Talk:Sidewalk counseling

Frequently asked questions

Q: Should this article use the term pro-life rather than anti-abortion?

A: No. Wikipedia does not use euphemisms. The term "pro-life" is a branding or marketing device and does not reflect the sole focus of the movement, which is opposition to abortion. The fact that the two sides officially call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is not a reason for Wikipedia to prefer those terms, since neither is neutral, nor accurately describes their positions.

This was discussed at length in June 2018[1], when the titles of two notable articles were made more neutral: pro-life movement --> anti-abortion movement and pro-choice movement --> abortion-rights movement. The former group of people is unambiguously opposed to abortion, so there's nothing misleading about the name. It's a neutral name, which should not offend anyone who truly believes that abortion is wrong.

Additionally, the term pro-life is a political spin term that does not necessarily reflect reality. The philosophy which opposes both abortion and the death penalty, and which supports access to healthcare and other life-sustaining measures, is termed consistent life ethic.

Name[edit]

The name of this article seems to be only used by pro-life people (see Google or this article : "sidewalk counselors, as Ms. Beyel and her fellow demonstrators call themselves").

How should it be named ? "Sidewalk interference", as British Columbia does ? "Abortion clinic protests" ?VictorVVV (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Here is a University of Michigan Press book that uses it neutrally. St Anselm (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page 15 of this book : "usual tactics -- holding posters, singing, photographing people and "counseling"". It is clear that that book didn't believe that practice was counseling. They probably introduced the term "sidewalk counseling" with caution in missing pages of the book.

When searching "Sidewalk counseling" on Google Scholar, the top six results (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6) use quotation marks (""sidewalk counseling"") and remind the reader of the origin of the word, and three of them (3: "in what they call “sidewalk counseling,”"; 4: "an activity these demonstrators refer to as "sidewalk counseling";6: "many protesters engage in tac- tics they refer to as "sidewalk counseling."") are very explicit.

Since "counseling" is a non-neutral term, in order to be used as a title, "sidewalk counseling" should be "evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources", according to Wikipedia.VictorVVV (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced of the documentary evidence. Here is another book, this time by Princeton University Press, using it without quotation marks or comment that it is a self-designation. In any case, some of these sources should be added - I placed a "primary sources" tag in the article, which can be removed when stuff is added. But at this point I would be opposed to defining it merely as a self-designation. St Anselm (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this and that, the author of that book is pro-life.VictorVVV (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a new search for "sidewalk counseling", that time with Google and restricted to nytimes.com. These were the top six results : 1;2;3;4;5;6. Only the second one uses "sidewalk counseling" without quotation marks or "who call themselves".VictorVVV (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: What should be the name of this article?[edit]

What should be the name of this article? How should we call this practice in other articles? VictorVVV (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comment. I came here from the RfC notice. To me, the key issue is how the name is written about, as much as which name is used. If we continue to use the name "Sidewalk counseling", there's a rationale for that, since it's the name its practitioners apply to themselves. But we need to identify it as such. Consequently, it's somewhat POV to say, as the lead sentence currently does, that Sidewalk counseling "is" what the sentence goes on to say. I'd rather characterize it as Sidewalk counseling "is a name for" those things, or something like that. Alternatively, one could instead use one of the other names that are in bold font in the lead section, but the same principle of what Wikipedia says the name "is" applies, because each choice of name comes from participants with particular POVs, and that needs to be identified. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can we call the article "Sidewalk Counseling", including the scare quotes, or are there technical limitations? Basically, I don't think Sidewalk Counseling is an appropriate name, but I'm at a loss for better ones. The Editorial Voice (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A more neutral term might be "sidewalk interaction", but that simply isn't used. I searched for "abortion" and "sidewalk" on Google Books, and the top results all had "sidewalk counseling", though one source had the phrase in quotes.[2][3][4][5] St Anselm (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The commonly used term is "protesters." If you want to get more specific, the term would be "anti-abortion protesters." See: http://time.com/2928597/abortion-buffer-zone-protestors/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/gunn.htm http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/28/protesters-gather-planned-parenthood-clinic-first-saturday-after-supreme-court-ruling-against-buffer-zone/TkOlnXO5G6HSFlfZ9XB3NK/story.html Tiakat333 (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]