Talk:2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Before the move

Now that the discussion is closed, and before we go through with the move: could we discuss whether to include the hythen? It looks both ugly and gramatically unnecessary to me. The hythen was also not present in the other two related proposals ("incident", and no suffix), which also received pretty strong support. DFlhb (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is grammatically correct either way; the hyphen makes child rape a modifier of case, while without the hyphen it would be the child rape and the abortion case as parallel grammatical structures. BD2412 alleged that the hyphen is necessary for semantic reasons. I'm not totally sold on that, as the hyphen doesn't actually eliminate the semantic ambiguity and I don't think anyone is likely to assume the child is raping rather than being raped either way. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the hyphen is necessary to make clear that it references the rape of a child rather than a rape by a child (not an impossible thing, there are cases of young teenage boys impregnating girls their own age). BD2412 T 23:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW consensus against. Proposed title is inaccurate (rape, not sexual assault), and editors established a consensus that the focus was on a child requiring an abortion. WP:TROUT User:Jax 0677 for the inaccurate name, at least. (non-admin closure) starship.paint (exalt) 00:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

---

2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case → Gerson Fuentes sexual assault case – Conviction has been secured, eliminating the need for confidentiality, and a long name. Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Firstly, Fuentes was convicted of rape, not sexual assault. And secondly, the existing title summarises why the subject is notable, while the proposed one doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The case is not notable due to the identity or activity of the rapist, but due to the actions of the states involved. BD2412 T 17:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per editor attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point if nothing else. Christ. — Trey Maturin™ 17:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - Assume good faith. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. This case is notable as a poster-child for one side of the abortion debate in the USA. That has nothing to do with the name of the perpetrator, although there is no reason why that shouldn't be a redirect, as created by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose This would be a deletion-worthy WP:NOTNEWS article if it wasn't for the intersection with the Roe v Wade repeal. The abortion angle is the one of lasting significance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The importance of this article is the place in has in discussions about abortion changes in the United States, not who the perpetrator was. The rapist's name shouldn't be in the article title. He's not the headline here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, but I would support 2022 Indiana child abortion case per WP:CONCISE. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Surely if we are to shorten the title it should be to 2022 Ohio child-rape case. The issue that made this notable was the law in Ohio. Indiana just happened to be the most convenient state that had a slightly less stringent law. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: Surely the abortion was what gained the case nationwide attention, especially in light of Dobbs v. Jackson several days prior. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that this caused controversy in Indiana, including investigation into the doctor, is also what makes this notable. I agree that the current title is a bit clunky, but I don't see a better one that doesn't exclude important information. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think I just need to leave this to Americans to decide. Attitudes to abortion are, along with lack of gun control laws, one of those thing about the US that leave most of the rest of the Western world dumbfounded. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: I disagree. Wikipedia has enough American bias as it stands. I see no problem in introducing a little outside perspective into this. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose because the scope of the article is the rape exception in abortion law post-Dobbs, not the crime itself. Including the name of the perpetrator in the article title is beyond undue. That said, support keeping the Gerson Fuentes redirect to this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.