted this first in wrong section)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 06:19, 23 February 2012‎
•    I'm embarrassed to weigh in with fundamental issues at this apparently late date, but then, i suppose no one is obligated to respond.
  1.    "Legalization" is an act or process; as the "pro-choice" article indicates in a graphic, abortion is fully legal in essentially the whole northern hemisphere, and legal at least to protect the mother's health in most of the rest of the world, so the controversy is actually about legality versus illegality of abortion, and far more about (hypothetical) acts or processes of prohibition than of legalization.
  2.    The articles purport to respectively be about two opposing world-wide phenomena of advocacy: a two-sided struggle. The graphic offers support more for the idea that there are at least six positions, corresponding to unqualified legality, unqualified prohibition, and four intermediate ones of advocacy for the status quo where it matches one's own position, but some degree of legalization in some other jurisdictions and/or prohibition in others.
  3.    In fact, even this 6-position view is too reductionist: IMO there are a lot of people who are sincere in believing that it's none of their business to have an opinion about what is right for other societies, and have only an opinion of whether their own should needs change.
  4.    In practice, what you think about abortion in other societies is as significant as your opinion of the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin, unless you are going overseas with your sniper rifle, or sending similarly deadly quantities of money overseas.

  In short, the attempt to write two articles about two supposed world-wide movements on reproductive rights is ridiculous. Oh, excuse me, fundamentally misguided. IMO the articles should have their "Amero-centric" tags removed, and be merged into American controversies about abortion and contraception law, which should be tagged {{Lacks nuance}}, pending addition of at least 4 more sections.
  --Jerzy•t 05:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  

  •    (What i said above is far more important than this, so i am subordinating it as a comment on my own main point.) Part of the political controversy in the US is about what actions actually constitute "abortion". (A very small number of people are probably interested in a corresponding scientific and philosophical issue, about whether that question has any meaning -- since there is no such thing as an "instant of conception".) Arguments one way or the other can be important talking points in efforts to win votes, but i have serious questions about any use of "abortion" in defining the scope of a WP article that doesn't devote a section to how ill-defined the word is.
    --Jerzy•t 05:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    

From a copy-editing standpoint, how about a slight alteration on the last set of names, to "Support for abortion legality" and "Opposition to abortion legality"? For one thing, as Jerzy pointed out the current proposal doesn't take into account that "legalization" means "making something legal", not "supporting its continuing being legal". For another, the current proposal is lengthier. Allens (talk | contribs) 20:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, or Support for the legality of abortion / Opposition to the legality of abortion (compare the original 'Support for the legality of abortion / Opposition to abortion'). It would answer the non-neutral argumant against 'Opposition to abortion' and make them both evenly concise. I really can't think of any objections to both your format and the one I suggested. With yours being more concise. Therefore, I think it would be sensible to include one or both into the structured discussion. JHS_nl (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Another formatting matter. Shouldn't "Other descriptions" be its own section, not under the last set of names? Allens (talk | contribs) 20:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Variants of legal/legality/legalisation has been discussed before. The proposal could always be adjusted to encompass the lot, or alternatives could be offered. Each could work, really. Steven Zhang 20:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What is going on ... where are my comments and the others that are now gone? I'd like someone to post an explanation of what happened to the discussion and why my comments were deleted.--Djathinkimacowboy 21:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven removed the comments by the community section below because there was a misunderstanding. Discussion on the titles and input from the community will take place after the 30 day period (starting on 23 March). The discussion that you were involved in has been archived here: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles#Closed discussion. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Steven and I are working diligently to address your concerns. If you have any other concerns, please let me know. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• The proposals to date would all continue the present false dichotomy. We should be discussing a spectrum of positions. Not all who support a putative right of access to legal abortion on demand also support public funding for such. Not all who support a putative fetal right to life also want the death penalty for practioners who provide abortions to rape victims. There are many incremental positions in between the extremes that are not well addressed by the polarized terms above. Does pro-life convey whether a person is in opposition to antibacterials, to weed killers, to contraceptives, or just to abortions? Does pro-choice convey whether a person is in favour of a right to sex-selective abortion, to reduction of multiple pregnancies, or simply to avoid an inconveniently-timed pregnancy? It is absurd to contend that WP must adopt a binary nomenclature. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe that these positions can be incorporated into the main body of the article once a decision on the article titles have been made. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• About 6 pm today (UK time) a BBC TV 1 television news item said that the debate about rights and wrongs of abortion is likely to never be settled. The same seems to be happening here: compare two people, Mr.X and Mr.Y, each reporting a sensitive matter such as a death; X obeys WP:NPOV and reports neutrally, and Y reports emotively. X complains that Y should have reported neutrally. Y complains that X's neutral style is "as if the death does not matter to anyone", and inserts emotive matter if he can, or else complains to the editor. The same likely applies to titles of articles reporting emotive subjects. There are two points of view here, and such conflict is likely to be hard to resolve. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In the real world, perhaps, but on Misplaced Pages such conflict is settled easily: WP:NPOV is a fundamental tenet of Misplaced Pages policy. Emotive content is simply not appropriate here, period. This issue isn't "one title is NPOV and one is not," but rather, "which title conforms most to NPOV?" Yunshui 雲‍水 23:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing that's currently controversial in the UK is sex-selective abortion. Not general abortion rights. The same is generally true in the Asian sources I looked at. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Procedural query. The two sides seem to be always being taken together when titles are proposed, but there's no rule requiring that they be taken in the same format. I don't think WP:NPOV requires for balance that if one article is titled (e.g.) 'Support for legal abortion' the opponents of that position must have their article titled 'Opposition to legal abortion'. Can the debate be structured so that people can indicate support for different phrasing for the two sides? Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  This is basically an extremely bad idea. If it fell out of the actual formulation, that's unfortunate, but an absolutely vital consideration that was addressed by the current titles and which needs to continue being addressed by whatever is adopted is that the articles have parallel names. Before the current titles, one article had wound up at the propaganda name its own proponents prefer for it, while the other had a more neutral title. Mix-and-match is a spectacularly bad road to go down. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is it too late to suggest another? It may be rather late to suggest this but the "pro-life" alternatives are mostly in the form of "Opposition ...". One might have considered "Support for Banning Abortion". I see ban used in practice. It also allows degrees or partial bans. It also is symmetric with many of the "Support for legalizing ..." Jason from nyc (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thinking this through, the argument is about whether and in what circumstances abortion should be legal. The most common position taken by one side seems to be that abortion should be/remain legal with exceptions limited to widely agreed-upon cases (e.g. late term). The most common position taken by the other side seems to be that abortion should be made illegal either in all cases, or with limited exceptions (rape, incest, when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk, etc.). Since, as Jerzy pointed out above, "abortion is fully legal in essentially the whole northern hemisphere, and legal at least to protect the mother's health in most of the rest of the world", one side is generally arguing to retain the status quo, while the other is arguing for legal restrictions. That makes me think of a pairing like "Support for abortion legality" and "Support for abortion prohibition" or something along those lines. Maybe "Abortion legality movement" and "Abortion prohibition movement". cmadler (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  •    This discussion is too informal for the term friendly amendment to apply, but Cmadler's ideas do an excellent job of meeting my "what makes it two-sided?" objection: in practice, in any particular jurisdiction, only the status quo and one politically conceivable direction of change are on the table. (Note, however, that that sharpens rather than softens my argument against the IMO artificial approach of treating the positions in a world-wide article, rather than in a two- -- or one- -- article per country fashion.)
    --Jerzy•t 06:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    
    • Perhaps it's useful to consider how we've treated other legal topics where there is some degree of similarity worldwide (or in much of the world) but also meaningful country-by-country variance. Consider how we cover the issue of copyright, with a main article (Copyright) that summarizes the major issues, and then further articles that go into more details on a country-by-country basis (e.g. Copyright law of France). These are tied together by Template:Copyright law by country. Likewise, we have Freedom of speech, Freedom of speech by country, and then country-specific articles such as Freedom of speech in the United States. Perhaps a similar approach would work here. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement that these titles need to be standardized but I am at a loss for why pro-choice, pro-life are unacceptable in the first place. While the terms themselves may convey a POV that does not necessarily mean that they are unusable due to NPOV restrictions.

• If these terms are the predominant terms used by individuals in society who are active and vocal about this issue then they are the most accurate terms. I think we start to move towards counting angels on pins when we abandon the language of the debate for other contrived terms which only exist because each side thinks the other's name is too POV.
• It seems to me that although there is a great variety within the two camps - as mentioned by Jerzy - such variety does not mean that the two camps cannot be defined by the labels used in the debate itself! For example, when one talks about 'Democrats' or 'Republicans' one does not assume - especially these days - that every single member of either party holds the exact same opinions as their fellow members. Nevertheless, the two categories continue to exist and successfully describe the majority of politicians and American voters. Just as not all in the pro-life camp favor the complete prohibition of abortion not all in the pro-choice camp favor complete and immediate access to abortion.
• Even if individuals don't agree with every view of the general pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy almost no one attempts to adopt a categorization outside of those terms. I don't know of any examples from public figures or advocacy groups in which someone has tried to say they don't fall into either category. On the other hand it is not infrequent to hear people say "I am pro-choice but would not have an abortion," or "I am pro-life but believe it is a decision that should not be made by the government."
• If the pro-choice/pro-life option is deemed unacceptable despite the fact that those are the terms used by the majority of individuals participating in the debate why is the AP stylebook alternative not viable? Although Abortion-rights movement / Anti-abortion movement are somewhat clunky they at least represent the consensus view of the largest news agencies in the English speaking world.

Ultimately, it seems odd that wikipedia would reject both labels most commonly used in the debate (pro-life/pro-choice) and a professional/scholarly consensus alternative (Abortion-rights movement / Anti-abortion movement) and instead create new terms to describe an existing public debate.Grin20 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Query. What were the original names of the articles and how long did those names last? I think this should be a factor in the discussion, and added to the "for" for the relevant names.LedRush (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't been following this debate, so maybe this has already been addressed, but why do we have two articles? Last time I checked, POV forks were against policy. Shouldn't we just have one article about the debate that covers both sides? Then there is no real issue over the name, since it's neutral anyway ("Abortion debate" would work fine). --Tango (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe that this is constitutes a legitimate POVFORK. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The examples given there aren't really comparable to this. While they are mutually exclusive points of view, they aren't simply opposite points of view. It wouldn't make sense to have one article that discussed both capitalism and communism because they are two completely separate economic systems (and far from the only two). You could very easily have one article on the abortion debate and, even without the naming issues, that article would be better - the arguments on both sides aren't isolated from each other, a lot of them are simply counters to the arguments of the other side. It's very confusing to have the argument in one article and the counter-argument on another, and it's unnecessarily duplicative to have them both in both articles. --Tango (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • That is certainly a viable option. I will discuss with Steve and AGK about this. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 02:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we have more than just these two articles. Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion are both good topics and clearly scoped. They both should have articles. But Right to Life Movement and Pro-life movement are both also notable and well-defined topics, with plenty of material for articles and seemingly much interest in writing about them. They should not simply redirect to Opposition to the legalization of abortion as one does currently, and I'm surprised that Right to Life Movement doesn't seem to ever have existed, I get 1.4 million ghits (your results may differ) and quite a few Misplaced Pages articles mention it by this name as well. There will be similar organisations and movements linked to the other side too I expect. Andrewa (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrewa, this is supportable evidence for the above sections. If you would be so kind to place this evidence under the appropriate header. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 02:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by the community on proposals

After one month from the commencement of the RFC (March 23), members of the community are invited to comment on the various proposals here, giving reasons as to why they support their preferred argument. This discussion is not a vote, and as per all discussions, comments will be weighed based on strength of argument.