Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy/Archive 1

Article split
Please read the article on Splitting and Summary style. This is not a "second article". It's meant to be the only article on the Sandra Fluke controversy. In fact, I think it's a good idea to move it there.

I'd prefer to have only short summaries of the media incident at Sandra Fluke or Rush Limbaugh, with the long version here.

But I won't edit war, even though I spent a lot of time discussing this beforehand and actually doing it. If the consensus is against me, I'll go with the flow. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Makes Since to Me

I think the Sandra Fluke article should be integrated into this one. There is no reason to have a topic on Sandra Fluke except for this topic. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously from the News events of the period, this whole episode is politically motivated by both parties. One an activist for the New Healthcare System, (Obamacare), the other party an activist against the system. It's my opinion this article should be deleted or Wikipedia might want to generate a new website called "WikiPolitics" to establish this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolphin203 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Location Location Location
Or, if you prefer - context, context, context. This should not be a standalone. The material is best served by being presented and engaged in a broader, deeper context. That is to say, the standalone approach isolates and weakens it, and inappropriately and misleadingly addresses the incident/controversy - by implication of its standalone status - as if it were sui generi.

It's not. Regardless of one's political or cultural (or sociological, or whateverical) take on RL's behavior and the response(s) to it, it is IOTTCO that the instigating behavior and the progress of the incident is of a piece with many other such incidents/controversies in RL's career. There are patterns to be discerned - on both RL's behavior and in the responses to it. This is also IOTTCO. Therefore, assuming appropriate Wiki eschewment of rightfully-dreaded ORIGINAL RESEARCH, the best way to offer readers their opportunity to detect or analyze such patterns on their own, is for the material to be offered in a proper, full, broad, deep context.

This means, ideally, that all material suitable for classification as singular Controversies reside in the main RL article under that heading.

If this is deemed too bulky, or too much of a side-track from the main flow of the main article (but, then, how could one consider RL's hi8story of controvbersial statements and the resultant blowback broohahas as other than part of the main flow of his career?) the very least, any standalone article should cover all appropriate RL controversies, in chronological order - with, in the main RL article, the appropriate "see main article "Rush Limbaugh Controversies" JTGILLICK (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I just noticed yesterday or this morning that the Rush Limbaugh article and the Rush Limbaugh radio show article both have the same (duplicated) section on a half dozen controversies. I have no objection to breaking out a Rush Limbaugh controversies article. We could then put RS-SF into that.


 * Just get consensus, and I'll help with the heavy lifting. (Oh, and read WP:SPLIT first for a few pointers.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree; this article only exists because of the recency of the comments, and it should not exist. It should either be integrated into the current "Controversies" section, or as is being discussed, be moved to a future "Rush Limbaugh Controversy" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.147.176 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What she said
Shouldn´t the first section be something like "Background", or "Sandra Fluke´s statement"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Started a background section today. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of when statements were made
As the article currently stands (1:44 US-Eastern, March 5th) it seems as though Rush used identical phrasing on two consecutive days when speaking about Ms. Fluke. It could also be that the last editor did not read the previous pages and wrote up the the information in a slightly different fashion. I know the article is changing rapidly but it would be good to have a clear reference as to when statements were made and if they were repeated. Something like 'The following afternoon Mr Limbaugh repeated his claim of...' 209.51.184.10 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The move to from "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy" to " Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy"
What is the point behind that? I think it should be "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy" Casprings (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The use of the uppercase is resevered for what are termed "proper names". You see, this article has what we call a "made-up name only found on Wikipedia" and on this Wikipedia, we only reflect what is to be found in the sources. Speciate (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "misogynistic"
The lead currently announces the Wikipedia conclusion that the Limbaugh comments were "misogynistic" in nature. That's an unsourced value judgment -- and it's also an unsourced conclusion.

The term "misogynic," as an adjective, means "having or showing a hatred and distrust of women." The term "misogynistic" is of course an alternative form of the adjective. See generally Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 735, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th Ed. 1976). Similarly, "misogyny" is defined as "hatred of women." American Heritage Dictionary, p. 803, Houghton Mifflin Company (2d Coll. Ed. 1985).

I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of making its own value judgments or drawing its own conclusions about the nature of Limbaugh's comments. If we can find a reliable, previously published third party source that has characterized the comments that way, that's a different matter. (If the sourcing is somewhere else in the article, I missed it.) Famspear (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I found a quote in the article that does use that term. Changing the lead accordingly. Famspear (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly missing from the lead paragraph are the actual words on which the controversy rests. In journalistic terms, the lead is buried. If it were only a matter of Limbaugh having "mocked" the student, which is as far as the lead goes, there would be no story. Therefore, the direct quotes - "slut", "prostitute", etc. - belong in the lead. As for whether the episode deserves its own article, absent a follow-up event of enduring notability, such as Limbaugh's resignation or financial ruination, this is little more than a news story that will fade once its cycle is run. Allreet (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the media
In the background section of the article is not quite accurate. The following statements should be changed from "Democratic members invited Barry W. Lynn, a prominent UCC minister and leader of the American religious left. Democrats asked the committee to substitute Sandra Fluke for Lynn, but committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) refused." to "Democratic members invited Barry W. Lynn, a prominent UCC minister and leader of the American religious left, and Sandra Fluke. When the committee restricted the Democratic members selection to a single panel member, the Democrats asked the committee that Sandra Fluke be that panel member, but committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) refused." Reference: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/304550-1 67.168.49.195 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The second version is just not true. Fluke was simply not an invitee, never made it to the agenda or speaker list. There was no restriction on how many speakers could have been invited within the time frame before the agenda was set. Barry Lynn remained on the list because he was a late (on the morning of the hearing) scratch. Fluke had never been a speaker to that point. 00:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 (talk)

Barry Lynn was submitted, approved, and put on the agenda and schedule, then he cancelled on the day of the hearing. The request to substitute Fluke for Lynn, who was the only witness submitted in advance by the Democrats, came an hour before the hearing.
 * And the committee rule was to submit names 72 hours prior, for vetting if wanted by either Democrats or Republicans on the committee. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

C.E.S.; the only possible problems with the paragraph as it is now are 1) the word "substitute". Technically, no-one knew where Barry Lynn was when the panel started, and the chair offered to add him to the second panel if he arrived late. Fluke would have been an addition. 2) technically speaking, the Democrats hadn't submitted Lynn at the cutoff on Monday. When the 5:00 deadline to publish was coming, and no Democrat nominees had been submitted, phone calls were made, and Lynn was added based on verbal information. His written nomination was only received the day before the hearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
Limbaugh slut affair is being redirected here. I don't know much about the situation but that title seems a little...odd. Thoughts? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And deleted. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 12:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 March 2012
Please change the title "Sandra Fluke's Press Conference" to the correct "Sandra Fluke's Testimony," because it was not a press conference. There were no media there asking her questions, she did not speak to the media and was not interviewed by them.

Definition of press conference: arranged meeting with journalists: a meeting to which members of the press are invited to hear a prepared statement and to ask questions about that statement.

One definition of Congressional hearing: hearings may also be purely exploratory in nature, providing *testimony* and data about topics of current interest.

Hers was the latter, not the former.

Thank you.

Exactly10 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It was changed to "Sandra Fluke's Statements to Members of Congress" but I think "Sandra Fluke's Testimony" as you requested would be more suitable. It is what the given sources call it, too. - Xcal68 (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not "testimony" because it was not sworn.

It is not "Cogressional" because it was not in response to, or before, "Congress."

It was a statement in a contrived forum, staged to look like Congressional testimony, made without an oath binding before Congress, made only to Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This was thrashed through extensively when Fluke had her own page. "Congressional Testimony" has a specific meaning, and referring to Ms Fluke's speech as such confuses. Yes, it happened in an office in the Congress bldg, and there may be other meanings in a different context to the word "testify", but the whole phrase means something that Fluke never did.

No oath/other certification - no legal consequence for false testimony Does not have to follow guidelines, including subject, or a hearing. NOT subject to cross-examination NOT open to both parties NOT entered into the Congressional Record.

She spoke at a Democrat Party event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

AND THIS ARTICLE IS STILL LOCKED WITH NO ABILITY TO CORRECT THIS OBVIOUS DISTORTION. OPEN IT UP DEFENDERS OF THE FLUKE!!! 108.85.232.242 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC) gettingitright57

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hide behind your silly rules. There is no basis -- at all -- for calling the forum in which Fluke appeared and made a statement that was not under oath and not before any instrumentality of Congress a "hearing." This is kept locked by rank partisans. That is why wikipedia should not cover current events. This page sucks and should be deleted! 108.85.232.242 (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)gettinginright57

Any Other Video?
I put three videos from the Wiki Commons page ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke ) It shows her testimony and the President response   There are some more videos there, but I think that is the most important. Should any others be added? That said, the video I would really like to figure out how to put up is the video of Rush's statements ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05/1071386/-Video-53-of-Rush-Limbaugh-s-most-vile-smears-against-law-student-Sandra-Fluke )  Anyone have any thoughts on how to get this done? Casprings (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke's notability?
Clearly crystal balling, but what type of event gets her a page again? Casprings (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you seeing a new event or achievement surrounding her that you're unsure of? At the moment, I'm only seeing little redundant dribbles of news on her, while some (tv/blogs) are still trying to capitalize on her 15 minutes of fame, in order to ride the ratings wave. - Xcal68 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am under the assumption that she will be a part of the Dems campaign for President and a lawsuit is coming. That is clearly a prediction.  However, I think that is a fair one.  Would that be enough for a story?    Casprings (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The general guideline is Notability (people). In cases like this, we are usually looking for the person to have established notability in some way that is significantly distinct from the original event that brought them instant fame.  For example, if she capitalizes on her instant fame in order to enter politics, or becomes a frequent contributor on cable news (talking about something other than this event), or establishes a high profile for advocacy not immediately connected with this issue, etc.  Generally something that further establishes public awareness of her but is distinct from the current controversy.  There certainly are examples of people capitalizing on instant fame in that way (e.g. Joe the plumber), but it certainly isn't guaranteed.  Of the two items you suggest, becoming a fixture of the Democrat campaign seems more likely to qualify for a personal biography than simply continuing the current controversy with a lawsuit would.  Information about a lawsuit would probably just be folded in here, if it occurs.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like it becomes a stream of events at some point. I mean, why does Lilly Ledbetter have a page?   Her fame seems to be connected to one event ( Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. ).  It seems to become a stream of events at some point that does make the person notable.  I guess what I am reacting to is that it is what I see as a high degree of Subjectivity.Casprings (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Background is the Bio from the deleted Sandra Fluke page
Hi‎ Casprings.

I feel the current state of the Background section provides far too much unnessary information regarding Sandra Fluke. I believe it puts too much emphasis on her and takes away from the actual article's purpose - the controversy.

How would you feel about shortening it a little, something along the lines of "...has been involved for many years working with families and etc etc." As it stands, I think after leading in from "Democrats asked the committee to substitute Sandra Fluke for Lynn," it almost seems like WP is making an attempt to justify her inclusion.

What do you think? - Xcal68 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And I would love to have others chime in with their opinions. - Xcal68 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is too long.  I think some of here back ground is needed.  Why not try to edit it, keep what you think is important, and limit it to 1-3 Sentences?  Casprings (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm on mobile all and can only do small stuff. If you or someone else could fix it, that'd be great. - Xcal68 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

AGREE. Her background section resembles more a CV promoting her as a Law Student than anything relevant to the Media flap. Should be taken out. She was pretty much unknown until the attempt to insert her into the hearing (perhaps this is the most relevant part as one of the reasons she was turned down as a speaker was that no-one could find out who she was). The only parts of her background that are RELEVANT are that she appeared at a media event the week before (org by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend), and that she founded a Catholic Students group that supported the Democrat/liberal/progressive agenda. Possibly also that she entered Georgetown with the intent to demand that the Health care policy be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Which is why it's important to have even the barest amount of background. Do you have more relevant, public data? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Forum to avoid edit war problem is, prior to Feb 2012, is RAIL thin, and source for the breathless prose is a profile blurb in the Georgetown U press office that would have basically been written by Ms Fluke herself (though probably cleaned up)

INCLUDE
 * Degree; Cornell, 2003, Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies


 * First and only job. Worthy of a note only, possibly mention Sanctuary for Families, nothing else of note. Don't get me wrong, Sanctuary for Families is a great charity, but [RELEVANCE] has nothing to do with contraception or First Amendment Law aka any issues this article addresses. Further, they list all their key employees, and she was never one of them, going back to 2004 (the last time one left). If you need any proof that she was a five-year entry-level grunt, she lists Program Evaluation Initiative as a key contribution. Institutional Reassessment is something orgs. like this do on a 5, 7, or 10 year cycle, and is one of the most onerous and dull housekeeping function of a big non-profit. Something you add to a Law School application to puff up your CV, not put in an Encyclopedia.


 * Media leading up to the Congressional hearing where she wasn't a witness. Pretty minor stuff, if you stick to things actually relevant to the hearings or speeches. Obviously, the only major one is her inclusion in a student press event Feb 9 organized by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend where Fluke was one of several who spoke representing Catholic students. Relevant, because it is the only reason anyone knew who she was, and the speech is basically the same as the speech she later delivered . She also wrote an editorial in the Georgetown student newspaper, basically the same as both speeches. Only other relevant link is her only law article, in The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, entitled "Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons" (link is a pay-for site http://articleworks.cadmus.com/buy?c=1010377&url_back=http%3A%2F%2Farticleworks.cadmus.com%2Fgeolaw%2Fzsw00311.html&d=zsw00311000613&buyopt=2&price=3.50&publication_id=zsw ), not notable of itself, but relevant as she argues that free gender reassignment is also a universal human right, tangentially related to insurance issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

DELETE
 * all the student activities stuff. On a job application, OK, but listing which activities, which law clinics she attended, interning on professors' projects; NOT relevant or notable. These are all self-authored in a University press office publication.


 * New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court. If she says she was involved, fine. Going to meetings about this, also fine, take her at her word (which is the text of the WP entry), but NOT relevant to article, and can't exactly be called an accomplishment. "Co-founded"? If true, perhaps notable but still questionable relevance. Problem is, this was actually founded by NY State Sen George Winner, from Upstate. No mention of Fluke in any reports on this or the foundational paperwork. Only doc she is supposed to be on is a petition/letter of support circulated around the State after Sen Winner started this, which included 190 names and signatures in support of cooperating on the legislative push. Co-founder seems a little ridiculous, if all she was was one of the first 200 people to join Sen Winner's new campaign. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Casprings; Simply deleting all factual, sourced references just because you don't think those facts advance your goals is inappropriate and contrary to the policy and purpose of Wikipedia. The Biography was a hash and best done away with, but if it is to be there, should cite RELEVANT biographical info, namely those that relate to law, insurance issues, contraception, or lead to the controversy. ALL the sourced items you deleted fit those criteria, none of those you substituted do. You are arguing that her only law article, which is also only one of two places she is know to have weighed in on insurance issues is NOT relevant, but her student activities unrelated to any issue in the controversy ARE relevant. POV is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Casprings; With regard to why the items, all solely from school profiles self-authored by Ms Fluke are inappropriate. Caps are used to distinguish comment from WP definitions and policy


 * Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves


 * Shortcut: WP:SELFSOURCE


 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves (WHICH THIS IS NOT), without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * the material is not unduly self-serving; (IT IS ALL SELF-SERVING, AND IRRELEVANT)


 * the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)(THEY ARE ALL CLAIMS ABOUT THIRD PART ORG.S THAT CANNOT BE CONFIRMED BY THE THIRD PARTY ORGS);


 * the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject (THEY ARE ALL CLAIMS ABOUT EVENTS UNRELATED TO THE CONTROVERSY, WHEREAS THE FACTS YOU DELETE ARE DIRECTLY RELATED);


 * there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material(FACTS ARE DUBIOUS; SEE TALK; SOURCE IS THE PRESS OFFICE VIA MS FLUKE);


 * the article is not based primarily on such sources (THE SECTION IS NOT AN ARTICLE PER SE, BUT YOU WISH TO REPLACE A SOURCED SECTION WITH NOTHING BUT WP:SELFSOURCE ).

This article still portrays Fluke's unsworn statement stage by Democrats as "Congressional testmony"!!!
It is not and never was "testimony" before Congress!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple reliable sources state that she "testified" ("testimony"), e.g., , . AV3000 (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The first source makes the following statement. "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) then arranged for Fluke to speak at an unofficial hearing."  I am going to change to reflect the source.  It should be noted that this was not an official hearing.  Arzel (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; let's cite that description (done). AV3000 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Should "congressional" be removed completely from that? The source you add refers to it as "House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee during a mock hearing."  Or is that considered "congressional?" - 22:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcal68 (talk • contribs)
 * The Steering and Policy Committees of the United States House of Representatives article makes it appear to be an operationally formal component of Congress. AV3000 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It is still not adequate because the Steering Committee is NOT an committee of the Congress -- it is an association of Democrats only -- anything that gives the IMPRESSION that this was anything more than a mock up made to LOOK like a hearing is misleading SPIN and PROPOGANGA. 17:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC) GettingitRight57 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 (talk • contribs)
 * It is definitely enough that the article describes her speaking only in front of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (Jonathanfu (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

Editorial sources - Jane Fonda and FCC
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fonda, Jane, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem. "FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves." (editorial) CNN. March 10, 2012.

Does wikipedia really need to be a summary of current news stories?
The only information on such a controversy would come from the mass media. Does wikipedia really need to be a clearing house for summarizing the big story of the week? Shouldn't it wait until it shows up in other more substantial sources?

Just a thought. Ann arbor street (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see there was already a discussion for an Afd. However, I think wikipedia should change its policy on current events, to let some time lapse before deciding if the article will be worthy of an encyclopedia.  Time will tell if Sandra Fluke is the next John Scopes or Rosa Parks, or just a passing media fad.  While this may not be the proper forum to discuss a change to wikipedia policy, this article is a great example of why such a discussion should be held somewhere.  I'm too busy to make noise about it elsewhere.  Ann arbor street (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Time will tell if Sandra Fluke is the next John Scopes or Rosa Parks"

Hear, hear. A little overstated, maybe; but mr. LoudmouthLimbaugh is most certainly not going to be that.Sintermerte (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

DISAGREE This is not mere news, there are profound philosophical and legal principles at stake. I have appended an expanded version of my subheading segment Philosophy of human rights jurisprudence that was repeatedly vandalised/undone at the now-defunct Sandra Fluke page (on the conflicting tenets of positive law with universal natural law) with wikified linking to other humanism entries. I have also addressed the valid criticism of unsourced, unreferenced content by adding three references (69-71), particularly relevant citing a member of the Georgetown faculty who has gone on the record since the events transpired. MrsKrishan (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See also bullet points were vandalized by PaintedXBird, I reverted and reformatted -- MrsKrishan (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * vandalised? you don't understand WP if you claim every deletion is "vandalism". i removed them once (twice now), but other people did it before me. this is because their relevance isn't sourced in anything on the page. which makes your additions original research. people have endeavoured to tell you this repeatedly and you made the same edits on the "sandra fluke" page when it existed which were also removed, by other people. you're seemingly won't listen or acquaint yourself with content policies despite any prompting. Paintedxbird (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How is adding relevant "See Also" topics an example of my not listening or "acquaint yourself with content policies"? The topic of natural law was referenced by Ms. Fluke herself using the Latin term cura animarum as I referenced in my subsesction tath is NOT ON THE PAGE and therefore capable of BEING RELEVANT since its vandalized/edit warred out of RELATION to the true facts of the event under discussion, in arbitrary and capricious (ie an objectively non-NPOV) fashion -- duh! May I retort with "acquaint yourself with content policies" ??? MrsKrishan (talk • contribs) 23:26, 18 March 2012 (corrected my lapse in use of tilde signature)

Politicisation
It seems very unfortunate that this page and the related but now deleted page on Sandra Fluke herself seem to have become targets of political positioning. What is required is an examination of the broader issues raised by Fluke and Limbaugh and the political implications. This is particularly regrettable from the perspective of WP:WikiProject Feminism--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * agreed 100%. this page should be deleted. 108.85.232.242 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)gettingitright57


 * sorry, but WP doesn't censor articles based on IJUSTDONTLIKEIT!!!1111. please keep talk pages relevant to improving the article according to wikipedia's core content policies. this page isn't a forum. Paintedxbird (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

For what purpose was Reason magazine labeled in this article as "pro-market"? Such a description seems beyond the subject controversy. —ADavidB 08:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * because the magazine has an overt political agenda as an anti-government intervention lobby. it's not an apolitical organisation and as such, their leaning should be identified so that their claims aren't given undue weight. Paintedxbird (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I trust you'll be attributing the word "liberal" with every entry sourced to the Huffington Post? No, somehow I doubt it.


 * Libertarians are pro market and pro capitalism. I think the problem you're having with labeling RM over and over, after repeated objections from at least 3 other editors is, that you just don't know what a Libertarian is.


 * Given that 3 others disagree with you (Freeper, the above, and me), I trust you'll leave it alone now, as I fix it. Consensus so far is not in your favor. - Xcal68 (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * they're not all "pro-market" libertarians are divided into two groups, some are for economic equality, others are for capitalism. left-libertarianism, right-libertarianism. i'm reverting it. you didn't ask for any consensus, you have 3 naysayers, but it's not like you opened it to the floor. put it up for vote if you like. i don't see why there's a controversy though. when reason is proud to be free market and you are fine with it, it's ridiculous that you would try to hide it.Paintedxbird (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverting it puts you further into WP:3RR. The controversy began when you tried to ad unneeded labels to them against others wishes. - Xcal68 (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * are you going to remove the labels "democrat" and "republican" from the page too? you're citing a columnist's editorial. it's should not be of the same weight as a secondary source reporting on someone notable (which is the ideal for wikipedia) so there should be greater elaboration in regards to the author if it's even worth accepting on the page. Paintedxbird (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Libertarian IS the elaboration. - Xcal68 (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * in america, libertarianism is mostly associated with right-libertarianism due to the country's history, but that doesn't mean it's the same everywhere. as i've already indicated. once again, if reason and you are proud of your capitalist views, then why are you trying to hide the fact you're pro-market? last i checked it wasn't a slur or a biased term. Paintedxbird (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The magazine was already labeled as libertarian. Additional subcategories appear divisive and out of place, and do not indicate a neutral point of view. —ADavidB 17:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * as i've repeated, libertarianism isn't as clear or exact as you think it is. which is highlighted in the above wikilinks. some libertarians are anarcho-communists/libertarian socialists. just because you've read some tea party, ron paul, mises, reason stuff identifying as libertarian, doesn't mean the only definition or the prevailing one follows the same character outside of the US. pro-market, is not a controversial label. it's an apt and informative description. again, where is the divisiveness? outside of the unexplained and unreasoned objection of you and xcal68. here's the manual of style for wikipedia nothing i've done contravenes it. Paintedxbird (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is TOTALLY irrelevant what you think. What matters is how they are identified in reliable sources.  I'm now asking you for the third time to provide WP:RS showing them being referred to as "right-wing". Until you do so, you are violately policy and may not keep that in the article.  Period.  If you do not like that, get a mediator.  Furthermore, 3 editors disagree with you!  You do not WP:OWN this article. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * my last edits didn't identify them as right-wing, per your deletions. i said they were pro-market. which is cited in the same source used to describe them as libertarian. i've already explained myself, repeatedly and very simply many times now, but now you're just filibustering.Paintedxbird (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Right-wing is where you started. I've never seen any RS from you justifying any other label than libertarian.  Asking for RS isn't filibustering.  It's what articles are based on.  You say something, you have to be prepared to WP:PROVEIT. - Xcal68 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * http://reason.com/about "Reason is the monthly print magazine of "free minds and free markets." free market is pro-market. reason is a pro-market libertarian magazine. Paintedxbird (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Still only WP:OR and personal opinion, eh? - Xcal68 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this article's coverage isn't inherently the political implications of the Limbaugh-Fluke incident, perhaps a simple "Libertarian" tag would suffice? No need to delve into all the ins-and-outs of which branch, sect, whatever it may be:  Reason is a self-ascribed Libertarian magazine.  No need to say "Right-wing libertarian", "Left Wing Libertarian", "centrist anarcho-syndicalist libertarian."  Keep it in perspective :) 67.252.153.82 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Antifeminism vs the more NPOV "critic of feminism"
in the current WP:LEDE, it says "The Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy erupted on February 29, 2012, when American conservative talk-show host and noted antifeminist[1][2][3][4] Rush Limbaugh" ... Does Rush claim to be "an antifeminist?" I see that there are sources that accuse him of being against feminism, but it seems to me that the term "antifeminist" is not the most NPOV term. Perhaps a more NPOV term would be "critic of feminism." I am boldly changing the lede words to say he is a "noted critic of feminism" while keeping the piped link to Antifeminism. Thoughts? Peace, MPS (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "anti-feminist" can be found in only two news op-eds also containing the word "Limbaugh". In both http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/05/republican-party-declares-war-on-women?newsfeed=true http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/konrad-yakabuski/gops-contraception-attack-alienates-women/article2357549/, they are talking about Santorum. So I support your change. Speciate (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not in fact only in those sources (just look at the citations!) and "critic of feminism" is not more NPOV. Reverted. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)There is a clear difference between criticism of feminism and an anti-feminist. The anti-feminist article implies that Rush is against an equal society between men an women. I have never heard him call himself an anti-feminist, and you certainly cannot use biased sources to label him as an anti-feminist. Arzel (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not required to use terms that he himself has used (anyway, has he called himself a "critic" of feminism??) if reliable sources like ABC-CLIO, Purdue University Press, his biographer, ..., ... use the term to describe him. Articles are meant to be written using reliable secondary sources, not merely to reflect the self-serving image provided by primary sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hard core Lib Maureen Dowd called him an Anti-feminist, not his biographer, nice try though. Arzel (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironic that you would call positive sources as self-serving when the very sources you are using are self-serving as well. Anyhow, there is a clear difference between being a critic of feminism and anti-feminism which I clearly stated above. Sources attacking Limbaugh as such are not sufficient to label him as one. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't anyone ever tell you that repeating something over and over doesn't make it true? Academic sources - the best possible sources available - describe him as antifeminist. Whining about how they're attacking him just shows that you're not interested in engaging with the material or the sources, confirming the impression which began when you didn't even try to produce sources supporting your terminology. Similarly, if you had actually read the biography page I cited, you would see that it was the biographer who described him as antifeminist, but obviously a biography of the subject isn't self-published or promotional enough for you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously you didn't read the passage then either. The biographer was quoting Dowd.  I am not "whining" about Dowd and others, they don't like Limbaugh and that is fine, I don't particularly like him either.  Arzel (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is English not your native language? Perhaps you should read the page again. Also, please see BLPN, where I've listed even more of the available sources. Again, "BLP" =/= "license to suppress anything that doesn't make the subject look good, no matter how well-sourced." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * still trying to censor articles to push your conservative beliefs arzel? someone ought to have a word tbh. i stopped at four reliable sources, i could've listed over 20. i did a bit of searching for verifiable sources (which i've not already used):


 * Antifeminism in the academy by Vèvè A. Clark http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YEj9zgRCzcgC&pg=PA87
 * Postmodern texts and emotional audiences by Kimberly Chabot Davis http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YEj9zgRCzcgC&pg=PA87
 * Constructing Masculinity by Maurice Berger http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xEcHahwJNDMC&pg=PA286
 * Aesthetic Subjects by Pamela R. Matthews http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CEpQybKalXIC&pg=PA127
 * Going Rouge: Sarah Palin: An American Nightmare by Betsy Reed http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LcZxEJ4KniwC&pg=PA286
 * Eight lessons in love: a domestic violence reader by Mark Spilka http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jwq6pJwyEDEC&pg=PA13
 * Women in higher education: a feminist perspective by Judith Glazer-Raymo, Estela Mara Bensimon http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Id8_AQAAIAAJ (pg 63)
 * American Culture in the 1990s by Jacqueline Foertsch http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TS5f8K9d8B0C&pg=PA69
 * The Nation vol 207 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6dFNAQAAIAAJ (pg 91)
 * A not so foreign affair: fascism, sexuality, and the cultural rhetoric of American democracy by Andrea Slane http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_piHZ-C6mVcC&pg=PA87
 * Contemporary feminist theory and activism: six global issues by Wendy Lynne Lee http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2xrfr-dyuTUC&pg=PA2
 * It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office by Jennifer L. Lawless, Richard L. Fox http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X3PkMhfHxM8C&pg=PA72
 * Motherhood and feminism by Amber E. Kinser http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eI3irDuAQXEC&pg=PA96
 * Psychoanalysis, Historiography, and Feminist Theory: The Search for Critical Method by Katherine Kearns http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Lv6plgMnhewC&pg=PA20
 * Big girls don't cry: the election that changed everything for American women by Rebecca Traister http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cQ0ciqF3F5gC&pg=PA148
 * Ranting Again by Dennis Miller http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vvdvpZBSIj0C (pg 92)
 * The New York Times biographical service, Volume 21 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EUUoAQAAIAAJ (pg 1196)
 * Women's issues, Volume 1 by Margaret McFadden http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=IBRfT6SpHeSp0QXyxe2qBw (pg 61)
 * American Decades: 1990-1999, Volume 10 by Vincent Tompkins, Judith Baughman, Victor Bondi http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uCkOAQAAMAAJ
 * Climbing the Hill: gender conflict in Congress by Karen Foerstel, Herbert N. Foerstel http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gM5e21TrpecC&pg=PA140
 * There's a Word for It!: A Grandiloquent Guide to Life by Charles Harringto Elster http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MKZc3ZrUED0C (pg 130)


 * some news sites and paper publications:
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/16/magazine/the-rush-hours.html?pagewanted=9&src=pm
 * http://articles.nydailynews.com/1997-06-06/entertainment/18028270_1_rush-limbaugh-equal-time-fund-raising
 * http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/106303/sayonara,_sarah_palin/
 * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33278077/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/t/countdown-keith-olbermann-friday-october/#.T18dO22VWSo
 * http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-07-19/news/1993200167_1_limbaugh-conservative-and-liberal-ron-smith
 * http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-05-25/features/9705250283_1_feminism-word-overalls/2


 * etc. there's still more... Paintedxbird (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

OBVIOUSLY, Paintedbird has a huge library and encyclopedic knowledge of radical feminist literature. HOWEVER, just because that is a term used in that world, doesn't mean that it is the right one for a general encyclopedia entry. While it IS used, it is done so as an insulting term (you know, like "slut", or "Political Theater") and, particularly in the lead, is inappropriate and CLEARLY not NPOV. If you wanted to put antifeminist in the section on criticism of Limbaugh, for instance, where OPINIONS are being listed, fine.209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Something doesn't suddenly become "criticism" just because a user or two might disagree with it. It can be cited to source after source, many from academic presses. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Unlike "slut" which is only a term of insult, "anti-feminist" can be neutral description. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a neutral term, if it where you would not have the left so eager to label him as such. Arzel (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. Using something like "noted critic of feminism" would assuredly be more NPOV, but on the other hand, we have Limbaugh quotes like "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." If that's not antifeminism, I don't know what is. (Jonathanfu (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC))
 * This is not a neutral term, if it where you would not have the left so eager to label him as such.
 * Oh, I see. So because you perceive "the left" to be attempting to use a label, therefore, the label is not neutral. That's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard in my life. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Rush claims to be anti-feminist, at least, he coined the word 'feminazi'. Why would you doubt his position? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's leave personal remarks out of this. Rush made enough to last a whole year, okay?


 * If both sides can agree that "he is a critic of feminism" then such language is by definition neutral. If one side says "he is an antifeminist" but the other side protests the use of the term, then it is unlikely to be neutral; it's probably a loaded term.
 * Compare: "She criticized the Israeli treatment of its Muslim/Arab population." (both sides agree language is okay)
 * Versus: "She is antisemitic." (opponents see no problem, supporters say it's biased)


 * Let us separate the description of his position (i.e., he opposes feminism) from the application of a label (i.e., he's antifeminist). --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What a completely ridiculous analogy. Let's instead compare "she calls Jews rats infiltrating the population" and "she is antisemitic," since that language actually resembles in some way, shape, or form the situation at hand. Moving past the silly analogy, you're only imagining the situation where everyone agrees he is a "critic" of feminism. Even "opposition" is probably an overly positive way of referring to his calling feminists ugly sluts and Nazis. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your analogy is much more apt. Surely Limbaugh may be called a harsh critic of feminism and feminists. His feminazi neologism is "synonymous" with the unrelenting venom of his stance. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery
This is the first time I've ever given Rush Limbaugh more than 2 seconds of my attention. I note with interest that a Google search of rushlimbaugh.com for the terms "antifeminist", "antifeminism", "anti-feminist", "anti-feminism" turns up several hits. None of them show Limbaugh referring to himself that way, some have Limbaugh saying that's how liberals characterize conservatives. In scanning a few of the transcripts, it seems to me that Limbaugh isn't against feminism in the sense of women feeling free to pursue their goals, it's militant feminism, the type that he claims tries to make women be men, that gets him all riled up. There are some references about he got "screwed up" by this, which might explain his bitterness on the subject.

In any case, if the list of sources above don't distinguish, as Limbaugh appears to do, between mainstream feminism and its militant faction, then the use of the term "antifeminist" should probably include a qualifier regarding what source applies that label. Otherwise he merely seems opposed to what he sees as militant feminists, a category in which he likely includes Sandra Fluke. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be an NPOV violation to say that he opposes "militant feminism," seeing as he appears to use the term to mean "feminism." We can quote him saying a thing, but we also have to be neutral in our own prose. Could you explain why you believe it's necessary to attribute "antifeminist" when it's the term used by dozens of sources, including scholarly/academic ones? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Where did I say I "believe" that? I didn't assert a position; I have no opinion whatsoever on the appropriateness of the term, and frankly I don't particularly care. I merely offered a suggestion for further exploration, based on Limbaugh's own words (admittedly a cursory scan) that suggest a distinction between types of feminism. If those scholarly sources (which I haven't reviewed) fail to grasp that distinction, that may indicate a fault in the scholarly sources rather than an authoritative usage of the term. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it more likely that scholars of feminism and of media are misusing the term, or that Limbaugh is misusing the term "militant feminism" when he uses it to mean any women's rights? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You have an authoritative source that says Limbaugh equates 'militant feminism' with any women's rights? That wasn't my take from my scans of his transcripts. He doesn't seem to view himself as antifeminist, just anti militant/radical feminist, in whatever way he makes that distinction.
 * Anyway, you could be right. I certainly have no knowledge of this topic. As I said before, I don't pay attention to Limbaugh. I haven't followed this story except for seeing unavoidable headlines, and looking at this article because I responded to a protection request. Personally, I feel that my life's remaining moments are too precious to waste on blowhards from the left or right who should be irrelevant, or on their media reactions that should be irrelevant, and I look on in wonderment at so many others who don't share this point of view. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Some more Thought is needed on the name
I don't think the name is really great. Suggest we put some thought in renaming the subject. I know this was thought out on the Sandra Fluke page, but I suggest we continue it here.Casprings (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Limbaugh-Fluke controversy? The word "flap" doesn't appeal to me.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  02:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that. Controversy is more appealing to me also.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unwise to use the term "Fluke flap", as this is something large marine mammals, especially whales, do. Could be interpreted as an ad hominem insult to RL.209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How about not having a separate article? This is absurd. "Limbaugh–Fluke flap"? Is this some kind of joke? Maybe mention this in the Rush Limbaugh article, but anything more is absurd. Where's the sense of perspective and proportionality? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rush just lost six sponsors over this and this is also national news..... This is not out of perspective or proportion.  You know how many one hit wonder bands have wikipedia sites?  Casprings (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see MZMcBride's point that a separate article may not be justified. If you feel so strongly, MZMcBride, feel free to nominate the article for deletion.  But what Casprings points out, and I believe the count is now seven sponsors lost, makes this more than a routine controversy. The notability of bands, though, is not relevant to this discussion.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I started a merge discussion here: Talk:Rush Limbaugh. I'd like to see a serious debate about the merits of redirecting this article into the main article (in this case, Rush Limbaugh). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right now there are too many articles. Ideally, there should be one; Rush Limbaugh. If there are to be two, then I guess Rush Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy are best. Having a Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke article and this one is highly duplicative and, frankly, an embarrassment. Speciate (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (see Splitting). --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

All right, you guys talk about it while I get some sleep and go to work tomorrow. Meanwhile, I've moved this page to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy because no one likes the term "flap" as part of the article name.

Goodnight, all! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Flap is not adequate to the deep division of opinions that came to the surface after the public appearance of Ms Fluke and the subsequent fuzzy-logic commentary of Mr Limbaugh - see my comments on definition of controversy under [| Edit Wars] and [|Mrs Krishans additions] MrsKrishan (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit War Undos March 11 2012
[Content section 10.]repeatedly undone, as was my contribution under Content section 4. on now-defunct Sandra Fluke entry. Revising a bold edit is not an edit war UNLESS revision = complete deletion/undo. I'm not the offending disruptive editor, rather User:AV3000 and User:ISTB351 are out of line. MrsKrishan (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As an outside observer, I hope that I can provide an unbiased viewpoint about why the "Philosophy of human rights jurisprudence" section (visible in this dif) was removed.
 * First of all, the section made claims that were not phrased with a neutral viewpoint. As an example, the following was the first sentence of the removed section:
 * "As a public advocate representing the interests of her clients, Ms. Fluke did not reference her own conduct, therefore Limbaugh's accusation of personal venality is groundless. "
 * My use of groundless is not biased subjective, but neutral objective, as in "has no factual accuracy, baseless" indeed my subsection contribution lends itself to develop this very point providing the arguments from right reason (aka natural law) not from biased subjective media and political commentary personalities on the ethics of conducting current affairs via broadcast media or non-peer reviewed public testimony (aka "being judged in the courts of public opinion") I maintain the rash deletion of 'Positive law vs natural law" should be revoked, see my comments under "Controversy" elsewhere on this talk pageMrsKrishan (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this sentence directly claims that Limbaugh's accusations were groundless rather than report it impartially as the opinion of an outside source (such as a public figure). Thus, it is a breach of WP:NPOV. Further NPOV violation is clear in several more sentences in the section: "Her arguments are as irrational and false under the logic held and taught in the Jesuit tradition. Her act of testifying in support of the Obama Administration's advocacy of mandatory private health insurance subsidy for abortion, sterilization or contraception can be characterized, philosophically-speaking, as a type of human rights violation equivalent to human trafficking." If MrsKrishan wants to include such statements in the article, then the phrasing must be changed to show that it is a viewpoint proposed by a notable outside source, not the editors of this article.
 * Secondly, the section was original research because it combined "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."(WP:SYNTH) In this case, the section used sources of Catholic philosophy that are unrelated to the current event that is the actual topic of the article. --Gardimuer (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding with 'content' - may I counter your 'unbiased' attempt at neutrality with other content found acceptable to remain in the article: [|ThinkProgress citation] affirms Ms Fluke "was advocating for a contraception coverage mandate on private insurance plans, on behalf of all women with such plans and not just herself." therefore the fact she was not being venal herself but advocating for venality in others (from Venus, Goddess of sexual love) has already been attested I am not making a novel point. My rephrasing this fact from a Catholic worldview is an attempt (so far unsuccessful) to avoid an overt bias or slant to a secular-only worldview that exists if the facts as they stand under under Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy remain expressed in this one-sided way. Secondly, my "notable outside source" on the Jesuit tradition is a senior Jesuit professor on the faculty at Georgetown, Fr. Schall's online opinion piece noted in my footnote that is unfortunately currently uncitable because the bias of certain editors consider "sources of Catholic philosophy" to be "unrelated" Sorry but if that's NPOV, I beg to differ, its perversely non-neutral. The Catholic philosophy of the academic superiors of the graduate student embroiled in controversy with them is, I humbly suggest, related. What logic you use to claim otherwise escapes me? -- MrsKrishan (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your point of view, and it is admirable that you want the article to contain information from secular as well as religious perspectives. However, I think you misunderstand what I mean by "unrelated." It is entirely possible that a statement by a Jesuit professor could be a good source for the article, but to avoid the problem of original research as explained by WP:SYNTH the source would have to be making a statement directly commenting on the controversy of Ms. Fluke and/or Limbaugh's responses. From my reading of the sources you linked, I see that they do not mention the Fluke/Limbaugh events at all. --Gardimuer (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My deleted subsection was not religious (ie dependent on revelation or divine inspiration) your criticism of it as such is therefore unfounded. I am not attempting to put "my spin" on your neutrality, nor do I have to defend how "related" my sources are the personages referenced before or after my edits. My contribution stands on its own rational merits as a neutral philosophical POV. I referenced classical (aka pagan) humanism as established prior to the Christian era. I referenced the Jesuit tradition in development of human rights to refute the cura animarum argument Ms Fluke raised in her very public televised appearance. Nothing you have noted above justifies the arbitrary and capricious removal of my contribution. Note my use of arbitrary and capricious is in their generally-accepted juridical sense. As a student of law, Ms Fluke should be familiar with their connotation in the sense of being non-neutral, biased and inherently unjust.MrsKrishan (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Double fault
In addition to the general sleaziness of Limbaugh's attacks, they lack severely in logic: getting one's expenses covered for doing X, is not the same thing as getting paid for doing X. Limbaugh himself is not getting his expenses covered for running his show, he makes money on it (however uncomprehensible that is to many of us).

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If I paid for a gun that someone else was going to use to kill someone with, I would be an accessory to murder, no? It'd be just as morally wrong.  I think you're kind of splicing hairs.  By the way, WP:NOTFORUM. - Xcal68 (talk)


 * Are you suggesting that whores do it for free, if you just bring a condom? What a comparison btw. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Depends on who paid for the condom. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC) who are you calling a whore, anyway? - Xcal68 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I maintained in my now-redacted-into-oblivion subsection entitle 'Positive law vs natural law' (on the original stand-alone Fluke page, and my attempted reinsertion of same on this page (see [| edit wars] and [| Mrs Krishan + definitions re:Controversy] elsewhere on this talk page ) Ms. Fluke's appearance that day did not make her guilty of the venal conduct attributed to her by Mr. Limbaugh. She IS guilty of a related and MORE SERIOUS venal conduct -- in moral theology of the cura animarum argument she bases her legal case upon -- she acted as an advocating third party (aka pimp/madam, Dante's ruffiari) in soliciting monetary subsidy (payments) for the venal conduct of others in a pubic not private arena (soliciting sex is illegal only when its public, aka kerb crawling, private means of arranging venal hook-ups are not usually subject to interdiction or punitive measures unless they are considered controversial under generally-accepted positive jurisdictions, as for example varieties of local statutes for prosecuting rape in cases of child abuse of minors or polygamy from both of which Muslims exempt themselves claiming the precedence of a competing positive code of law, known as Shar'ia. MrsKrishan (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This "article" is low budget, spun, CRAP
It is filled with spin, misinformation, and crap.

SHAME ON ALL OF YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that you're right about the low budget part, really didn't need to tell us that. (Jonathanfu (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

I fopund the same lock on the artical on Eric Bell....which included a mention of supposed ATTACT by right wingers.....is wiki sucumbing to propoganda spinners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.209.44 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

OK -- you want specifics for what is obvious?

1. This article refuses to openly state the TRUTH that Fluke:

Did not testify

Did not do so before Congress

Was not under oath

Was not subject to cross-examination

2. Does not allow challenging of her facts:

That contraception is hard to obtain

That contraception costs more that $3000 per year

And, ridiculously -- that 40% of Georgetown Law Women SUFFER FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AS A RESULT OF NOT HAVING THE PILL COVERED BY INSURANCE Gettingitright57 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)gettingitright57

3. This article exists to give gravitas to what is a media/limbaugh tempest in a teapot and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This loks like WP:SPA --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So comment on the fact that I am a newbie rather than the substance, which is that this is a horribly misleading article. 108.85.232.242 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)gettingitright57


 * This article also fails (in its current form -- absent the subsection on "Philosophy of humans rights jurisprudence" that I contributed) to challenge a fourth aspect of Ms. Fluke's flawed perception of the reception of her public conduct:

4. Ms Fluke's use of religious grounds for defense of her claim that her clients' are harmed, as she refered to the Jesuit moral theology tradition at Georgetown using the Latin term cura animarum (a duty of "care of the soul," as applied to superiors for those entrusted to their supervision, as in the case of residential students enrolled at an institution of higher learning in loco parentis, in place of their parents)MrsKrishan (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

MrsKrishan's additions + needed discourse definitions re:Controversy
i can see this becoming an editwar as she keeps adding wikilinks to natural law and procreative beneficence despite none of the sources on the page presenting it or using the term. she also adds her own original research for why contraception shouldn't be accepted. this is a vote to find out what the consensus is for keeping statements that aren't in accordance with the basic content policies: wp:V, wp:NPOV, WP:RS (aka not religious websites) and wp:OR standards. here are the diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy&diff=481429300&oldid=481428831 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy&diff=481567380&oldid=481519866 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy&diff=481567751&oldid=481567380


 * Delete until she cites reliable sources which relate to her additions. Paintedxbird (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons mentioned. - Xcal68 (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR on the third edit. (Jonathanfu (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC))


 * Is the term "controversy" -- a subjective value judgment that lends legitimacy to this article's existence, correct? -- open to interpretation for the purposes of this event? Or may I only proffer one of the interpretations of the two actors (Ms. Fluke and Mr. Limbaugh) or that of their supporters or detractors as cited? This is seems to me is a VERY NARROW (and therefore does not reflect the interest of Wikipedia to be "encyclopedically" related ie connected intellectually speaking, not merely culturally-specific or politically-constrained to an American POV, considering the institution under examination has an internationally-renowned reach and constitutes a significant element of the universal patrimony of a worldwide communion of all Catholics, and globally, others of different faiths or no faith who share the same humanism principles, e.g. Muslims, Hindus, Confucians).


 * Who was offended?


 * What exactly gave them offense (was the fact of the matter conventionally considered per se offensive in polite society -- define "polite" suing generally accepted standards that are externally verifiable resources, for example, the Jesuit tradition, ie Roman Catholic moral theology, ha ha -- or was the means of expression an incontrovertible fact offensive in its excessive use of verbal or physical aggression?)


 * What aspects of the offending event are incontrovertible in a pluralistic society and therefore remain controversial?


 * What aspects of the offending event are controvertible and therefore in a pluralistic society of freedom of speech not under one's personal control, see WP:DGAF chuckle, are therefore to be tolerated as mere differences of opinion (however hurtful to the perceived victim or damaging to the private self-interest of the antagonist)?


 * Absent "reliable sources" for your definitions on what constitutes a controversy (or incontrovertible fact, in the sense the word is being used in the article's title) I maintain the article would benefit from a grounding in generally-accepted metrics of discourse (aka philosophy) used to gauge the verities being asserted by those who were offended in the public events that have the appearance of being controversial. What thinking or worldview informed the arguments of the participants to establish the offense they perceive to have been harmed by? The subjective positive law as practiced in secular North American democracies differs in key objective aspects from the natural law of universal humanism aka civil rights practiced by South American societies informed by a transcendent Catholic heritage (slavery was abolished on the American continent first in the Southern hemisphere, only a century later in the Northern hemisphere). It interests me to parse the NPOV facts from all POVs not just the "balance of neutralities" of the majority of editors on this particular page. Wikipedia users expect to benefit from comprehensive linkage to related material, for example a traditional definition of NPOV formed by historical forces that gave rise to a so-called 'Western' way of thinking. Only by contrasting such POV to the novel POV or liberal interpretation of tradition ( see my comments below on her use of cura animarum a Latin term as yet undefined by any other contributors to this article, a use of the Latin that certain Jesuits would find non-neutral in the extreme) scholars such as Ms. Fluke. Those who claim NPOV status for their subjective ungrounded opinions, in contravention to thousands of years of peaceful development of advanced civilization should pls reconsider their unwarranted deletions to "See Also" for Natural law referencing an ethic of universal dignity for all human persons (ie metaphysial arguments in favor of the concepts of freedom of conscience, freedom of speech we are assuming in our debate on Wikipedia's editorial quality) and Procreative beneficence referencing other novel scholarly developments in reproductive justice, advocating healthcare mandates for euthanasia of lebensunwertesleben (Nazi German fascist term for "life-unworthy-of-living") of neonates (offensive association of subjective opinions is not reason for denying neutral contributions to the article significance to Wikipedia's utility, especially in fast moving areas of current affairs)MrsKrishan (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke biographical info
There is a nascent edit war over how much Sandra Fluke biographical material should be included. I believe that, while her personal life should be minimized, information that helps the reader understand her academic accomplishments and career are appropriate. Such content includes universities attended, degrees earned, papers authored, employment (including self-employment), positions and responsibilities, and programs started and managed. Such information helps the reader understand how she came to take on the issue at Georgetown and thereby be selected by House Democrats to give testimony, while preserving her privacy. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How does her academic career help people understand that Limbaugh called her a slut? Would it have been OK for him to do it if she had been a welder or a nurse or a stay at home mom or a fashion model or a TV Producer or a high school drop out? This whole article is built on trivia built on trivia.-- The Red Pen of Doom  19:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help understand Limbaugh's behavior, it helps understand how she came to take on the issue at Georgetown and thereby be selected by House Democrats to give testimony. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesnt help understand at all. None of her "background" is on healthcare or insurance. it shows her background is in discrimination and abuse. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of her background IS on healthcare and insurance. That is what is called the "Relevant" part. That is also the "Sourced" part. This has been written on extensively above in the "RE: Background" section above BEFORE editing by some, but NOT by others. "I think people want to hear what she has been doing since college" or "I think Sandra Fluke needs her own page" [and nakedly trying to undo the delete by posting on a different page] are not arguments for relevance on this page, nor do they trump properly sourced info.209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * re: ""I think Sandra Fluke needs her own page" - that question has been addressed by the community, and the community's answer is no. That people may want gossipy tabloid private details, doesnt mean that Wikipedia should become a gossip paper and not an encyclopedia to satisfy them. There are other places where they can get their needs met.--  The Red Pen of Doom  20:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry if unclear; Sandra Fluke does NOT need her own page, that has been decided (though another editor disagrees and tries to make this page the Sandra Fluke page). I think we agree. Biography should be RELEVANT lead in to controversy, not just simply [more accurate quote] "about what she has done since graduation from Cornell" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is clearly inappropriate to accuse me of removing content that I did not remove because it was added afterwards. Even so, the fact that she was involved in on-campus student protests on the issue of healthcare can easily be included in the article without having a seperate section on her. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There already is a ===Sandra Kay Fluke=== section, and its inclusion seems uncontroversial. It was briefly moved to the end of the article before being restored to a subsection of ==Background==, but it was never removed altogether. The Sandra Fluke page was removed from Wikipedia, but I don't think we can conclude therefore that we can't talk about her academic accomplishments and career in this article. Such facts are in no way gossipy tabloid private details. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, Exactly how are they relevent to the topic of this article? -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

ANSWER; in her one published law article she actually explains her reasoning and beliefs as to why contraception is a gay issue even though gay people don't have need of it (arguably the major theme of the "Congress" speech), and her arguments for mandated sex change operations is the same as those more briefly said in the speech. Referred to often in the debate with Limbaugh. Similarly, her media event the week before, she was one of 8 students, and her calling all moral objections to contraception "religious zealotry", the explanation of why the numerous free clinics were not adequate ("time on a bus traveling") and her condemnation of the "Catholic hierarchy", all criticized by Limbaugh, were not actually in the "Congress" speech, but were in the prior one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now we are on to something. If you have third party reliable sources that support that specific analysis. -- The Red Pen of Doom  05:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * QUERY to User:209.6.69.227: "... even though gay people don't have need of {contraception}" -- Are you under the impression that lesbians have immunities that straight women lack to endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome, both of which are treated with hormonal contraceptives because those regulate or suppress the menstrual cycle? Or, conversely, that gay men have no need whatsoever for condoms? Then please cite your sources. Raven (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Both may need something for NON-CONTRACEPTIVE uses, ie without need FOR contraception. Her paper spoke of non-contraceptive uses, her editorial and all speeches talked about non-contraceptive uses. Trouble is, non-contraceptive uses are included in every Catholic institutions' health plan, and are a non-issue with regards to the conscience clause. One of the reasons the last-minute addition of Fluke was denied; she indicated that she wanted to speak to a hearing on the conscience clause, but indicated she was not going to speak about the topic of the hearing.209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The examples you give aren't 'contraception'. Instead, they are examples of other uses that things sometimes used for contraceptive purposes may be used for instead. I'd have thought that this was fairly obvious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When the issue is whether or not 'contraception' will be available through one's health plan, due to disapproval of the concept by one's employer or school, your distinction fades. Fluke gave the specific example of a woman she knew suffering from polycystic ovarian syndrome, whose physician prescribed oral contraceptive pills for treatment. The Georgetown health insurance refused coverage because 'contraception' was excluded. The woman lost the ovary, and went into early menopause. Pity the company chose not to make the same distinction as your good self. But they saved money, which often seems to be a motive in health insurance company decisions. One reason for the DHHS mandate. Raven (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Georgetown health insurance refused coverage because 'contraception' was excluded." Not according to NPR "But while the Georgetown plan includes a medical exception, her friend never got the medication."  Does her friend really exist, anyway? - Xcal68 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The likelihood that Fluke's "friend" does not exist is low. The singular accomplishment of her Georgetown activism was getting the case mentioned in a NY Times opinion piece last year. There had to be SOME journalistic confirmation of some sort, one would hope. That Fluke's description is at odds with an understanding of the Medical prognosis and progression of the disease is also clear. P.O.S. is NOT treated primarily with contraceptive-strength female hormones, they only are sometimes recommended to control secondary symptoms, like male pattern hair growth, or infertility. Treatments to actually control and reverse the syndrome are diet and exercise, and/or antagonists to the excessive male sex hormones being produced. Contraceptives for non-contraceptive control of minor symptoms is not usually recommended unless diet and exercise do not work. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The health insurance chose not to believe she was qualified for the exception, as you may choose not to believe she even exists. "Beliefs" against the use of 'contraception' started the whole issue. As long as patients needing medication are at the mercy of what other people (not their physicians) choose to believe or not believe, such problems should be expected. Raven (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You said "refused coverage because 'contraception' was excluded."  I was only addressing that.  Her 'friend' being denied the exemption is a seperate issue - the issue to be truly addressed.  Regarding ""Beliefs" against the use of 'contraception' started the whole issue," that isn't accurate.  That is just how the issue was very skillfully reframed. - Xcal68 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Arguable. Cardinal Dolan's letter seems to say it's a matter of religious principle. On the other hand, at Georgetown, contraception is fully covered for faculty and staff, just not for students. So had the woman been faculty or staff, medical exception would not have been required. And at 77% of other Jesuit/Catholic law schools in the U.S. News top 100, contraception is covered even for students. These points were cited by Georgetown Law School's student government in a recent resolution asking the administration to explain this inconsistency. Raven (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Raven; let me get this straight; you are saying that it isn't the policy that needs to be changed, but it is the religious beliefs THEMSELVES that are the problem and need to be changed. Is that correct?209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Focus on how to improve the article, please. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be reverted back the the original intro. It needs to be a one paragraph brief concerning her life. Not a few cherry picked facts that make some happy. Casprings (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT ADDED LAST NIGHT BUT VANDALIZED; re why the only details Casprings includes are inappropriate

Casprings; PLEASE think before you edit war by blanking pages or putting questionable unsourced information in. She got into enough trouble over false information on the bio (such as age) the Democrats submitted the day of Issa's hearing, even though there is no evidence that SHE submitted it (and probably didn't). The information in her school bios has statements that aren't supported by the evidence, though they may be "slightly" true. All the "co-founded" and "sat on panel" and "initiated", when the rosters are published and she isn't on them are considered "exaggeration" on a Law school application, but considered lies on an application for a real job. She has not submitted them to an encyclopedia, where they would also be considered lies, don't you do it. There is a different standard for veracity. AND the vandalism of other people's comments by deleting them is not allowed. Stop it. DONE BY 03:11, 16 March 2012‎ Goethean (talk | contribs)‎. . (103,103 bytes) (-816)‎209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These personal allegations against Fluke violate WP:TALKNO and should again be removed from this talk page. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * disagree AND asked nicely and honestly about WHAT you thought. Below was just deleted
 * == Cannot understand your objection - please explain ==


 * RE

14:14, 16 March 2012‎ Goethean (talk | contribs)‎. . (103,988 bytes) (-1,216)‎. . (rm attack which violates WP:TALKNO) (undo) I neither meant nor made a personal attack on the other editor. I'm not sure why you think asking someone to think first before edit warring is an attack.

I'm also explicitly NOT making a personal attack on Ms Fluke, quite the opposite. Ms Fluke evidently made some extravagant claims on her Law School application profile that, as long as they stay there, are not a big deal, just hubris. I am trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, and assuming good faith. There are very few College applications that DON'T overstate a few roles here and there, and it is expected, although hers are a little bigger than usual. Taking those out of a place where they are not considered unethical, and putting them into a place Ms Fluke did NOT intend them, where they are NOT regarded as harmless exaggeration is unfair to Ms Fluke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Casprings, thank you for sharing your opinion. Please advance the debate by explaining why you believe the Sandra Fluke section needs to be one brief paragraph, and if you believe that details about her academics, career, papers authored, etc., are "cherry-picked facts" and don't belong, explain that as well. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RELEVANCE ATTESTED: Ms. Fluke's use of Latin term "cura animarum"

 * I am irritated by persistent criticism of authors like myself having their contributions to the page content (and the discussion here on the Talk page) vandalized by those who claim we are making unconnected arguments. Ms. Fluke herself connected her argument to traditional metaphysics -- the soul or anima was a popular pagan concept long before the Judeo-Christian worldview attained wide adherence -- so those of us who wish to expand the article in this direction have firm grounds for doing so. Please bring OBJECTIVE arguments to the table not your arbitrary and capricious SUBJECTIVE preferences for interpreting Wikipedia content guidelines in your own favor, otherwise your conduct can be considered harassment. Be fair, pretty please. MrsKrishan (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons - Single paper
Is there a reliable secondary source that details the notability of "Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons?" Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Huff post and Newspaper blogs, and sources of the more advocacy kind, but not in any actual "story" in any standard reporting media that I could find on google news. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Single publication - impermissible synthesis

IP editor states that the "singular" nature of Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons is important and not original research. I dispute both.

Important Wikipedia judges the importance of information by sourcability - if information is mentioned in reliable secondary sources, it is notable. If not, it is not. I don't believe the singular nature of the publication is mentioned. Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Research IP editor says the information can be confirmed by "search of Law db considered authoritative." This is WP:OR, and cannot be included. Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A Lexis or Hein search is not considered "original", Ms Fluke shows up in legal databases once. That can change, if you can find another, that is considered sourced. It is easily verifiable [the sine qua non of Wikipedia] repeatable [you are welcome to do so] and refutable.209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * yes it is, when used in this manner. --  The Red Pen of Doom  14:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Single paper
There is a nascent edit war over the word single in "... she authored a single paper, in The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, titled "Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons." Would those who support the word single kindly explain its significance. What is a single paper? Is it to say that this is the only paper she's had published in that journal? Is it to say that there was an issue of the journal that this paper filled to the exclusion of all other papers? Please explain the meaning of single. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is to say that that is the entirety of her output in all searchable Law journals or reviews. Easily checked, referred to by several, admittedly partisan bloggers and colummnists, but BETTER sourced as an actual Law journal search. Other academics' output is often characterized as, for instance, "over 100 papers", or some such, with the reference being that the database was searched, or the database searched. Ref to "single" could for instance be "Lexis/Nexis". 209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course academic lawyers who already have their law degrees would be expected to have had more than one paper published. But for a law student who doesn't already have a law degree, is it remarkable that this person has had only one paper published? Am I safe in saying that over half of law students without law degrees have had either zero or one paper published? And if this is right, shouldn't Wikipedia ignore the fact that this is her only published paper? —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you make the point that "single" is both NPOV and essential better than I could. IF you read the phrase as a neutral observer, given that Fluke is a 3rd year student, you would not see any problem. It answers a question, gives an accurate picture of her academic output, and is pretty OK for a law student. Absolutely not an insult nor can it be considered an attack. It is ONLY if you are trying to make Fluke something that she is not, namely a notable or eminent legal scholar, that accurate, NPOV information is an attack, not on Fluke, but on the political campaign to misrepresent her. Including the fact that this is her whole legal output just disrupts the spin209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup. Obvious spin is obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)