User:Chaos5023/Why your entire way of thinking about the Abortion Article Titles RFC is wrong

At this writing, we are nearing the end of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles. This is of concern in that most Wikipedians' fundamental approach to the entire question involved (indeed, even their idea of what the question is) is deeply, catastrophically wrong in ways that are and will continue to be destructive to our mission as an encyclopedia if not corrected.

The problem

If you're like most Wikipedians, you consider the situation being addressed by the RFC in question to be this:

1. We have these articles presently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to the legalization of abortion.
2. The purpose of these articles is each to provide generalized coverage of one side of the issue of legal access to abortion. This is a stable, given fact about the situation.
3. What we are trying to do is either:
   1. Decide on the best set of titles to use for two articles each providing general but one-sided coverage of the issues of abortion; or,
   2. Decide in an overall way how we should provide general coverage of abortion issues.

NO. WRONG. STOP.

Our actual situation is this:

1. We have these articles presently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to the legalization of abortion, originally Pro-choice and Pro-life.
2. These articles were originally written with the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements as their topics. NOT THE ISSUES. THE MOVEMENTS.
3. Because Pro-choice and Pro-life are spectacularly poor titles, not even being nouns and otherwise failing to clearly identify a topic, there was immense and intractable confusion as to what these articles were about, with many people assuming they were about the issues surrounding abortion, not the movements that use the names involved.
   • It has never, ever made any sense to have two articles each covering one side of the issues involved. A neutral overview belongs in a single article. This is why the option of "refactoring to Abortion debate" has so much traction in the RFC; people recognize this. What they aren't recognizing is that it's only completely avoidable scope confusion that has ever made it look like we had two articles each covering one side of the issues.
4. For this reason combined with the general extreme political heat surrounding this topic, these articles were centers of contention for years.
5. At one point, Pro-choice got moved to Abortion-rights, which set off a massive controversy.
6. Various well-meaning individuals wound up (incredibly inadvisably) carrying out the move to the current titles, again on the unexamined theory that naturally these articles were about the issues and everything would be better if we came up with a neutral way to title articles about the issues.
7. This failed to make anything better, providing as it did an inadequate answer to the wrong question.
8. ArbCom has asked us for an RFC in which we decide on the TITLES to be used by THESE TWO ARTICLES.

So what?

So, as many people have noted, the problem these articles have always had is their SCOPE. The vague, adjectivial titles Pro-choice and Pro-life were the whole problem because THEY FAILED TO DEFINE A TOPIC.

The most wrong thing about this RFC is people assuming the articles' scope is PRE-SET as being about the ISSUES.

Because we have WP:TITLE, we know that THE TITLE OF AN ARTICLE DEFINES ITS SCOPE. That means that, in this RFC, we have the opportunity to DEFINE the scope of these articles, and FIX THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL PROBLEM.

Because we also have WP:PRESERVE, we also know that we should KEEP THAT SCOPE AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE ORIGINAL AS WE CAN WHILE FIXING THE PROBLEM. That means that the articles should NEVER have been moved to their current titles, thereby redefining their scope TO THE ISSUES (and moreover, if you go by the actual language of the titles instead of ignoring them the way all actual editors on the articles have been doing, it redefined them to a completely useless sub-range of the issues that would make for incredibly poor encyclopedia articles if actually followed). It means that we should put things back how they should have been in the first place.

And no, how they should have been in the first place is NOT jamming everything into Abortion debate. The United States pro-choice and pro-life movements are discrete, notable topics of encyclopedic interest, and we absolutely should have articles on them as a basic fulfillment of our project mission. Moreover, they should be THESE articles because of WP:PRESERVE. And, though it's hard to get any clarification on this, it's possible, even likely that the binding effect of this RFC on relevant article titles would STOP us from having articles on these movements for three years if we resolved in favor of the "refactor to Abortion debate" option. And even if it doesn't, THESE were originally the articles about those movements, so could we not just throw out the goddamned article history involved for no good reason?

The real question

Given WP:TITLE and WP:PRESERVE taken together in this context, the real question here should be: how do we best identify these movements?

If you answer that question, we will be able to come to a conclusion that actually works for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

Responses

Comments on Chaos5023's above proposal.

• Support entirely, including shouting. The answer to #The real question begins by noting that movements only result in WP conflict because many different conflicting legal entities use the same banner slogan (e.g. "Messianic" movement, "tea party" movement) and thus there is no authoritative definer of the movement's name but only competing definitions. The indicated action is to create several articles (pro-life, right-to-life, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, pro-choice, abortion-rights, etc.) in addition to the precis of abortion debate above. Each article describes those who self-identify with that label, and those who semiauthoritatively class others under that label. It also explains all nuances among different definers of the label. To the extent the labels are Amerocentric the articles will be so as well, solely so and properly so. However, the topics of "support"/"opposition" for any of the alternative invented names are all proper subtopics of "abortion debate". The separate problem of keeping that article sane is not part of this RFC but is already covered by core policy. JJB 14:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Generally agree, keeping in mind that this RFC was asked for specifically to determine the titles for these specific articles. Pro-life, right-to-life, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, pro-choice, and abortion-rights should only be redirects, though, not articles; if we want to keep from stepping in the same mess, we should adhere ever so closely to WP:TITLE's injunction that titles should be nouns. That said, while I (spoilers!) think the Right Answer for the RFC is to use Pro-choice movement and Pro-life movement, I don't hesitate to say that Right-to-life movement should be its own article independent of Pro-life movement. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  (That's also why United States abortion-rights movement and United States anti-abortion movement aren't as good as they first look; United States anti-abortion movement ambiguously identifies both Pro-life movement and Right-to-life movement.) —chaos5023 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's encouraging that we are thinking so closely; naturally you are correct that I neglected the anti-adjective aspect in my haste. I am encouraged enough by your support and the current trend to make a couple more observations. First, have you noticed that ArbCom asked for two articles to be titled, and yet the Community (who trumps ArbCom) naturally proposed alternatives that called for one (#12), three (#15), or more articles to be titled? This is another everything you know is wrong. Because this is an essay, I'll exert my freedom to shout: this is not about titling TWO articles, IT'S ABOUT TITLING THE CONTENT in the two articles, NO MATTER HOWEVER MANY ARTICLES THE CONTENT WINDS UP IN. The Community unconsciously recognizes this and escaped the ArbCom constraint.

Now, into the breach. First, recommended reading. The next everything you know is wrong goes like this. "Everyone knows" that pro-life is the opposite of pro-choice and abortion-rights is the opposite of anti-abortion. How many style guides have told us so. NOT TRUE. To prove this, consider simple definitions and logical categories. It is undeniable that (1) freedom to choose generically is a wider topic than (2) freedom to choose a specific choice, which is a wider topic than (3) generic advocacy for a specific choice, which is a wider topic than (4) a specific advocacy for a specific choice. But look how this plays out in the debate at hand! (Using adjectives.)

Category above	One side	Its logical opposite	Other side	Its logical opposite
(1) generic choice	pro-choice (broadly; pro–free will)	anti-choice	pro–free will (pro-choice, broadly)	anti–free will
(2) specific choice	pro–abortion rights (right-to-abortion)	anti–abortion-rights	pro–life rights (right-to-life)	anti–life rights
(3) generic advocacy	pro-abortion	anti-abortion	pro-life	anti-life
(4) specific advocacy	?	?	anti-abortion	pro-abortion

Gentle reader, review slowly and allow the logic to sink in. The two sides are arguing at different levels. (1) At the most generic level, most everyone favors choice. (2) More specifically, one side affirms the right to choose one thing, the other affirms the other. (3) More specifically still, within those sides are subsets who not only affirm the right to the choice but also advocate in favor of choosing that way. (Once you've reached this level, the imbalance has arisen: pro-abortion is a much much different subset than pro-life is.) (4) Again, within those subsets are subsets who advocate in favor of the specific choice in a specific way. On the pro-life side they advocate for life in one specific context, namely, abortion. (Incidentally, if you wanted to complete the table on the pro-choice side, you'd need to find a subgroup (from among the small set people who actually advocate for abortion over other alternatives) who focus their advocacy in one specific context, and I am unfit to select such a subset. NOTE: Yes, I know most pro-choicers are not pro-abortion; WP says so; but that is just the point. Right now pro-abortion redirects to the pro-choice article anyway and wouldn't you like to fix that with a solution like the above?)

In short, abortion-rights is logically contrasted to right-to-life (NOT anti-abortion); and pro-life is logically contrasted to pro-abortion (NOT pro-choice). It's simply each side's attempt to spin upward on the ladder (i.e., from pro-abortion to pro-choice, and from anti-abortion to pro-life), imbalanced against the other side, that creates the cognitive split.

Now then, ensuring that emotion is put away (attempts to emote will be ignored or worse), we have a very natural, very logical outline for the main article and a scope for each subarticle. (This would have six subarticles each with the word "movement" added.)

• 1 Abortion debate (medium: questions, terminology, with SUMMARIES on pro-choice and right-to-life)
• 1.1 Pro-choice (small: freedom of choice in nonabortion contexts, with SUMMARY on abortion-rights)
• 1.1.1 Abortion rights (large: most of the current pro-choice article, with SUMMARY on pro-abortion)
• 1.1.1.1 Pro-abortion (small: the minority view that abortion is good)
• 1.2 Right-to-life (small: history prior to pro-life, current RTL groups, with SUMMARY on pro-life)
• 1.2.1 Pro-life (medium: pro-life in nonabortion contexts, with SUMMARY on anti-abortion)
• 1.2.1.1 Anti-abortion (large: most of the current pro-life (anti-abortion) article)

Obviously I have elided the fact that right-to-life assumes the right to choose life. Obviously in the main main article, the fourth level could be the ";" level rather than the "=====". While there is a logical main-vs.-summary connection at each juncture, the imbalance of the situation is also honored, and ALL TOPICS ARE SCOPED WITHOUT CONFUSION. Here's some benefits chosen at random. (a) "Abortion rights" has potential to be logically the largest article because its content is not split like "pro-life" and "anti-abortion", providing balance to its current systemically shorter status. (b) "Pro-abortion" is distinguished to its own article rather than misleadingly pointed to (what would become) abortion rights. (c) "Anti-abortion" is distinguished to its own article rather than misleadingly pointed to (what would become) pro-life. (d) People who don't like being called anti-abortion can edit "pro-life" and proper regulation of main-vs.-summary osmosis would allow both to stay in balance. (e) People who like being called pro-choice can edit "pro-choice" and osmosis yada yada.

The final everything you know is wrong: You thought this coda was an attempt to sway the closing admins. No, technically, it's not. I will place a quiet link, but admins of this caliber are not easily swayed and need not be. This is an attempt to sway the conscience of the Community. Whatever decision the closing admins make, it's about the names of the content of these current (two) articles. Nothing will prevent the Community from seeping content, using WP:SUMMARY as a guide, from one article to another, or from an article in the admin-approved list to one not in the approved list, allowing the above outline or a better one to arise by Harmonious Editing Club. Nothing will prevent the Community from reopening redirects not in the approved list to allow scoping according to what the terms mean, viz., the logical structure above. (No, they never need become content forks, because editors of all POVs can easily regulate summary style, which naturally prevents cforking.) In short, the Community really can create general consensus about where to put every single content snippet, including every name. Amazing! YES WE CAN DO THIS! On with improvement!

This hijack now returns you, with thanks, to Chaos5023's excellent previously scheduled programming. JJB 02:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the seven-step structure with six "movements", because "pro-life" is not a proper subset of "abortion debate".  As per the Google snippet, Pro-life.com is a "Christian" organization that "argues against...pre-marital sex"; where neither "Christian" nor "pre-marital sex" are directly relevant to "abortion debate", or polar to "Pro-choice".  How about, in addition to the three abortion articles we currently have, a fourth article Pro-life vs. Pro-choice?  (I think that "pro-life" precedes "pro-choice" historically by a tad, but I might have the sequence backwards.)  As a contrast article, this could bring out the fact that these two advocacy groups are not polar opposites.  This would also be the place to mention the history of the peculiar choice of these names.  As for this comment in the context of the current admin review, there was plenty of opinion during the RfC that there was U.S.-centric viewpoint that was confounding the bigger picture.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and good link! The structure above and its variants do not conflict with the observation that one subarticle may have content not related to its "parent" article, because wiki hierarchies are many-to-many parent-child relationships, not always one-to-many. I would think "pro-life vs. pro-choice" (not the best title per the thoughts in WP:AND) would be mostly similar to abortion debate, but if your title is intended to include nonabortion topics, I would see a conceptual place for it but I would ask what RS if any treat the topic of that title in a nonabortion context. Choice of each single-unit name (except "abortion debate") should appear in its own article, and geocentricity should be based on sources. JJB 17:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)