Talk:2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (the BLP issue is completely resolved by using the word "alleged", and by not mentioning the name of the suspect, which means that this needs to go through a formal AFD, additionally, a quote from Kristi Noem was added) --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jax 0677 - I think this article needs to focus on the impact of this event, its importance. Right now, if I was some space alien or someone who had been living under a rock for the last 75 years and I read this I would be like, "Why is this important?" The article needs to make that plain. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jax 0677 and ONUnicorn: - Using the word "alleged" does not protect the article from WP:BLPCRIME, which indicates it is unwise to write about a crime if a conviction has not been secured. In this particular case I think the decision has already been made NOT to write about this particular crime. In its present form this article is a candidate for an even speedier deletion than previously because it is merely an anonymized version that covers the same ground as the previously deleted article. This is an attempt to resurrect an article deleted, but under a different name, that has already been refused. However, the deletion discussion identified that "... the incident notable because of the coverage it received, the latter believes that Ohio's abortion laws and their impact on the 10-year-old at issue are the story, not her alleged rape as such. ..." Consequently, this article should not be about a sexual assault, which should not appear in the title, but about the abortion the 10-year old was given. As far as I am aware, the 10-year old is not yet before the courts for having the abortion, so the word "case" should not appear in the title either. At best the some content of this article should appear in the Abortion in Ohio article. For this article to survive, it should be given a title akin to its notability, perhaps something like Pregnancy of a 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022. The article might also, I think, benefit from be moved to draft space to be developed further, before going through the AfC process. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

After assessing this article as a Draft, I took a BOLD and moved the page to align with its status. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2022

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 → 2022 Ohio abortion – Currrent title is somewhat long. I am open to suggestions on other shorter names. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Yes, the title may be somewhat long but it is intended to neutrally and non-judgmentally describe the specific event with precision and in a recognizable way. The title is styled to be consistent with other violence related articles and also follow naming conventions for events by including "what", "where" and "when" in the title. The title 2022 Ohio abortion is misleading, because the abortion took place in Indiana, not Ohio, so the title should be something like 2022 Indiana abortion given to a 10-year Ohio girl. If you want to write about the state of Abortion in Ohio in 2022, in relation to this event, then merge the details of this event into the Abortion in Ohio article, or into Abortion in Indiana, or both. But, if you want to write about the plight of a 10-year old Ohio girl who finds herself pregnant in 2022 then your title options are limited by article naming criteria to be natural, recognizable, precise, consistent as well as concise. You could omit the year, as well as the word "unnamed", and come up with something like "Pregnancy of 10-year old Ohio girl" or "Ten-year-old Ohio girl's pregnancy", but I cannot do much better than that. Since the title of an article determines what you intend to write about, by proposing this name change, you clearly desire to write about the abortion. I would recommend you first do that in the relevant article(s) on abortion in the states concerned. This is also why I BOLDLY moved the article to Draft space and recommended it go through the AfC process, rather than immediately proposing it for a speedy deletion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose move and second the idea of merging this to Abortion in Indiana. Dekimasuよ! 14:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Exceptionally poor suggestion as to a proposed article title, unrecognisable and barely more concise than say 2022 controversies in Ohio. Happy to consider better suggestions but I have none. Merge discussion is under way at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022, pointless to discuss it in two places and that other discussion is more advanced but that AfD proposal has even less to recommend it, so discuss here if need be and once both discussions close open a proper merge discussion. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2022 (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.

Merge proposals

Several merge proposals above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022. Suggest discuss informally here until and unless someone wishes to make a more formal proposal. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't merge this anywhere, precisely because the incident touches on too many possible merge targets. It results from Dobbs, but also implicates both the abortion laws and politics of Ohio and the abortion laws and politics of Indiana. BD2412 T 05:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. But it's a lot easier to chant merge then to do anything useful about it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sting (percussion) (2nd nomination) for another recent example. I do not see that I should waste my time on that one, as it's a silly idea anyway IMO, and there is every chance that none of those who !voted for the merge will actually do anything about it either. We will see.

But on this article in particular, at the risk of violating WP:AGF, this topic arouses lots of strong opinions and emotions and some of these on one side in particular would like to move this material to as obscure a place as they can, having failed to have it deleted, which they would of course prefer.

So I'll be very interested to see any merge proposals, and the rationales as to how they would improve Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I have my doubts that this is a notable event, but it is covered by reliable sources and has generated debate, and we have lots of articles on events that are less notable in terms of coverage; having supported a merge above does not mean I am interested in having this deleted, nor does it have anything to do with my opinions on abortion. However, it is not clear to me that merging reduces visibility. It is just as possible that details of the event could be merged to multiple locations, e.g. to Abortion in Ohio, Abortion in Indiana, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. We can deal with details of an event in multiple locations without there being an article on the event itself (say, Ray Chapman and Carl Mays and Batting helmet but not Death of Ray Chapman). Dekimasuよ! 02:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. But the question here is, would a merge improve Wikipedia, and if so where to redirect this article name, and the redirect to it from 2022 Ohio sexual assault case and any others created by previous moves? The material is encyclopedic, and that much has now been settled at the deletion discussion (much to the dismay of some outside of Wikipedia obviously but we AGF on the part of our fellow Wikipedians). We move on. Andrewa (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2022

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: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 → 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio – Starting date-fixed titles with the date is standard practice, and it is superfluous to say "unnamed" in a title where no name is included, or "girl" in a title discussing a pregnancy. This is an improvement in concision. BD2412 T 02:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Although the suggestion seems to be an improvement, I am not sure this resolves the confusion from the above discussion about what the notable event is. Is it the pregnancy that is notable, or the abortion, or the reactions to it? The only comparable article I could find was 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case, and that doesn't seem to be a great title either. Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • 2022 Ohio girl abortion case would be consistent, and still, I think, an improvement over the current title. The title for the Brazilian case similarly does not indicate whether the subject is "named", and I would concede that "girl" implies an unusually young person having an abortion. As for the notability question, if an abortion had been denied altogether rather than being provided in another state, we would still have the case of a 10-year-old girl having been impregnated, and being affected by abortion politics. BD2412 T 03:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. Graham (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, more concise and readable title, and omission of the word "unnamed" avoids confusion whether the girl was nameless. JIP | Talk 06:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The girl isn't unnamed; her name simply was never revealed to the public. And the word "girl" is unnecessary - anyone pregnant is female, and a female human who is 10 years old is unquestionably a girl. Animal lover |666| 07:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Agree this is a better title. Obviously more concise, and seems unambiguous. So a definite improvement, and there have been no better suggestions despite many attempts. I also note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 has closed as keep, with the comment by closer There is not a scenario where this content is going to be deleted, and that while various merge possibilities have been suggested there and at #Requested move 6 August 2022 there is still no proposal at #Merge proposals. We keep all the redirects of course, and move on. Andrewa (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Support per nom. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2022 (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.

Infobox

The original infobox had a significant number of issues, and after some edits the infobox repeats the name of the article, then repeats the name of the article in three parameters. I think that an infobox doesn't add anything to this article, and cannot provide the necessary context to be useful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined toward full removal as well. Now that the confusing and potentially offensive parameters have been removed, it's just not that big a deal to me though. Call me a weak oppose to continued inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I see no point in it being there. Not everything needs an infobox. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 17:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Rape or alleged rape

All of the sources make it clear it was a rape. This is true regardless of the guilt or innocence of the suspect. Is there a reason we're saying she was allegedly raped? Is there any sourcing for this phrasing? Right now the article is saying that a 9 year old could have consented to sex with someone who had gone through puberty. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The wording has been removed by FFF - I agree with that removal. A 9 year old cannot consent, so is rape regardless of who the perpretrator is (the particular perp, even if unnamed, should of course remain "alleged" per WP:BLPCRIME). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. I had also removed the "alleged" word some time ago. The rapist is "alleged", the existence of the crime itself is WP:SKYISBLUE territory, per ProcrastinatingReader. A nine-year-old cannot consent. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It is also universally referred to in reliable sources as a rape. BD2412 T 18:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We can say "rape", but should refer to the specific person accused as an "alleged rapist". Maine 🦞 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Most awkwardly titled Wikipedia article in history?

I see there's two RMs above, so not sure if we can do better -- but can we? jp×g 08:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Reply - be bold. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, not too bold. However, I do feel that the title should perhaps mention the abortion, as it is a fairly focal part of the account. BD2412 T 18:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• No, just differently. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"2022 Indiana abortion" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2022 Indiana abortion and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22 § 2022 Indiana abortion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Levivich (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2022

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: there is a highly tentative consensus to move to 2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

---

2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio → 2022 pregnancy of a 9-year-old in Ohio – This has been through a few title changes and proposals, but I don't think these have addressed that the girl was a 9-year old at the time that she became pregnant. Unless we are going to change the title to reflect that she was ten when the abortion was performed, I think the title should reflect the age of becoming pregnant. BD2412 T 17:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; all reliable sources refer to a 10-year-old. Unless you want to make it even more difficult to search. Elizium23 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You can't have a title saying a 10-year-old was raped, and then a lead sentence that says a 9-year-old was raped, surely? It's not so much COMMONNAME as factual inaccuracy and confusing at that point, possibly due to dated sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely untrue that all reliable sources refer to a 10-year-old, for example Associated Press [1], The Independent [2], Forbes [3], and The Plain Dealer (Ohio's paper of record) [4] all refer to a 9-year-old. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Support per the RSes, and also per biology and mathematics. Though some sources refer to a 10-year-old--her age at the time she had an abortion--other sources specify that she was 9 years old at the time she was raped, and in addition, the defendant has been indicted for the crime of raping a child "under 10" (i.e., no older than 9). I think as the trial gets underway, we'll see more sources correctly specifying that she was 9 at the time of the rape and pregnancy but 10 at the time of the abortion. (God, the facts of this case are horrific.) So if the title is "2022 pregnancy of a [age] in Ohio'", the correct age is 9. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is about a 10 year-old's abortion, and the person was pregnant at both 9 and 10. Both would work, but 10 is better because of the abortion age. Maine 🦞 19:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support was on the edge, but support per Levivich's reasoning. It should be 10 in the title if we were titling "2022 abortion of a 10-year-old in Ohio", but the title is around the pregnancy, which happened at age 9. Currently the title is wrong, and the title and lead are out of sync, and it's confusing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, but prefer BD2412's version. Levivich's arguments are convincing. Further, most sources I've seen say "10-year old" in the context of her abortion, not of her pregnancy, so I don't find the WP:COMMON argument very convincing. However, I agree with BD2412 that abortion laws (and alleged misbehavior by the abortion provider, whatever we may think) are treated by media as significant elements of this news story, and I think the title should reflect that. DFlhb (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Include abortion in title?

• Support or mention abortion in title - Moving the page to state 9 year old in the title is perfectly OK, as a move will create a redirect. However, if we want to mention the abortion in the title, we may want to consider a name such as "2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio". Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Just reflective of the complexity of the situation, the abortion itself was performed in Indiana, so perhaps "2022 abortion performed on an Ohio 10-year-old". Unfortunately, a more concise construction like "Ohio 10-year old abortion" makes it sound like the abortion itself was ten years prior. BD2412 T 17:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

    • Reply - I can support "2022 abortion performed on an Ohio 10-year-old". --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
      • That would be an improvement over the current situation. BD2412 T 21:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Why should 'abortion' be in the title? The abortion is not the most notable thing in the case. Nor, really, is the pregnancy, for that matter. The rape of a 9-year-old child is the most notable, and the resulting prosecution. The abortion is only notable because of the age of the pregnant person and the necessity to travel across state lines. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • While this reflects quite poorly on our society, I disagree. The abuse of a child in this way may feature on the local news, but what made this an event of national significance and coverage was the fact that the girl became pregnant and needed to cross state lines to receive medical care appropriate to the situation, due to entirely political restrictions. BD2412 T 17:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately I have to agree with BD. This subject isn't notable because a child was raped, horrifying as that is. It's not notable because a child needed an abortion, horrifying as that is. It's notable because a 10-year-old rape victim had to travel outside her state to obtain an abortion. Any article title that doesn't deal with that isn't a good title. I don't know what the best title is. But it's not one that focuses on rape or on abortion. That's not what's notable here. Valereee (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, mention abortion in the title, e.g. 2022 abortion performed on an Ohio 10-year-old, since the circumstances surrounding the abortion are what made the subject exceptionally notable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's not the abortion that made the story notable enough for WP, it's that she had to cross state lines to get it. So mentioning abortion without explaining that is leaving out the important part. We'd need to change it to something like '10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion'. Which is a bit unwieldy. I'm not sure there's really a perfect title here, just make redirects if you think the title makes the article difficult to find. Valereee (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  How about 2022 post-Roe cause-célèbre? We can really put some panache on it. Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  [5] Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Elizium23, I am having a very hard time not finding your dismissiveness of the seriousness of this subject offensive. You've suggested the rape is only alleged and that perhaps this was an artificial insemination (as if that's better?). You're now suggesting this article be moved to post-Roe cause celebre, very strongly implying you believe there's no horrific crime here, just a political ploy? Valereee (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• No Maybe, the abortion isn't the main issue, it's the rape. The abortion is just how the world found out about the rape. It should probably be called "Rape of Ohio 9-year-old" although--the world being filled with evil as it is--that's a title that may need to be disambiguated. I wouldn't worry too much about the title, though (except that I support fixing 10-year-old to 9-year-old because that's the correct age of the victim when she became pregnant per RS) because once the trial starts, the defendant's name will be all over the RSes, and the common name for this topic will probably be "Trial of ____" or "People v. ____" or something like that. Levivich (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: Tragic as it is, abuse of children in this manner is frequent enough to generally be non-notable. The pregnancy is a more notable aspect, but virtually all of the coverage relates to the circumstances and aftermath of the abortion. BD2412 T 18:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

    I see your point. In a few months, as the trial gets underway, the focus of RS coverage will shift from the out-of-state-abortion issue to the attack and the defendant. At bottom, I don't think the article title would be improved by adding the word "abortion" to it, nor for that matter the word "rape", because I think the phrase "pregnancy of a 9-year-old" sufficiently covers by clear implication both rape and abortion. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yes. 2022 abortion performed on an Ohio 10-year-old is best name. This event is about abortion in America.

    Yost’s appeared to be arguing that Ohio’s law — which bans almost all abortions after a heartbeat can be detected, usually around six weeks — isn’t actually so stringent that it would actually force a 10-year-old rape victim to carry a child to term. That aspect of all this is important in light of the GOP’s controversial post-Roe plans, which often include not providing abortion exceptions for rape and incest. It’s why the case became big news in the first place. ~ The Washington Post

    Sad to say MSM is right on the money. Pregnant minors are commonplace in America :[ 2600:387:15:1C17:0:0:0:C (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Levivich: I would not be so sure that the prosecution of the rapist in Ohio will shift attention from the abortion when the doctor who performed the abortion is simultaneously being prosecuted in Indiana for performing the abortion. BD2412 T 17:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I think that's the solution: make as many redirects as you like, but this eventually will properly be at the name of the trial. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Changed my "no" to a "maybe" per the continued discussion; I'm no longer sure, but I don't oppose it. Levivich (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• This is about an abortion, so, yes, it should be in the title. Maine 🦞 19:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is about a rape, so rape should be in the title. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't about rape or abortion. The reason this is notable is that a 10-year-old rape victim couldn't get an abortion in her home state. We'll likely have a common name once the trial starts, so this entire discussion is likely moot. Just make redirects. Valereee (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Valereee: There are, however, two legal proceedings going on roughly simultaneously – prosecution of the (alleged) rapist and prosecution of the doctor. BD2412 T 18:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think the prosecution of the doctor could be a section in this article. If it ever becomes actually anything other than phthththt, we can spin it off. Valereee (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think there may be some confusion going on here; there is no court "legal proceeding" or criminal "prosecution" going on against the doctor in this case. Instead, Indiana's medical licensing board is scheduled to hold a hearing on February 23 regarding the doctor's medical license. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  @AzureCitizen: The attorney general of the state personally requested that the state's medical licensing board take disciplinary measures against the physician, which measures may include stripping the physician of their right to practice medicine. This is absolutely a legal proceeding, one being undertaken by the state against an individual and subject to appeal to the courts. BD2412 T 15:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's not a legal proceeding in the arena of the courts until it enters the civil court system or the criminal court system; for now, it's a request by an individual (anyone can file one) to a licensing board to look into alleged misconduct, with the possibility that results in the revocation of the physician's medical license. The point here is that characterizing it as a "prosecution" of the doctor is a misnomer, and if you read carefully what I wrote above, I specifically said "there is no court legal proceeding" at present in this case. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Whats your point though? What does it matter if it's a court legal proceeding or another kind of legal proceeding? Does it matter if we call it a "prosecution" or a "disciplinary hearing" or a "license hearing" or whatever else? Levivich (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  The point here is to avoid conflating terms or concepts which can create confusion in discussions. "Prosecution" only happens in courts, so don't make the mistake of calling this a prosecution, instead call it a "disciplinary hearing" or "licensing hearing" as you suggested. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I would suggest something like 2022 Ohio child rape abortion case.--Pharos (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  I could support that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Perhaps 2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case. It's a bit of a mouthful, but covers all the key elements. BD2412 T 19:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

    I would say this is an "abortion case" related to Ohio due to the abortion in Ohio laws driving this whole incident. It's less material where the abortion itself took place. Pharos (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

    You might want to re-read the section currently titled "Indiana investigation". There's quite a bit about the actions of the Indiana attorney general and allegations of violation of privacy laws by the doctor who performed the abortion. Events in Indiana remain ongoing, and a hearing is scheduled for next month for a review of the doctor's actions. According to NPR, "Indiana became one of the first states to pass a near-total ban on abortion". This is not just an Ohio issue (but it is an Ohio girl). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support 2022 Ohio child rape abortion case. Since there is some confusion around the age, it would be better to omit it and just mention "child" in the title. Also an improvement to add "abortion" to the title. Adding "Indiana" would make it too long in my opinion. Vpab15 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. While I agree that 2022 Ohio child rape abortion case mentions all the key aspects, it's a bit headlinese and probably ungrammatical. What does "rape abortion" mean? You need an and there, i.e. 2022 Ohio child rape and abortion case. No such user (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, I support "rape and abortion". Vpab15 (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

In that proposed title, "abortion case" is the subject, while "child rape" is a subject complement. DFlhb (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that a properly hyphenated "child-rape abortion" is clear enough. BD2412 T 17:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed DFlhb (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think BD's probably got it right. Valereee (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, sorry. "Child-rape abortion" means the same as "abortion of child rape", and that is still nonsense. "Child rape" and "abortion" were separate events, and an "and" is needed between them. No such user (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any person having a modicum of facility with the English language is going to read the phrase "child-rape abortion" to mean the "abortion of a child rape". BD2412 T 19:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Except there is no "case" about an abortion? Levivich (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Incident? Valereee (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah or "controversy" but we hate those words. Maybe "case" is the right word to describe the various legal proceedings in Indiana (there are investigations, there was a lawsuit, there will be a medical board hearing in Feb). Failing to come up with a title is a red flag that you're writing about something non-notable IMO. I wonder if these should be two articles: one about the Ohio rape, one about the Indiana abortion, although that doesn't seem ideal either. Maybe "2022 Ohio child rape and Indiana abortion", which conveys the involvement of a minor, a rape, an abortion, and the crossing of state lines. That might work at least until the trial starts and we start talking about whether to work in "illegal immigrant". Levivich (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither the rape nor the abortion are notable on their own, I think. What's notable is that a victim of child rape couldn't get an abortion in her home state because of Dobbs. That really is why this became notable. For fifty years, she'd have been able to. Now she can't. I'm not sure the fact we can't come up with a pithy way to describe it definitely means it's not notable? I do get your point, though. Valereee (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right, though, it's one thing not two. Now I understand why they ended up calling it "The Troubles". Levivich (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think "case" works here. The most similar article we have is 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case, and many other articles about rape also have "case" in the title. Pharos (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: Do you think that a child who is raped and impregnated by an illegal immigrant has a stronger claim for access to an abortion than a child who is raped and impregnated by a U.S. citizen? BD2412 T 20:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

lol of course not Levivich (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Then why would we need to talk about whether to work in "illegal immigrant"? BD2412 T 21:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not because of my views on access to abortion. :-) Because the sources talk about it. Also, that was a joke. Levivich (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Consider using 2022 travel of 10 year old Ohio rape victim to Indiana for abortion. It's really long compared to most of the article titles on Wikipedia, but it has the advantage for common name purposes of being similar to various news headlines that came out (e.g., "...case of 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel for abortion" in The Washington Post, "10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion" in The Guardian, etc). It avoids the ambiguity problems of the other suggested titles, is more likely to come up for readers in search engines, and covers what's truly notable about why we even have this article in the first place, the fact that a ten year old who was raped and impregnated had to travel from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion (this case wouldn't have attracted national attention had the child been close to the age of consent). The downside is that at 67 characters, it's really long, but there are article titles on Wikipedia that are more than 200 characters in length (such as this one and this one). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Offering a tweak to shorten it: 2022 interstate travel of child rape survivor for abortion, it may not be WP:CONCISE, but it is WP:PRECISE, and I think precision > concision given the complex and sensitive nature of the topic. I don't think it really matters which states--I'm not sure that detail is important enough to include in an already-long title, but if others felt it was, I'd support that, too. I also think "survivor" is better than "victim" but would support either. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'd support that. Valereee (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think "interstate" is a good choice for recognizability. It leaves the reader wondering in which country the events happened. Maybe most readers are US-based and it is not a problem for them, but this is supposed to be a global encyclopedia. Vpab15 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Global in coverage, but English in language, and I don't think most English speakers would confuse the word "interstate" for the word "international" (based on the definition of "interstate" in non-US dictionaries). Levivich (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, now that it's 2023, and we know there will almost certainly be no other 2022 incident to disambiguate this against (unless something comes out at what would now be a fairly late point), I am actually thinking we can go with something as simple as 2022 child-rape and abortion controversy, and leave the rest of the details to the article (and redirects). I think this is one of those rare cases where we could use "controversy" in the title. BD2412 T 21:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, there's US-centric assumption there. It's so generic it fails 'precision' in WP:CRITERIA. This isn't a global issues and in the UK, where I am, it has little to no prominence as a controversy - that title is too vague to mean anything. It needs to have some linkage to this particular case - be it geographical or, in due course, names of anyone convicted etc. ("Interstate" on its own has a particular meaning in the US and is also unclear to non-US readers) DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  2022 U.S. child-rape and abortion controversy? BD2412 T 02:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  That would work - I assume from a US perspective it does rank as a national controversy? DeCausa (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply - Should "U.S." not be written out as "United States"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @DeCausa: It was commented on by the President of the United States, and other political figures from outside the states involved, and was reported in national news, which I would consider enough to call it a national controversy. BD2412 T 18:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Yep, that sounds national. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• At this point I suggest 2022 Ohio child rape and Indiana abortion incident. It isn't an exclusively Ohio matter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Force rank titles for new article

I am on a phone now, but I think that a discussion in which users force rank multiple titles may be in order. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think the real issue is to determine what elements should be in the title, and then work out a configuration that succinctly includes those elements. For example, if the title include "abortion" then it is probably not necessary to specify "pregnancy". BD2412 T 19:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  As far as that goes, if a child is having an abortion, rape is redundant too. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the basic elements should include that [1] this happened in 2022, [2] this was a minor child (using either "child" or "10 year old"), [3] that the child had to travel (be it interstate travel or travel from Ohio to Indiana), and [4] that the travel was undertaken to have an abortion, which subsumes the inherent rape and pregnancy due to age. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree with those four elements. Levivich (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

For brevity and because there's argument over 9-yo vs. 10-yo, go with "child", I think? Valereee (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it necessary to mention the travel? WP:RS headlines face similar constraints as Wikipedia titles, so I checked, and most of them just mention "Ohio", "10-year old", and "abortion". That would give: 2022 Ohio abortion of a 10-year old. Only a minority of news articles headlines (typo) mention her being forced to travel; and that's where we get in unwieldy territory, like these two headlines: [6][7]

The fact that she has to travel to Ohio is part of the topic's notability, but the opening sentence can handle that. People have only heard of one abortion of a 10-year old in Ohio in 2022, so it's as precise as it needs to be. And it meets recognizability, naturalness, and concision pretty competently. DFlhb (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC); edited for concision, since I made things too unwieldy; see permalink to previous version 21:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I would just remind American editors that this is a controversy that has prominence (clearly) in the US but not necessarily elsewhere. For instance, in the UK it's little discussed or noticed. As mentioned in the the thread above, if state names (Ohio/Indiana) are omitted from the title there needs some other indicator that takes it away from the generic beyond the 4 points in AzureCitizen's post (names of individuals - which doesn't seem possible at present - reference to the U.S. etc) . The year is not enough. DeCausa (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - Are you sure she traveled to Ohio for the abortion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Oh. You're right. How about 2022 abortion of a 10-year old from Ohio? I quite like it. DFlhb (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  "abortion of a 10 year old" makes it sound like the 10-year-old is the fetus, rather than the pregnant person. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to me that BD2412's suggestion in the thread above - 2022 U.S. child-rape and abortion controversy - gets round many of these problems. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Then 2022 abortion performed on a 10-year old from Ohio? I do prefer "Ohio" to "U.S." in the name, for recognizability. Would also prefer "rape" not be in the title; I know we're WP:NOTCENSORED, but it feels unnecessary. DFlhb (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• I noticed that 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case was added to the see also section of this article, which is comparable in some respects (though the dispute there was with the reaction of the Church rather than that of the state). BD2412 T 23:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Looks like 2022 Ohio girl abortion case was created early in this page's history. No one proposed it so far, but it would work. DFlhb (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  To me, that title makes it sound like it's about a girl who was aborted in Ohio in 2022 (and the other one sounds to me like it's about a girl who was aborted in Brazil in 2009). Levivich (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Same. I feel like this is about selective abortion. Valereee (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Post-relist discussion

Would anyone care to post one or more "finalist" proposals, and then maybe we can ping everyone back to this discussion and see if there is agreement on a target title? I'm not sure which of the proposals above is/are the best finalist(s), and since I've proposed a few myself, I'd rather someone else make an assessment of what exactly seems to have the most consensus so far. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - Pinging @BD2412:, @Steel1943:, @Elizium23:, @ProcrastinatingReader:, @Levivich:, @Maine Lobster:, @DFlhb:, @Bastun:, @Valereee:, @BarrelProof:, @Giraffer:, @AzureCitizen:, @Pharos:, @Vpab15:, @No such user:, @DeCausa:, @ONUnicorn: --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - Here are all of the current redirects to "2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio", and perhaps a few other possibilities:

10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Struck as POV. Unstrike if you strongly disagree about that and think it is a real contender for the best choice. She wasn't forced to get an abortion; the concept of the Ohio law is to prohibit abortion, not to force travel. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
3. N This one, to me, suggests that the child was taken from Ohio to Indiana by kidnapping or coercion. BD2412 T 05:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Struck as POV and overly lengthy and kind of awkward while still not mentioning Indiana. Unstrike if you strongly disagree about that and think it is a real contender for the best choice. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 abortion performed on a 10-year old from Ohio

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Struck, almost identical as the one below, but less "Wikipedia-like" and concise. DFlhb (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 abortion performed on an Ohio 10-year-old

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Disapprove. The abortion wasn't in Ohio, and this formulation emphasizes the abortion without mentioning the rape or interstate travel. It's not WP:PRECISE enough and I think it will lead to confusion, with the reader thinking this is about a 10-year-old getting an abortion in Ohio, when it's more about a child rape victim not getting an abortion in Ohio (and having to go to Indiana). Levivich (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
3. N Disapprove and struck, more-or-less per Levivich. This is missing the interstate travel / Indiana element and gives the false impression that the abortion was performed in Ohio. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 child-rape and abortion controversy

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Disapprove and struck. Too vague. Sounds like a more general subject rather than a particular incident, and "controversy" titles are ordinarily discouraged on Wikipedia. The article is not merely about the controversy, but also about what happened to this particular girl and what other people said and did about it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 Indiana abortion

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   Note - This option is my favorite by far, as it is, in my humble opinion, the most notable abortion in Indiana in 2022. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

2. N Disapprove – too vague to be recognizable. I would strike it if Jax hadn't said it was their favorite. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

   N Same. DFlhb (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

   N Same, and noting that I nom'd this at RFD. There were significant changes to Indiana abortion law in 2022, and this title will confuse readers with Indiana abortion/Abortion in Indiana. Levivich (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   Struck it after three consecutive disapprovals that agree with each other. Let's take this off the table, as there are others that are clearly more agreeable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 interstate travel of child rape survivor for abortion

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Disapprove as a bit POV and vague, failing to refer to the United States or anyplace within it, and 'survivor' doesn't seem like a good word here. Unstrike if you strongly disagree about that and think it is a real contender for best choice. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 Ohio child rape abortion case

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Struck as ungrammatical, and having the same problem as the one below. No such user (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Y Approve --Pharos (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
4. N Disapprove - I think other titles, though longer, are clearer. We need a few articles and whatnot in this title. Levivich (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 Ohio child rape and abortion case

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Struck. The "abortion case" wasn't/isn't only or primarily in Ohio, so this title is misleading. Here, "case" might refer to the legal case(s) in the courts of Indiana and the district attorney's office of Indiana and the Indiana medical licensing board's consideration of the actions of the Indiana doctor, but those cases aren't in Ohio. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 Ohio child rape and Indiana abortion

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Y Approve – not bad, but adding 'incident' is better, so struck the suggestion. Unstrike if you think it's really better than "... incident". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

   After the further evolution of the discussion, this one is now my preference, despite the fact that I had previously struck it. It has two advantages over the similar titles: 1) It is more concise, and 2) It avoids problems of interpreting what "case" or "incident" might mean and whether those words should be pluralized (e.g. per Levivich comments). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

3. Y Approve - I think I like it better without "case" or any word like that at the end. Levivich (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Y This is fine too. DFlhb (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Y Approve – not bad, but 'incident' seems better than 'case' and I'm a little confused by the hyphen, so struck the suggestion. Unstrike if you think it's really better than "... incident". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Y Approve - but the hyphen seems superfluous. I think "case" works as well or better than "incident", and is shorter as well.--Pharos (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Y Approve; this, and the one below ("incident") and above, are currently my favorites. DFlhb (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Y Approve – I think this captures the necessary elements. The hyphen is gramatically required to indicate that the child was the victim of, not the perpetrator of, the act (yes, there are cases where people young enough to be called a "child" have impregnated others, generally of comparable age). I prefer "case" to "incident" precisely because there were and continue to be legal ramifications being adjudicated by tribunals. BD2412 T 01:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
6. Y Approve - but should it be "cases" because of the medical board hearing in Indiana in addition to the criminal trial in Ohio? Levivich (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   Here, "case" is not used in the sense of "a legal action", but rather in the more general and more common definition as here: "An instance or occurrence of a particular kind or category" or "A set of circumstances or a state of affairs; a situation" or "a single instance, occurrence, or example of something". I don't think it should be pluralized. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 Ohio child rape and Indiana abortion incident

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Y Approve – my personal favorite – captures all key elements. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Y Approve - this one is fine. DFlhb (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Y Acceptable. Same as the one above except I think "case" is more specific to the legal situation, and is more concise. BD2412 T 01:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
5. N Disapprove, I don't like "incident", it's vague and there was more than one incident (the rape, the travel, the abortion, the media/political reaction, etc.). I think "case" or "cases" is better than "incident" (or "controversy" etc.). Levivich (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 Ohio girl abortion case

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Disapprove – sounds like the fetus was the girl and neglects Indiana. Unstrike if you think this is a serious contender for best choice. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Y Approve - this matches the only vaguely parallel article on enwiki, 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case.--Pharos (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
   • The child in the Brazilian case did not need to travel to a different jurisdiction to receive the abortion, and consequently there were no proceedings in another jurisdiction arising from that. This would be more comparable if the proposed title was 2022 American girl abortion case, but that would expand the geography to the point of making the title ambiguous. BD2412 T 01:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
4. N Disapprove, it makes it sounds (to me anyway) like it's about a girl who was aborted in Ohio. Levivich (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   Struck it again. We need to keep down the number of candidates, and most comments about this one are negative. Feel free to unstrike again if you feel strongly about it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 pregnancy of a 9-year-old in Ohio

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Disapprove and struck – fails to mention abortion. The reason this case attracted so much attention is the law and social reaction about abortion, not the fact that a 9-year-old became pregnant. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 travel of 10 year old Ohio rape victim to Indiana for an abortion

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Y Changing to "for an abortion". Brevity shouldn't excuse grammatical nonsensical-ness. It's long, but I approve. DFlhb (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
3. If we go in this direction, I think "10 year old" should be hyphenated as "10-year-old" or "ten-year-old". I think it's a little too focused on the travel rather than the events in Ohio and Indiana, but others may not find that aspect a problem. It's also the longest of the current candidates. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   Ng Weak oppose. Per my previous comment, echoed by BD2412, this seems too focused on the travel rather than what transpired in Ohio and Indiana. The law of Ohio was a key element of the motivation for the travel, and that is notable, but the it is the laws and the events that took place in Ohio and Indiana rather than the travel that are more notable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

4. Y Approve. I think "for abortion" is fine as well, as are "10-year-old" or "ten-year-old". Though this is long, I find it to be natural, precise, recognizable ("Ohio child rape, Indiana abortion"), and concise enough. I have added an alternate below that is shorter. Levivich (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
5. N The problem with this one, for me, is that it sounds like a travelogue, as if the journey itself was an eventful aspect. BD2412 T 05:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 travel of Ohio child-rape victim to Indiana for an abortion

1. Y Approve - proposing this as a shorter version of the one above. Levivich (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Y This one is good too. DFlhb (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
3. N Per the above, this sounds to me like a travelogue, as if the journey itself was an eventful aspect. BD2412 T 05:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Ng Weak oppose. Per my previous comment above, echoed by BD2412, this seems too focused on the travel rather than what transpired in Ohio and Indiana. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 travel of a child to Indiana for an abortion

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Disapprove and struck. The law in Ohio seems more key to the incident than the Indiana destination, and the travel doesn't seem as much of a focus as what happened before and after the travel. Also, "a child" could be a child of 16 or 17, which would not be nearly as notable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 U.S. child-rape and abortion controversy

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Disapprove – "Controversy" titles are usually discouraged, and this sounds like a more general controversy. Not clear that it's about one particular incident. Unstrike if you strongly disagree and think this is a real contender for best choice. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 United States child-rape and abortion controversy

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Disapprove and struck. This sounds like a more general topic rather than a single incident. Also, "controversy" titles are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. The article is not just about the controversy but also about what happened to this particular girl and what other relevant people said and did. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Case of 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel for abortion

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Disapprove and struck as POV. She wasn't forced to travel; the concept of the Ohio law is to prohibit abortion, not to force travel. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Indiana abortion

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Strike. Such a redirect would need to point to Abortion in Indiana, not here. Nonstarter DFlhb (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
3. N Completely agree with the strike. Sounds like the general subject rather than a single abortion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Disapprove and struck – fails to mention abortion. The reason this case attracted so much attention is the law and social reaction about abortion, not pregnancy. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Rape of Ohio 9-year-old

1. Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2. N Disapprove – fails to mention abortion. This is fundamentally a controversy over abortion. Sad as that may be, the rape of a child is not sufficient to attract this much attention. Unstrike if you strongly disagree about that and think it is a real contender for best choice. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment That's too many - a coherent outcome won't be ascertainable. The suggestion was "one or more " finalist proposals. DeCausa (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - I will make this an open list. Please feel free to strike through any of my suggestions. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is too many. I should have been more specific about "one or more". Levivich (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - "Please feel free to strike through any of my suggestions". --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  OK let me be more blunt: I'm not going to take the time to read 20+ versions of the title (or howevermany there are, I'm not even going to count) and think about which ones I like and don't like. I wouldn't ask anyone else to do that, either. Levivich (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm afraid it's a little much. I can maybe go strike the ones I think are untenable, maybe that would help. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply - I am probably also too close to this list to down select less than one half dozen names, so I will allow another user to down select about that many. I have already specified my favorite title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I tried...started through, but there were just so many of them. Like, '2022 Ohio sexual assault case' is just a complete nonstarter. I don't think starting with every redirect is the answer. Valereee (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Valereee:, please do. Would you like for me to place {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} around all of the redirects? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm just now realizing those are all redirects. That seems like more than is needed. Creating a redirect to this article called "2022 Indiana abortion" seems somehow WP:UNDUE or something, that's such a broad title-- sorry Jax, I know that's your favorite, but I've RFDed it. "the most notable abortion in Indiana in 2022" seems an inappropriate reason to have a redirect to me, particularly when the person who had that abortion is a child. Levivich (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I simply deleted the certain SNOW-reject ones. Wouldn't it be better if you hatted all these (as a "reference list" of sorts), started a new subsection, and only put your 3 top ones there? Anyone could add one or two alternatives, but we wouldn't have such an unwieldy list. DFlhb (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - @DFlhb:, would you like for me to place {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} around all of the redirects? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I like BarrelProof's approach. There are now 13 left. We should all strike out our strong dislikes, and we'll end up with a manageable list. If anyone strongly likes one of these struck choices, then unstrike it. Once we have fewer than 5-6, we can discuss. DFlhb (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  We're now down to five. Of course the number could go back up if someone wants to reopen some of the struck ones or add other suggestions. Also, one of the remaining five has 2/3 disapproval so far, so perhaps that one can be discounted as well. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  It looks like we might be converging on "2022 Ohio child rape and Indiana abortion", possibly, or possibly not, appending "case" or "incident", thus making a group of three. The other suggested titles are much less popular (about half or more opposed), while these three variations seem generally acceptable. Among the three, "2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case" appears to be the leading candidate among those who have commented, although the more brief "2022 Ohio child rape and Indiana abortion" has also been acceptable to everyone who has commented so far and has had no suggested modifications. There was a suggestion to pluralize "case" in the other one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:59, 25 January 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.

Should the name of the suspect be in the article?

Should the name of the suspect be in the article? I asked here and at WP:AN for the edits to be permanently removed, but to no avail. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not, and thanks for bringing it up. As far as I can tell, it was re-added by a now-blocked IP editor and it doesn't have any existing consensus for inclusion, so I'm removing it per WP:BLPCRIME. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Jax 0677 beat me to it. Good removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Reply - Should it not be removed PERMANENTLY? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm no expert on rev-del/oversight policy, but I don't think so, having reread WP:CRD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1 § 10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion until a consensus is reached. MaterialWorks _(talk) 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Ohio abortion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ohio abortion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10 § Ohio abortion until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)