Talk:War on women/Archive 2

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Article titles are as precise as they need to be, and the case for further precision here has failed to gather broad enough support, and is not sufficiently convincing, to move the article at this time. Article scope can be controlled by reference to the core content policies or by using a hatnote to direct readers to alternative articles. DrKiernan (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

War on Women → War on Women (United States politics) – Should the name of this article be War on Women (United States politics) to match the existing scope and so that there is greater clarity about any future expansion? Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- A fuller explanation of the background is relevant to what kind fo "clarity" is being requested here. This article is highly charged politically,  consisting of a bunch of attacks on conservatives and Republicans.  Not long ago, I attempted to address the imbalance by noting Taliban War on Women.  This has been discussed in several news sources, and described as a "war on women".  A user reverted this, stating it was "irrelevant."  I took exception to that, pointing to the Taliban threat in question:We as Taliban warn you to stop working . . . otherwise we will take your life away. We will kill you in such a harsh way that no woman has so far been killed in that manner. This would become a good lesson for women like you who are working.  Obviously this amounts to a war on women, in a much more dramatic and direct way than any of the anti-Republican passages in the article.  Now the proposal is made to change the title in a way that makes the applicability of my addition less obvious.  So what is going on here -- a "clarification" of the subject?  Perhaps, but it sure looks like an attempt to refine the subject in a way that is more in keeping with a certain POV.William Jockusch (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jockush, if there is sufficient use of the term "Taliban war on women" then that article can certainly be written. I myself have only seen the Taliban mentioned in conjunction with "war on women" by right-wing politicians and commentators attempting to discredit the American political term "war on women" as referring to Republican actions and statements. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are two separate topics, and I see no cause for merging them. If you write an article on the Taliban's "war", then we can discuss its title and whether it conflicts with this one.  Powers T 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as determined in the discussions Talk:War_on_Women and Talk:War_on_Women. The rename would preserve the intent and scope of the article as originally formed by Gobonobo. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, excellent notion. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the move because it seems perfectly innocuous and accurate, but I also don't think it is necessary since this seems to be the primary usage of the term (with secondary usages thus meriting disambiguation). Either way, the extraneous material about the Taliban is clearly unsuitable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed name change does not reflect a useful clarification, but an attempt to exclude substantive material. If your wanted an article on substantive "war" on women, you would have to delete 90% of this piece of *$&^%* article, and INSTEAD have an actually useful article on repression in the third world, Extremist Islam, rape as a tool of war, etc. Wouldn't necessarily call it War on Women. The article has instead always been a posting board for talking points from Democrat/Progressive activists. Not that there could not be an article, but as has been pointed out, current partisan editors are in a pickle; it is clearly an article about a focus-group-tested Political meme, and an important one in the last campaign cycle, (and therefore a meme that should have an article) but those same partisan editors do not want a factual article that acknowledges that it is what it is. The fig leaves to try to pretend it isn't what it is either have to go (aka - let's get real), or if they aren't fig leaves, they need to be the subject of the article. Certain editors arguing out of both sides of their mouths. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about the political phrase and not about the way women are treated in the rest of the world, so you oppose the move? That doesn't make sense.
 * Yes, women are treated like shit in much of the world. No, no one calls it a "war on women" - and Wikipedia has a policy against WP:OR. I agree it would be nice to have an article on Wikipedia about the Suppression of women but right now all we have is Women's rights, Women's rights in Iran, and Feminism. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As of now I think that the title needs to be clarified. I think that the term "War on Women" is vague enough that it is needed (there isn't only one of them) -- similar to the term Civil War. I agree that the article has some bias but we need to remember this thread isn't about the notability or the content. After it is established, I would gladly work on neutralizing the content or looking through some sources for the article focusing on the Taliban or other hard-line "wars" outside of the United States. Dreambeaver  (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Civil war article is more of a broad-concept article, covering the general definition of "civil war" and its history throughout the world, and thus there is a need for a full list of civil wars and different articles requiring disambiguation. Conversely, the term "War on Women" seems to be only confined to U.S. politics, and thus needs no more precision. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is little more than faux charges against Republicans in the made up war against women. This move attempt is little more than an attempt to not allow other real blatent attacks on women in order to keep the Dem meme going as a coatrack of attack.  Arzel (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We know from the article text that the term and concept originated with feminists of all stripes, not specifically with Democratic Party members. I've shown at Talk:War_on_Women that the term has been used by a handful of third parties in the US, not Democrats. It's not a "Dem meme" nor a coatrack attack. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it really were a unitary concept, the Taliban would be in, but it isn't, the unitary definition is its use by Democrats as a political meme in the current election cycle. You can't have it both ways, editing the article to be an attack piece chronicling Democrat meme promotion, and on the other hand trying to deny that it is what you, by your editing, say it is.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Argument makes no sense. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no other topic to disambiguate from. Information about actual violence against women belongs there, so I'll add a hatnote. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good way to put it. The DIS-ambiguation needed is not with the article, but with the arguments.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Renaming is not only helpful, but necessary in my view, as there is no literal "war on women". Since there has already been efforts to dilute the article with tangential subjects, renaming will help establish the appropriate scope and context. As an aside, I think it's unfortunate that almost every disagreement in American politics is characterized as a "war" on something by the Media. - MrX 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more. War on poverty, war on drugs, war on women... these are campaigns not wars. Ah well. Rhetoric has it's place, I suppose. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no other article called "War on Women" at Wikipedia except this one.  The first sentence, "the War on Women is a political catchphrase used in United States politics to describe...", adequately circumscribes the topic.  —  AjaxSmack  22:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless it is part of the common name of the article's subject, putting a phrase in parentheses should only be used for disambiguation purposes, not for precision purposes. It is the lead section's job of defining the topic and summarizing the scope of the article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It shouldn't be needed but if it's the only way to keep the scope of the article on the U.S., I  to support it as a good solution.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No other article competes for this title.  Powers T 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was initially in favor of this move, but I can't support it per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as there is no other page to distinguish from. However this does not preclude us from adding an "Other uses" section for cases where the term's use has morphed into a new lexicon. WP:WEIGHT, of course applies.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternate Suggestion Since users below are arguing that the article is about an idea, not a phrase, how about changing the title to "War on Women Political Attack Meme"?William Jockusch (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, obviously. The article is about the catchphrase used in the 2012 election cycle, like the opening sentence immediately clarifies. Obviously, Republican-leaning editors are concerned about the public perception of their party's overall stance on women's rights. Let's not permit them to have their non-neutral way here. "War on Women" is what it's called, the capitalization of the word "Women" also immediately clarifies that it's not about an actual conventional "war on women". --195.14.221.253 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - for reasons explained already by AjaxSmack. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although I am a little surprised at the narrowness of the article. I would expect it to be about all forms of discrimination against women, in which case it would be titled War on women, a phrase that has existed since 1800. Apteva (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for comment -- Taliban
Withdrawn by proposer.

The question is whether or not the following is appropriate for this article:

Multiple press reports indicate that the Taliban is pursuing a war against women. In 2010, one woman received a threat that read as follows: "We as Taliban warn you to stop working . . . otherwise we will take your life away. We will kill you in such a harsh way that no woman has so far been killed in that manner. This would become a good lesson for women like you who are working." She did stop working. Another woman named Hossai received similar threats by telephone. She refused to stop working, and was then shot and killed by an unknown assailant. In 2012, the Taliban forced closure of 600 schools in two Afghan provinces where it had regained control. In one incident, schoolchildren had to watch while the headmistress and headmaster were executed for continuing to educate girls. In 2012, Pakistani child blogger Malala Yousufzai was shot by the Taliban for advocating education for girls.[url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/features/2012/10/malala-yousafzai.html] William Jockusch (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One, can't you wait until the RFM is done, above? If the decision is to move, your Rfc is, frankly, ludicrous. Two, a blog? Are you kidding me? No. Three, IF you decide to write an article using "war on women" and "taliban" you must have sources which say, exactly, "war on women" and that the Taliban is waging one. Anything else is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, and it is not allowed on Wikipedia. Strongly advise you withdraw this yourself at least until the RFM is closed. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources do say exactly that.William Jockusch (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, no, I don't think waiting would be appropriate. The suggested move appears to be a response to the Taliban additions.  So if anything, the move should wait for this, not the other way around.William Jockusch (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this material be added to Taliban treatment of women? The article for some reason currently focuses on the actions of the organization during the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996-2001). But since the organization endures it could probably be expanded to cover more recent material. --Dimadick (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No, of course this isn't appropriate. The users supporting it should really be ashamed of the naked OR in the service of their POV-pushing that they're engaging in here. As I've said repeatedly: if the sources can support an article on the Taliban "war on women" that is separate from Taliban treatment of women and Women's rights in Afghanistan, then go for it! Be bold! -- but don't damage a real article because you're sulky about reliable sources documenting these Republican policy initiatives. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources link it directly to "War on women." So, who should be ashamed here -- me for alleged OR?  or someone for stating this is OR without actually checking the sources?William Jockusch (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could point me to the place in the sources where they compare the Taliban "war on women" to the Republican "war on women." Perhaps I missed it -- or perhaps you just don't understand that articles are about topics, rather than being glorified search results pages for particular phrases. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences of the Daily Telegraph article. Also here .  And seriously, would it be possible to discuss issues without attacking me?William Jockusch (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake - I followed two of the sources which were completely and totally unrelated, neglecting the one that included a throwaway mention. However, since an op-ed from a right-wing think tank and another op-ed from the agenda-based Daily Caller clearly are not of high enough quality to require us to do anything at all, I assume you refer to them as some sort of intellectual exercise. Regardless, you've failed to address the fact that this article is about a topic, not a word. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for backing up on that claim. Its much easier to address actual issues when one is not being personally attacked.  Now, about the subject of the article.  My concern here is with the attempt to define the subject of the article in a biased way.  If "war on women" is used as an attack meme in one direction, it seems perfectly fair to include a response from the other side pointing out that the meme is being inappropriately applied.  Additionally, looking at the sourcing of the article, we have a lot of agenda-driven left-wing sources, newspapers that have not endorsed a Republican presidential candidate in over 40 years, and so forth.  Are you suggesting that agenda-driven sources from one side of the spectrum are not appropriate as references for a Wikipedia article?William Jockusch (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a complaint about a specific source not meeting WP:RS, please take it up in a new section. Tar-brushing the entire article with vague comments is unehelpful to improving the article. Also, just because a source isn't breitbart.com or foxnews doesn't make it "left-wing". KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose anything about non-USA limitations on women's rights. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is another source using the term by the way. I honestly liken this page to the Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy and the You didn't build that pages - both are on AfD and both seem to be campaign slogans - but wasn't around when that was suggested. Until then I'm just going to wait for the name discussion to end and to see what I can do. Dreambeaver  (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If this article is about a Democratic political meme then OBVIOUSLY, nothing about the Taliban should be in it.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If this article is about a substantive concept beyond the 2012 Democratic meme then obviously, about 90% of it needs to be deleted and the Taliban and actual wars on women need to be front and center.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify whether or not you believe that Republican politicians have actually made the statements and promoted the policies they are cited as making/promoting? Your claim that the article is only about a phrase makes no sense unless you believe that all of these reliable sources are lying and that these policies have not actually been promoted. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose No. Unlike many editors here, I don't have any major problems with this article as it stands, nor do I think the phenomenon it describes is a fiction. However, to compare the political "War on Women" to any actual systematic violence against women is abhorrent and incredibly insensitive. Add such information to general articles like violence against women, specific articles like Taliban treatment of women or Women's rights in Afghanistan, as above; its inclusion here would be a particularly ugly exercise in original research and/or synthesis. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire article is a synthesis.William Jockusch (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Taliban violence against women, while notable, is obviously not the same as political efforts to roll back women's reproductive rights, wage equality, etc. in the U.S. - MrX 21:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mostly Oppose - This doesn't belong unless it can be established that the term "War on Women" as applied to the actions of the Taliban has been used in the US political lexicon. However I see no reason we can't have an "Other uses" section that can be used to give a brief mention to other cases of WoW being used, especially if used in a political context.  If editors are strongly opposed to this enlarging of scope, then I suggest they create a new page for WoW and then the disambiguation of title discussion can begin.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This term was high-profile during the recent US elections and used specifically in reference to Republicans, who vocally denied it. Unless there were some Taliban members running for office in the US, or unless it was used by the media in reference to the Taliban's attempt to assassinate "uppity" high school girls, it doesn't apply to the Taliban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already have an article, Violence against women for the concerns of some editors here.  This article is not about the hundreds of girls and women that are kidnapped into prostitution, killed in "kitchen fires", raped as war booty, killed for being raped...need I go on?  Those things have been going on for hundreds of years and will continue to go on for who knows how long.  This article is about a recent political catchphrase used in United States politics to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are seen as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights. Gandydancer (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose because this RfC is merely an attempt to water down the issue by Republican-leaning people. "War on Women" as a political catchphrase relates exclusively to US politics, no need to further clarify that or to sanctimoniously ask whether non-US violations of women's rights should be included. They obviously shouldn't, because that's not topic of the article. --195.14.221.253 (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In light of overwhelming opposition, I am now willing to withdraw the RFC.  Is there a process for that?William Jockusch (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The easiest way would probably be to comment out the template. I'll do that for you, and you can revise as you see fit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

GOP Rape Comment Sub-page?
I would suggest that a page that detailed the GOP comments concerning rape would be a useful page. It could perhaps be a useful subpage of this article. It could be created out of the backbone of the Todd Akin article. As such I have started a merge discussion here.Casprings (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Newsweek
Post election article "The War on Women Backfires " Not sure what should be added to the article from this, thoughts? KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The effects on the election should definitely be added (I have some other articles too). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I haven't had time to compile any but of course Newsweek is about as RS as it gets for this sort of thing (not something with dedicated sources such as medical etc) but more is always better. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple more of them:, , . Some are op-eds and not necessarily useful, I'm partly listing them here so I can close them in my browser :P –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

War on Conservative Women
I recently added some material on this in order to bring balance to a badly out-of-balance article. The following portion was reverted and reduced to a brief summary:

''Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin wrote that the real "war on women" is a "war on conservative women". She stated that it's the progressive Left that has "slimed" female conservatives for their beliefs. She pointed to a list in Playboy Magazine of the 'top 10 Conservative women who deserved to be “hate-f**ked,"' including Michele Bachmann, Dana Perino, and Malkin herself. She also pointed to Gloria Steinem, who called Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison a "female impersonator," and Matt Taibbi, who wrote that when he reads Malkin's stuff, he imagines her "with a big, hairy set of (redacted) in her mouth". ''

My concern here is with WP:NPOV, which is a pillar of Wikipedia. To quote the relevant policy page: ''Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.'' As the bulk of the article consists of attacks on Republicans and Conservatives, additions such as mine are entirely due in order to bring the article into compliance with this policy.William Jockusch (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but an important aspect of NPOV is not giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority views. The very first sentence of this article summarizes the topic: "The War on Women is a political catchphrase used in United States politics to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are seen as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights." So Malkin's War on Conservative Women is not part of what we (per reliable sources) call the War on Women. It's fair to mention that there is a viewpoint that conservative women are the really consistency against which there is a war, but most discussions of the War on Women don't touch on this. The above RM and RFC make the scope of this article fairly clear. It is not a compilation of anything bad done to women (liberal insults of conservative women, Taliban violence against women, etc.). You're brushing up against WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will assume that the above assertion was in good faith, and that the individual making it merely failed to notice that this latest addition has nothing to do with the Taliban. I will further assume that the individual failed, in good faith, to notice that Malkin is a highly prominent individual, as her books have reached #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, and she regularly appears on Hannity, which is the second highest-rated cable TV news show.  I'm sure that the poster, being unanware of these facts, believed in good faith that Malkin not a prominent individual, therefore, the assertion that my addition was brushing up against a blockable offense represented a good-faith belief on the poster's part, and not merely an attempt to silence a dissenting viewpoint, or a "war on dissent", to coin a phrase.William Jockusch (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You can assume whatever you want, but this article has nothing to do with the Taliban - that's a different article - either Taliban treatment of women or Women's rights in Afghanistan - and a couple of comments don't change the scope to Taliban or conservative women. Malkin is one woman, and a blogger and commentator at Fox. She's not enough to counter what this article is actually about. Hannity is another talking head. He's very popular, no doubt, but he's not Newsweek, for an example. A couple of right wing commentators trying to argue that there is no "War on Women" because people say rude things about conservatives is not remotely significant enough to include in this article, nor does it change the scope of this article. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, now that I think about it, let me be brief and clear - the entire article should "consist of attacks on Republicans and Conservatives" because the article is about a phrase used to criticise Republicans. Whenever you try to add anything else, you are not making the article "NPOV" you are going off topic. Stop doing that. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * William, I brought up the Taliban for a reason. As I was making my comment, I searched this talk page to reference a comment of yours I had seen in the RM or the RFC, only to find a long string of you trying to insert other usages, from conservative women to the Taliban. Malkin's popularity on the right is quite irrelevant; does this mean her opinion on any political issue deserves its own section? Finally, if I were interested in warring against your dissenting viewpoint, I would have removed it altogether. Because Malkin is directly reacting to rhetoric on the War on Women, it's reasonable to give her a sentence or two, but that's it. --BDD (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The OP has missed a couple of key points. One is that the term "War on Women" is specifically about various Republican attempts to restrict women's access and rights, to infringe upon living their lives the way the want to. The other is that there is no corresponding Democrat threat to try to stop Malkin and her kind from living their lives the way they want to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Any limitations placed by other than Republicans are off topic. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP also added the statement that it's used to attack Republicans and conservatives. That's an untrue blanket statement, so I added "some". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, now I am totally confused, nothing new :). I removed a violence against women from the see also because its linked at the top of the page(not to be confused with note), but we have a section with the same name? --Malerooster (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If the article is limited only to republican issues then the title needs to be changed to the "Republican War on Women". That has a nice POV ring to it, does it not?  Arzel (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on what the sources call it. And certainly it should contain some thoughtful rebuttals by conservative commentators (assuming that's possible). But the idea that Democrats are trying to legally restrict the rights of conservative women is just silly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the Democrats have no interests in forcing conservative women on how to feed their kids...like in New York where it is all but illegal to not breast feed. Arzel (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? What? Your double-negative doesn't make sense to my simple mind. Try again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Bink. Any RS that uses WoW to describe an action that could or does subjugate women's rights is fair game for this article. For example, the White House pay gap source which is on topic.  I agree the Malkin stuff is nonsense, and opinion nonsense at that.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rooster, that note may have been added to clarify to dumb conservatives like me that killings of women who dare to work is not relevant to the article.William Jockusch (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ah, ok, but we still have a section in the article called "violence against women". I guess this is what all the hub bub is about, so carry on :). --Malerooster (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Pay gap chart is highlighting an irrelevant statistic
The chart shown under "pay gap" shows women's pay as a percentage of men's pay. However, the issue is "equal pay for equal work." Therefore, an appropriate statistic would be women's pay per hour as a proportion of men's pay per hour. The problem with the chart is that it highlights pay, as opposed to pay per hour. Therefore, it should be deleted.William Jockusch (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Procedural oppose against whatever William Jockusch proposes. You are not here to contribute to accurate encyclopedic coverage. Instead, you appear hellbent on destroying it. You should be topic-banned from this page. --195.14.221.253 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please strike. WP:NPA   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP's comments are a tad overstated, but it's not a personal attack, it's a behavior observation. Check WJ's history and you'll see that he's either a right-wing apologist or is pretending to be one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attacks are always considered personal attacks.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Observations on behavior are not personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * .::Opposing all proposals from a specific editor in advance is about ad hominem as you can get.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 23:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Opposing all biased proposals is not a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So you and the ip are related to Nostradomus?  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew you were going to say that. You can't literally oppose anything the editor in question raises. But you have to be cognizant of the fact that he's coming from a biased viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hold on there. William's actually right on this one, to a certain extent. The statistic in question is not irrelevant, but it is misleading. It should be removed once we have a suitable replacement. William, perhaps you'd like to find one? --BDD (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, I promise to do that if you promise to help me balance the article. Deal?William Jockusch (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just remove the chart. It constitutes OR   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's a visual of a valid source, then it's not OR. That doesn't mean it's appropriate to the article, though. A chart that shows disparities in pay for the same job would be a lot more useful - assuming such data can be found. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless a source presents this data in conjunction with the phrase WoW, it makes the chart OR. Remember the purpose of this article?   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the general subject of unequal pay is part of the "war on women" umbrella, then such a chart is not original research, AS LONG AS it adheres to the specific issue. The chart in question does not, because it omits a key variable, namely equal jobs with unequal pay. That doesn't make it OR, it just makes it factually flawed for this article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually did a little looking; it is surprisingly difficult to find a chart that deals with the right statistic here. It's an interesting question why that's not easy easy to find; one would think it ought to be, as it's the relevant statistic for this issue.  At any rate, the bulk of the people commenting here seem to agree that the chart should come out. William Jockusch (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The chart may be factually correct, and it may be interesting, but it's the wrong information for that section, so it is definitely misleading. It be gone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WJ's user page complaint that there's not enough criticism of Obama sounds like deja vu. He's been here for 6 1/2 years, so he should know what the rules are. We're not in the business of trying to "balance" verifiable facts with editorial opinions. Unbiased criticism could be reasonable. In that particular case, Fox News is automatically out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm conservative. Does that make me evil?  Are any of the other posters here liberal?  Does that make them evil? William Jockusch (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. It depends on whether you support legislation that restricts the rights of women. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you seen me support any such? William Jockusch (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you oppose such legislation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that you (and the article) are making a fundamental error -- categorizing people (in this case, me) based on group affiliation. There are many reasons to dislike Obama, and not all of them have to do with women's issues.  For you, or the article to categorize someone as "anti-woman" based on (accurately) perceived conservatism is a mistake.William Jockusch (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, do you think the comments of Akin and Mourdock were not in line with the Republican platform? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Akin's certainly not. He was roundly condemned by just about every Republican on the planet.  Interestingly, Obama, who had time to condemn Akin and Mourdock, had nothing to say about the slurs thrown by Maher and Olbermann.  All the more reason why the article is grossly unfair.William Jockusch (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)  Now, could you stop interrogating me with these "when did you stop beating your wife" type of questions.  It is getting awfully tiresome.William Jockusch (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Interesting" that the president called out U.S. Representative Akin and treasurer of the state of Indiana Mourdock but didn't go after TV host Maher and TV host Olbermann? And that's a reason this article is unfair? Wow. Yeah, the president had something to say about two members of government but didn't say anything about two media personalities. That says something, but probably not what you think and it isn't about this article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. He might have said something, if they had been running for office. What the Ann Coulter types call a "war on conservative women" is merely the exercise of free speech. There's no legislative war on conservative women. The only legislative war on women is being fought by those who call themselves conservatives. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Fluke editorial
I have twice removed the Fluke editorial from this article because a) it is an opinion piece and not a RS, and b) even if it were a reliable source it does not even mention the phrase WoW, which is what this article is supposed to be about. Making that leap constitutes OR. Im sure the Leadbetter act can be linked to this article, but not in this manner. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Limbaugh's vile comments about Fluke are a piece of the "war on women" landscape. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that is not germane to this editorial as a source. If there isn't a section about Fluke/Limbaugh it is an oversight that should be corrected.  The sources must be out there that use L/F/Wow all at once, no?   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you consider a valid source. The "war on women" term has been used to describe most anything misogynistic, Limbaugh being the poster child for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So is gangsta rap now part of the WoW? Poor poor misunderstood Ice Cube   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno... how much anti-feminist legislation has gangsta rap proposed? In any case, here's a Huffington link which includes Fluke in the "War on Women" umbrella. Huff is often considered an invalid source here. But the point is that Fluke's treatment by the GOP and their apologists does rate inclusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I see it, the requirements for are inclusion are a RS using the phrase WoW with respect to subjugation of women. The majority of HuffPo pieces are blogs/editorials and are not considered reliable for that reason. By all means, Fluke/Limbaugh should be in this article if it can be attributed properly. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe I'm dumb here, but how is it that Limbaugh's Fluke comment fits in, but the following does not?

 Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin wrote that the real "war on women" is a "war on conservative women". She stated that it's the progressive Left that has "slimed" female conservatives for their beliefs. She pointed to a list in Playboy Magazine of the 'top 10 Conservative women who deserved to be “hate-f**ked,"' including Michele Bachmann, Dana Perino, and Malkin herself. She also pointed to Gloria Steinem, who called Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison a "female impersonator," and Matt Taibbi, who wrote that when he reads Malkin's stuff, he imagines her "with a big, hairy set of (redacted) in her mouth".[10]  William Jockusch (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the source you cite is opinion. Limbaughs statements were reported by countless RS.  Did any RS bother to report Malkin's opinion?  If so then you've got a case for inclusion.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, National Review.William Jockusch (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Rosetta asked for a reliable source. Nat Review ain't it. They can be relied on to be biased, but that's about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * NR has been determined to be an RS. Just as Media Matters has a rather strong left-wing bias, but is still considered an RS, NR, with a conservative bias, is an RS.  Here is the link. |title="The War on Conservative Women  It was also picked up by Real Clear Politics, Yahoo News, and the Toronto Sun.    William Jockusch (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a "war on conservative women". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

National Review is most definitely a reliable source. However Malkin is a columnist not under the aegis of the reporting staff of NR. Thus her opinion is not considered a reliable source. Im a bit surprised this conversation is even occurring, considering the length of service both of your records show. Do we sprinkle articles with opinion from columns of the NYT? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a reliable source for what National Review thinks about things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So what now...? It seemed appropriate to me because the Sandra Fluke editorial is a reply to the question in our article: "You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious."[117  Indeed, she opens with that quote.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall replace the Fluke info. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the opinion piece, because it is not a RS.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * CNN not RS? Preposterous. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing preposterous is that experienced editors can't see an editorial when it is right in front of them. This article is clearly an opinion piece as the byline reads By Sandra Fluke, Special to CNN. If you disagree, I suggest take it to RSN.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$
 * OK, I'll need to read WP quidelines again. I thought that a notable person's opinion was acceptable for our articles. I've used them hundreds of times without any objections from other editors.Gandydancer (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh! This might need some looking into for cleanup.  Suffice it to say, a person's opinion usually needs a RS reporting on that opinion for inclusion.  Rush Limgaugh called Fluke a slut in an on air rank editorial.  That in of itself does not make his opinion notable or reliable, but the fact that untold RS reported on his comments makes them eligible.  WP:RS is the best place to start looking.  And if you can, you really should try to review your prior edits and purge the opinion based edits.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We must not be connecting very well here since if you look at just one article, for instance the OWS article under the topic heading "Notable responses", there are many opinions included. So somehow I must not be understanding you correctly.  In the meantime, please make an effort to not act as though I must be really stupid.  That's a good way to make other editors angry and take all the fun out of editing.  No aspect of Wikipedia can be as confusing as sourcing can be.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at OWS, the sources for the notable responses are secondary sources. Sorry if I touched a nerve.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" should, I would think, cover this copy: Law student Sandra Fluke wrote in opposition to the measure, highlighting legislation that supports equal pay for equal work, such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that you have not provided any sources stating that Ms. Fluke's opinion is notable. Has her editorial garnered any coverage?  And how is this opinion germane to the phrase "War on Women" other than using synthesis?  Lest you think I'm being a POV warrior, I'm equally opposed to introducing the Kirsten Powers op-ed as described in the section below.


 * Please stop your personal attacks. Your edit summary "if you don't want personal comments, don't whine. Therefore no one will see the need to make a personal apology" is out of line.  I will answer your post below. Gandydancer (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I was just so stunned by this "men are the breadwinners" comment, spoken in this day and age, that I did something I've been a little shy to do until now--I wrote something on my Gandydancer page. I think that some of you would like to read it! Gandydancer (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you living in the past? The world you are referring to is long gone.  Arzel (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What world? The world where Republican politicians are aggressively working to bring back the good ol' days and refuse women equal pay for equal work, or even equal pay for more work? No, pal. Those days are not over by a long shot. The Republican party is the anti-women party, and even though they're now paying the price, they are unwilling to relent. --87.79.108.207 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * CNN is, of course, a reliable source. An opinion piece can be used with attribution, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, if it is judged notable and worthy, per WP:UNDUE. The RS guideline is not a problem with CNN as a source. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No evidence that the Democratic activist's opinion is notable. Arzel (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe it is notable. She is WP linkable and spoke at the Dem Convention.  And, thanks to Limbaugh, every US citizen knows her name.  She is directly replying to a quote that is included in the article.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If her opinion is notable, then we can expect at least one reliable source to report and/or comment on her opinion. WP, convention speaker, Limbaugh etc might make her notable (well, not so much being blue linked) but that doesn't make her opinion any more valid for this article then some random blogger. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Article should state that the meme is used to attack conservatives and republicans
In the section above entitled "War on Conservative Women", it was explained that I was wrong to include Michelle Malkin material, because:

''the entire article should "consist of attacks on Republicans and Conservatives" because the article is about a phrase used to criticise Republicans. ''

If this is the case, the opening sentence should state as much. You can't have it both ways.William Jockusch (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's about the subset of Republicans and conservatives and anyone else with political power who seek to restrict the rights of women. There is no corresponding "war on conservative women". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that statement is that there are already portions of the article which do not have anything to do with restricting clear rights. For example the whole hubbub about Women's birth control.  Is it a "right" to have the Gov't pay for your birth control?  I would suggest not (but will concede that the proposition is arguable.)  Is it a "right" to participate in public life without having your political opponents attack you in a sexually degrading manner?  I don't know, though I would contend that this comes closer to being a "right" than does having the gov't pay for your birth control.  The same statement could be made about Planned Parenthood funding.  (I am not arguing abortion restrictions here; merely funding of PP.)  Is that a "right"?  If so, should free paternity testing for divorcing fathers be a "right"?  I would suggest that the two belong on a roughly equal footing.  At the margins, what constitutes a "right" is in the eye of the beholder.William Jockusch (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Men certainly should have access to quality health care also. The problem is the pattern of various legislative attempts intended to make women subservient to men. And although not all Republicans support that, too many in positions of power do support male supremacy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is complete BS. Do you actually beleive the crap you write?  Arzel (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your being in denial about the obvious is your problem, not mine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm dumb here . . . how does not having Federal funding for birth control constitute an "attempt to make women subservient to men." Am I missing something?William Jockusch (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a piece of a larger picture. No contraception, no abortion, no assistance for unwanted children, no access to female health care, and on it goes. Those two idiots in Missouri and Indiana spoke the truth, i.e. the true beliefs of the radical right. They weren't supposed to do that, because it gave the game away. Romney with his "binders full of women" and "IF you're going to have women in the workplace..." also opened the door on their true beliefs. And of course there's Limbaugh, who's an extraordinarily bigoted character, and who's free to spread his venom since he's not running for office. If you think there isn't a war on women, maybe you can explain why women voted for Democrats in such large numbers, to keep at least some of those bozos out of office and off their backs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are getting into exactly the problem I have here. If bigotry from Limbaugh against women is fair game, bigotry from Olbermann and Bill Maher should be as well.  I won't pretend the right doesn't have its bigots.  It does.  But so does the left.  Just as you see a pattern of bigotry from the right, Malkin sees one from the Left.  Both of you are correct.  The article pretends it's all coming from one side, and that's simply not the case.William Jockusch (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a vital difference: The right and the left snipe at each other sometimes, as you indicate, but it is only the right who are trying to actually limit women's options via legislation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some sources for this statement. The article on the Stupak–Pitts Amendment seems to contradict it. The proposed amendment would "prohibit the use of federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother." And it was submitted by Democrat Bart Stupak and supported by fellow Democrats such as Brad Ellsworth and Marcy Kaptur. The differences between Republicans and Democrats don't seem to be as clear-cut as you suggest. (Then again I am not American and I merely assume that you don't consider both major parties to be part of the right of the political spectum.) Dimadick (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some conservative Democrats and some liberal Republicans, though they're on the endangered species list. I'd be more interested to see legislative evidence of an alleged "war on conservative women". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be greatly confused about those one the right that truely want to limit abortion, and those (the vast majority) that simply don't feel like they should have to pay for it. The right is against much of this because of the notion that they are required to provide "free" contreceptive care to others.  Your attempt to lump everyone together does not help your cause and simply shows how unbelievably biased you really are.  Arzel (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's their excuse for the real reason, namely that they want to control women... a fact which their rhetoric demonstrates. If you can't see that, then you should look into your own biases. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Erections Get Insurance; Why Not the Pill? Doesn't contraception prevent abortion, the subject that has conservatives all hot and bothered? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is nice to see that both of you have bought into the lie. Arzel (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if no one had invented the term "war on women", it's obvious to all, except those who will not see, that there is such a war going on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The lie" won the election. "The lie" is believed by the majority of voters. "The lie" is supported by many of our reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Kirsten Powers should be included
If you are going to include Limbaugh/Fluke/"Slut", it is only fair to include Powers writing about Ed Shulz saying Sarah Palin set off a "Bimbo alert", Keith Olbermann calling Michelle Malkin a "Mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick", and so forth. The two are peas in a pod, and they have both been linked to the war on women. William Jockusch (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID. It is not tit for tat. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Undue is not applicable in this case. However the fact that this source is an opinion column makes it unsuitable for inclusion.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. KP did not receive significant coverage; and further, was not linked to the Wow in any reliable source. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For something to be UNDUE, we would first need a reliable source for Powers. Of which there are none.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that is not a reliable source. However, I'd prefer not encouraging WJ to think that all he needs to do is look for a mention in an RS; this is not an RS and the proposed content does not pass UNDUE. Puppy (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless Schultz and/or Olbermann have introduced legislation to restrict the rights of women, their comments are irrelevant to the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly where in the title is it stated that this is only legislative wars on women? Arzel (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The only war that really means anything is the attempt to restrict the rights of women. The rhetoric by those on the right merely reinforces that war, which is ultimately about trying to keep women "in their place", subservient to men. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Until someone proposes a source that is deemed reliable, this is pointless and only affording people a soapbox to shout from. KC's supposition that if any such sources were found might still not merit inclusion is IMO a quite considerate suggestion to prevent WJ from wasting his time. However if WJ wants to put the cart before the horse and search for sources that supports his position, who are we to deny him? If WJ wants to attempt to expand the scope of this article, he can try and gain consensus to do so. Is he at WP:IDHT yet? No, but if he continues to keep introducing opinion pieces I suspect at some point that will be considered disruptive. @WJ -- if you find possible sources, please consider asking the folks over at RSN if the source can be considered reliable. I would also be happy to look at any sources you find. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem I am having here is that the definition of what is an opinion piece seems rather . . . flexible. For example, this appears in the article's references .  Now while I have no particular disagreement with that piece, it sure looks like opinion.William Jockusch (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is opinion and the reference should be removed, but not the statement it supports as there are two other RS to back it up.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We allow attributed opinions of people, depending upon the person whose opinion it is; are they notable? expert? involved? the subject of the article? etc. But we attribute those opinions, we do not write them in Wikipedia's voice. If this were an article on nails, then a nail expert who is world renowned for his expertise would get his opinion included. A nail manufacturer? Maybe. The guy who owns Ace hardware? No, never. And your cousin Jim who is good at building things? No, he's not allowed either. So it depends on who is giving the opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Opinion"
If you are going to disallow opinions, please tell me what we will have left when we remove opinions from this article. For example: ''NRSC chairman John Cornyn said the GOP would no longer provide him Senate election funding.[98] A campaign spokesman for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan said both disagreed with Akin's position and would not oppose abortion in instances of rape. Ryan reportedly called Akin to advise him to step aside.[99] RNC Chairman Reince Priebus warned Akin not to attend the upcoming 2012 Republican convention and said he should resign the nomination. He described Akin's comments as "biologically stupid" and "bizarre" and said that "This is not mainstream talk that he's referring to and his descriptions of whatever an illegitimate rape is."'' We gutting this? I don't think so. Now, feel free to have a discussion about whether Fluke's opinion should be in the article. But stop edit warring to remove it with the rationale that "it is an opinion"; it is attributed, which is how Wikipedia handles such things. We do not disallow opinion; we do choose whose opinions are relevant for an article, and attribute them and do not put their opinions in Wikipedia's voice. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just about Fluke's comments, it's also about the right-wing extremist reaction to her comments, and that the story was widely covered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the opinion (and fact based reporting) you mention is reported on by a RS. It's not an editorial. Did Fluke's opinion generate a reaction that was widely covered as BB suggests?  If so, by all means keep Fluke.  Bugs, can you assist?   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you google her name along with sources like CNN, New York Times, USAToday, etc., you'll see a curious phenomenon: There are endless editorials on the matter, but not much real coverage except a "reminder" at the start of an editorial. It occurs to me we're getting into murky waters regarding "reliability" - because nearly all of this vast amount of coverage assumes the reader already knows about it. How can that be, without some original news coverage? Beats me! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Zero hits, other than the CNN editorial. We're you referring to the Ledbetter issue, or just the Limbaugh incident?     little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I googled [cnn sandra fluke] and [new york times sandra fluke] and [npr sandra fluke] and I don't know what all. I found countless editorials and blogs, some of them dealing with Limbaugh's vile comments, others dealing with the way she was treated on Capitol Hill. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, but those sources and comments have nothing to do with the Fluke/Ledbetter material in question. Please stay on target topic.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor does the original post in this section. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

How rape is defined...
Belchfire, you don't appear to have heard of the idea of consensus. Let me explain it in small words: If you want to make a change, other people have to want it too. If you are the only one to want it, you should try to convince people that it is a good idea, but not try to do it again if no one else wants it. You have tried three times in the past week, and more going further back, to make this change, which literally no other user has expressed support for. Quit the edit warring. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase "how rape is defined" is not only unnecessary, but also counter-factual, un-sourced and contrary to how the matter is treated elsewhere in the article.


 * You asked to see the consensus. I showed it to you in an edit summary, and you pretended that it doesn't exist.  That's tendentious. Stop pushing your POV.   Belch fire - TALK  06:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You linked a discussion which emphatically rejected your propositions and in which literally no one except you supported removing any mention of the redefinition of rape. I can also create a link to something that doesn't say what I claim it says (demonstration: "Look, everyone agrees that we should call Mitt Romney a loser in the lede of his article!") but I don't do it in seriousness as an explanation for a poor edit. Neither should you.


 * As for your other false claim - the one that it's unsourced in the lede and unrelated to the discussion elsewhere in the article - I would advise that you read the article and the sources before you edit it and make claims about them. This seems fairly self-evident, but I mention it because one can never be too careful and because you appear to really need this pointed out to you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's how it's covered in the article:
 * Political activist groups Moveon.org and Emily's List charged that this constituted a Republican attempt to "redefine rape."
 * Considering that I wrote that sentence myself, your allegation that I haven't read it is comical.
 * This is the entire thrust of the facts behind the preposterous notion of "redefining rape": it is nothing more than a talking point that originated from hyper-partisan hacks. No credible, reliable source says that anybody tried to "redefine rape".  If you think otherwise, then let's see a source.  If you don't have one, then it comes out of the lead.   Belch fire - TALK  06:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What's tendentious is asking for sources when a simple google search yields a few more than "No credible, reliable sources...". A lot more. You know this. Go pick a fight somewhere else. Please. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see some sources, then. I find it interesting that you didn't bother to include a single link.  Yes, I do know this, since I've already been down this road with you people.   Belch fire - TALK  14:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be plenty of refs. Ignoring sources like Mother Jones, this seems acceptable per NEWSBLOG.    little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Akin's comment wasn't about "redefining" rape as such - it was a code-worded knock against women who claim to have been raped, in order to get an abortion, but weren't actually raped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for reliable sources that say there was an attempt to redefine rape.  Belch fire - TALK  17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the one (34) I submitted just above?  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For those who won't get your humor, please note the word "reliable" in my request.   Belch fire - TALK  17:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No humor intended on my part, though if I made someone laugh I'll gladly take credit. The article in question is from the Wasington Post.  You can't get much more RSy than that.  The author has bona fides as a journalist.  I fail to see how this is in any way not reliable.  But maybe I'm missing something.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At first I just glanced and thought your link was to Mother Jones. OK, so it's WaPo... but it doesn't support the proposition that Republicans in Congress "redefined rape".  It says "there was an effort to establish “forcible rape” as the one area where federal funds could be used for abortion", which isn't redefining rape.  My point stands: "redefining rape" is dishonest partisan nonsense, and only belongs in this article insofar as it describes the charges leveled by liberal scaremongers.   Belch fire </tt>- TALK  22:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, the word "redefine" is only used in article with that attributed to said groups.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's being used in the Wikipedia's voice in the lead. Tendentious editors are claiming that it's a sourced fact, but are unable/unwilling to produce sources, preferring instead to edit-war.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  23:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I added a tag to part of the lead. If it were answered, it would remove the attribution from wikipeidas voice as a statement of fact. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 23:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone had trouble finding sources. This was the very second Google result and is pretty much the archetype of a reliable source. (Oh no, that left-wing Wall Street Journal!) Please, let's end this charade. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidently, YOU are having trouble finding sources. That link leads to a story about Todd Akin (behind a paywall, no less), not about the putative "redefinition of rape".  So yeah, why don't you end the charade, Roscelese?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  06:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not deprecate reliable sources that are behind a paywall. The Wall Street Journal source is perfectly appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with removing the POV tag, but your edit is making a statement of fact in WP's voice that is less neutral than previous versions.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference makes a statement of fact: Republicans made moves to redefine rape as pertains to the availability of abortion. Other sources do, too. The issue is not in question except by a few confused editors here on Wikipedia. Everywhere else the issue is well-known and a certitude. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you specifically referring to the reference listed above by Roscelese?  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the text in question from the WSJ article (emphasis added).
 * Remarks Put Spotlight On Definition Of Rape An outcry over Rep. Todd Akin's use of the phrases "legitimate rape" and "forcible rape" is focusing attention on a long-standing fight on Capitol Hill over how to define rape in health-funding legislation. Antiabortion lawmakers have tried to use the term "forcible rape" in several bills in recent years. Their goal has been to exclude funding for abortions in cases of statutory rape when a girl under the legal age of sexual consent gets pregnant. Those efforts sparked accusations from lawmakers and activists who support abortion rights that they were trying to redefine rape or believed some cases were less serious than others. Antiabortion lawmakers see the parsing as a way to have tight restrictions on any federal funding for abortion. … But past legislative efforts supported by Mr. Ryan and other antiabortion lawmakers have sought to place tight curbs on federal funding for abortions through defining what falls in the category of rape.. So, no the source does not make this "statement of fact" as Binksertnet suggests, but rather attributes this to those that support abortion rights.
 * What is the problem with attributing (redfining rape) to those groups?  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the mark a bit - the article states in perfectly clear terms that the issue was how to define rape in health-funding legislation, which is pretty much exactly what we say in the lead. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I am, and I don't have a problem with the lead or rape section since the "redefine" phrase Belchfire is concerned with is attributed. But if he is still unhappy with this in the lead because it sounds like partisan speak,  I wouldn't be opposed to using a different wording, though for the life of me I can't think of anything better than what we have.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the phrase "redefine rape" is left in the lead, attribution is required (which is the consensus solution arrived at in the NPOV/N thread that Roscelese is having trouble understanding). The problems are that (1) attribution is cumbersome in that sentence and (2) the phrase itself is superfluous and can be eliminated entirely without affecting the factual accuracy of the sentence.  Therefore, it should go.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  08:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And btw, Roscelese has done a very nice job of pointing out the dishonest nature of the partisan language she is fighting for, because health care legislation doesn't define rape. It can't define rape, because rape is a crime and not a health care issue.  Under the bill in question, the crime of rape was not approached.  No rapist would have gone unpunished under H.R. 3, as the definition of rape is found elsewhere in the federal statutes.  H.R. 3 would have had no effect outside of designating specific kinds of rape that would or would not be covered by Medicaid.  If anything was "redefined", it was Medicaid, not rape.  Trying to say anything beyond that is simply a lie.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  08:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

@BF. Currently "redefine rape" is not in the lead, nor am I aware of anyone promoting that phrasing for inclusion. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @LGR: StillStanding24, is that you? <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * lololol –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Rape Section
I think the Rape section of this article should be treated as a summery of Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections. That should be the main page.Casprings (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the section should describe how the phrase WoW as it relates to rape as defined by the sources.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the rape section should contain a summary of the main article, but other rape issues have been identified as part of the "war on women", such as the "forcible rape" business, and shouldn't be shortchanged. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

opinion piece used as reference?
This sure looks like an opinion piece. Yet it is linked as a reference. Am I missing something? William Jockusch (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is attributed, though this article seems to rely on many attributed opinions. There are of course many opinions denying the existence of the WoW, which are not currently in the article. Do they belong is the question.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting a passage from the article. Emphasis is mine.
 * After the November election, his staff held a meeting with terrorist Randall Terry to receive Terry's list of forced birth demands for the new Republican majority.
 * Is "terrorist" a factual description? For example, has Terry (say) bombed an abortion clinic, or been convicted of a crime of terrorism? William Jockusch (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He's an extremist activist, and could be considered a contributor to the WoW, a bully towards women; but to call him a "terrorist" trivializes the activities of real terrorists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly right.William Jockusch (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So the point is, the reference I am questioning takes the tone of an opinion piece. If someone could be considered a bully, and you are writing a factual article, you write that he "could be considered a bully."  You don't write that he is a "terrorist."  In light of that, I don't see how it can be considered an RS. William Jockusch (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Italics
War on Women should appear in italics when the phrase itself is being written about. See WP:WORDSASWORDS. —Designate (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Only the phrase itself should be talked about. To have an article about an actual war on women is the Wikipedia equivalent of saying, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"  Linuxgal (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
The ip editor above has pointed out some serious concerns about the references used, which appear to be valid. It bears some attention. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * S/he has identified three problematic sources in an article with over a hundred. All the sources are for the same statement. Is this really worth tagging over? I've removed the statement, the sources, and the tag. It should be easy enough, however, to document the term's use in the 2012 elections. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it's worth tagging until the rest are checked.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that we put a large tag at the front of an article because maybe there might be bad sources, we don't know, is nonsense. If you find bad sources that can't easily be removed or substituted, then you might consider adding a tag. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sourcing in the article is not so bad as to require an ugly template at the top. The minor matters that have been brought are being dealt with. No tag is needed. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They have not been dealt with. At least one source points to google for example.  I've readied the tag until I (or others) have taken the time to clean this up.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the Google search trends source (#19). If there are any others that cause concern, perhaps they can be fixed or discussed here, instead of tagging the entire article. - MrX 14:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, it is my intention for this tag to be very short term. However if you review the rest of the links i would trust your judgement to remove.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reference #1 (Teegarden) is mostly opinion and observation, and merely serves to corroborate the other references. #2 (Johnson) seems like decent journalism about a notable viewpoint (Sen. Murkowski). I don't see any other search result or Google trends references. - MrX 14:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 9,15,23 (I stopped scanning there, but there are many more) are all unattributed opinion pieces.  As for "corroboration", we don't (or shouldnt) overlink statements with unattributed opinion. Take 5 minutes and scan the rest of the refs and tell me if you don't see a problem.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like the problem that you raise is cosmetic, and I don't see that a large issue. If we have content that has three sources, a single source that is an opinion is not a problem. Perhaps you can be more specific as to what content lacks adequate sourcing, if such exists. - MrX 15:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And if we have content that has one source followed by several opinion pieces? That is inherintly non-neutral and more than a cosmetic issue.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that many of the sources are from The Huffington Post, which seems very unreliable. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * HuffPo is very reliable... if you need a partisan liberal source with maximum spin. Why do you think it's used so much here?  ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  16:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "a partisan liberal source with maximum spin" -sounds like a violation of the NPOV policy. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * News sources for The Huffington Post include Al Jazeera, which is run by terrorists, Democracy Now!, an extreme left opinion radio show, and Yahoo! News. Really? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Al Jazeera is not run by terrorists, Democracy Now! is mostly (acceptable) interviews of newsworthy people, and Huff Post is acceptable when using one of their regular journalists. Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I'm going through and removing the unatributed opinion sources, but (so far) leaving the content as (also so far) the content has attribution to reliable sources. I am not removing sources where the opnion is attributed, for example the Gray piece from the Daily Kos. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional Comment I would appreciate it if some (well, at the moment just 69.) would tone down the rhetoric. It is decidedly most unhelplful and if it continues I will ask for an administrator to give you a time out for being WP:DISRUPTIVE. Now, to address your sourcing concerns about the HuffingtonPost: Several of the refs used by the HuffPost are blog and entires and are usually not suitable for use. However some of the URLS in this article that resovle to the HuffPost have content that originated elsewhere. For example is actually content from the Associated Press. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Question- how is having "sourcing concerns about the HuffingtonPost" "disruptive rhetoric"? The WoW article is the real disruptive rhetoric."  69.37.2.59 (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

original research and coatracking
I don't know what tags the IP had added that were generating such bluster about their ugliness. However, it is clear that a amount of the content is inappropriate original research by Wikipedia editors attaching sources and content to "War on Women" that is not made in the original sources and WP:COATRACKing various other issues into this article. Each source must specifically make the connection between its content and the War on Women.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ...And I reverted your tags. The article is clearly about one topic, so there is no COATRACK. The article is clearly based on references that discuss the "war on women", so there is no heinous problem with original research. There are a few references that make no mention of the "war on women" but they help to establish dates and names, etc., from the exact same political impulses mentioned in neighboring references which do directly name the war on women. I see no instance of A + (unrelated) B = (synthetic) C. If you see that sort of issue then please point it out. The article is not in such bad shape as you think it is. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * These tags, without supporting examples, are not helpful. Let's improve the article, with better sources if necessary, but let's not try to pretend that the scope of the 'war on women' metaphor is not exactly what the article lays it out to be. - MrX 23:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup of proposed edit by 69.37.2.59
Using one of the sources mentioned above (if somoene beefs about it we can go to RSN) I neutralized the POV. Thoughts? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How about this? It's still true, neutral, and supported by reliable sources. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the cite which claims that PP lied about anything. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSoPys6KybI) 69.37.2.59 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I could use Source 1, which includes the audio. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No. In both cases the source is liveactionadvocate.org, which is not a reliable source. You can ask at RSN if they think it's reliable, but I doubt anyone the will say otherwise. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I quote from the article of source 1 itself: 69.37.2.59 (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So the source is Source 1, and not liveactionadvocate.org, making my edit supported by valid sources. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Even so, 'Rose claims that Tonya Reaves bleeding to death from a botched abortion at Planned Parenthood is an example of how Planned Parenthood hides medical emergencies by lying to women who call them for information by saying that abortion is safe and that no one has been hurt at their clinic is not supported by the sources listed. The Tonya Reaves incident is not related to the LiveAction recordings as stated in the proposed text.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is related because they called the clinic where she died. Do you want me to separate it into two sentences? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please try. And re-read each sentance several times then check the corresponding reference to make sure that each sentance gives a fair and accurate representation of what the source said.     little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would recommend not wasting your time; we simply are not going to include a fringe opinion from one or two obviously unreliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN. Since when is the Chicago Sun Times unreliable?  Speaking of fringe sources, we allow Mother Jones in this article.  I suggest you ignore Roscele's suggestion and continue crafting your text.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the Sun-Times contains information about PP's supposed war on women. I must just be very bad at reading. Suit yourself, but you're never going to get consensus for this nonsense. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The second sentence is completely innacurate as to what the sources say. They only said that Reaves death is part of the WoW being fought by PP. You might have gotten thatn from my orginial text. That was a mistake. Please fix it and try again. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd compress the first two sentances into one, as they seem redundant. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing it, but where in that second source does it even mention Lila Rose or War on Women? See also, WP:SYNTH. - MrX 20:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. It is just citing the death of Reaves.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Some minor tweaking. If you are ok with this, then goto, read and follow the instructions to get an opinion on the use of of the humanevents.com reference. Read and follow the instructions very carefully. Don't take any shortcuts. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so the first source reports on one person's opinion which attempts to redefine the definition of WoW, contrary to- and in reaction to the mainstream definition, by using the second source story as her evidence?


 * Yes, RSN would be a good starting point for the first source, and then we can decided if Lila Rose's opinion is notable, and deserves to be quoted in this article. - MrX 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The RS decides if an opinion is notable as well as doing all that other RSy stuff, but let's not jump the gun and see what RSN says.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So how long does RSN take? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally not long, but you shouldn't be in rush. Get it right.  Also, your formatting on your submission is screwed up.  I suggest you fix it.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it screwed up? I thought I did what it said to. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Darkness Shines" said it was reliable and "a13ean" failed to comment on the reliability, so the conclusion of RSN is that it is a reliable source. Time to add the edit, right? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not be so quick to claim a victory here, especially on the advice of an editor who has been blocked 14 times in the past year. You should wait for consensus after hearing from additional editors before trying to introduce content based on that source. - MrX 23:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Darkness Shines" earned the NPOV Barnstar of Merit, among many other awards, and no other editors have given their advice after it's been hours. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Now the ip must convince others that this edit is warranted.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have to convince anyone that the edit is warranted. I made a truthful, neutral, and valid edit that RSN determined was supported by reliable sources.  If anyone wants to not allow it, then They have to convince Me that it is Unwarranted.  But, on the other hand, if you only allow material that everyone agrees is warranted, then I will delete the whole WoW article until you convince me that it is warranted.  So, which is it? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you won't be able to edit here if you take that path, as you will be blocked should you do what you propose. Why don't you look up WP:RFC and see if you can get more input that way? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit war
Since the ip jumped the gun and added text on Planned Parenthood, two editors have removed the content. One claimed synthesis. This argument is completely without merit. There is no connection between the two sources. The second source exists soley to corroborate the death of an unfortunate woman. As to the second revert, what is the objection with the neutrality? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps our IP friend has misunderstood the topic we are presenting to the reader, which is about "a political catchphrase in United States politics, used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are seen as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights." The material the IP was presenting included nothing from Republican Party initiatives, nothing about restricting women's rights. Instead, the pro-life blogger Lila Rose is quoted saying that she thinks the [Republican] War on Women is contradicted by the few surgical failures of Planned Parenthood, that it is actually PP who is conducting a War on Women. I'm sorry, but Lila Rose cannot be considered the equal of hundreds of scholars, pundits and topic experts who have defined the topic. She cannot create her own definition to contradict the larger one. She does not conduct any scholarly research; she just shoots from the hip, telling her readers what they want to hear. Her opinion does not override the mainstream topic definition. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you just made up your claims of synthesis?  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is synthesis to try and connect Lila Rose's complaint about PP conducting "a real War on Women" to the larger topic of the Republican War on Women. Nowhere in Rose's op-ed piece does she mention Republicans, let alone Republican initiatives which restrict women's rights. The Lila Rose "real War on Women" is not this topic. It is instead some other topic. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To make it more plain: the phrase "war on women" does not automatically make a source relevant to this topic. For instance, Alexandre Dumas wrote a book in the 19th century called The War of Women. In it, one character says, "Ah, messieurs, you choose to make war on women!" Naturally, we do not try and connect Dumas' book with this topic about the Republican War on Women—the US political catchphrase. Similarly, Lila Rose is not talking about our topic. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice backpedal attempt, but that isn't what WP:SYNTH means.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Backpedal from what position? I did not link to the Wikipedia WP:SYNTH guideline; you did. In my edit summary I said the IP's addition was synthesis. I still hold that position, so there is no backpedaling. The IP editor wishes to create the impression that Planned Parenthood's surgical mistakes are part of this topic when they are not. That impression is not present in the source article by Lila Rose; an op-ed piece that specifically fails to mention Republicans or legislative initiatives. Bringing Rose's ridiculous position together with our topic here is synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Allow my edit
I propose the following edit under Planned Parenthood: “Planned Parenthood wages a war on women by denying them their right to knowledge and lying to them by saying that abortion is safe and that no one has been hurt at their clinic, even after women had recently bled to death at their clinic from botched abortions      .” This edit is completely truthful and neutral, and is backed up by multiple reliable sources, including audio tape of phone calls with Planned Parenthood and 911 calls from Planned Parenthood, so it does not violate the neutral point of view policy in any way. If you want to not allow this edit, you must disprove all of these sources with evidence backed up by other reliable sources. You can’t just silence inconvenient facts because you don’t like them. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "You can’t just silence inconvenient facts because you don’t like them." You must be new here.  ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  23:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 69.37.2.59 is not that new. It's just 69.37.94.199 back for some more. If it keeps up, we'll just protect the article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And, if this is a user's 8th edit ever, I'm the King of Spain. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping you are wrong. I want to tell all my friends I edited with Royalty.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the 'net, no one knows you're a dog Juan Carlos. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No one has disproven any of these sources with evidence backed up by other reliable sources. How long until I can add it to the article? How about tomorrow? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As soon as you add that biased text I will remove it. It is a violation of WP:NPOV, so it won't fly here. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, The article is already incredibly biased, so why haven’t you removed it? There are many blatant violations of Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy in this article, so really to uphold this policy I should erase most of the article. My edit is completely truthful and neutral, and is backed up by multiple reliable sources, so it does not violate the neutral point of view policy in any way. If you want to not allow this edit, you must disprove all of these sources with evidence backed up by other reliable sources. You can’t just silence inconvenient facts because you don’t like them. Or are you some type of administrator, and you and your liberal goons who run Wikipedia use your power to silence the truth because the truth flies in the face of your left wing ideology? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm having some issues examine the sources you present, however without seeing any of them it is my suspicion that none of them will rise to the level of being an RS. We can't use a phone call as a RS as a simple example.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You can view the sources by copying them from the edit box, and I'm sure each one of them is much more reliable than any of the other sources used in this article. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to present sources for others to examine, it behooves you to present them in a format for them to examine easily. I'm not going to cut and paste from the edit screen.  To make it easy, put each URL inside square brackets.  For more info see .   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I was right, the first source for this Wikipedia article is a news article, and news articles are notoriously biased and unreliable, but since it was used, several news articles that all say that Tonya Reaves died from a botched abortion at Planned Parenthood can be used as reliable sources by me. To prove that Planned Parenthood denies this knowledge to women and lies to them by saying no one has ever been hurt while having an abortion, there cannot possibly be a more reliable source than an audio tape that has workers at Planned Parenthood themselves saying this on the phone. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which of your sources say that Tonya's death amounts to a war on women by planned parenthood? Feel free to provide a direct quote and the citation information for the source. Also, please stick to discussing content without ad hominem labels like "liberal goons" as it make your argument seem incredibly weak. - MrX 00:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the sources say that PP is waging a war on women. That is the wording of IP 69.xx alone. Because the sources do not say it, Wikipedia cannot say it. The matter is that simple. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are correct, however I'm sure you and everyone else will find it easier to put this to bed by tackling one link at a time. Who knows, one of these links might be a valid source that can be used to improve the article.    little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This source (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/25/rose-tonya-reaves-is-the-true-face-of-the-true-war-on-women/) says that PP is waging a war on women, making my edit valid. You should have checked all the sources first. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no indication that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. The author of the "Guns and Patriots" newsletter doesn't seem to be a very reliable source for an encyclopedia article. - MrX 01:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contary, the author of the piece appears to have bona fides.  So does the editor of the site.  I'm inclined to say this source is reliable, however this article is quoting someone using WoW and not making that statement directly.  Thoughts?   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My thought is the author of the piece agrees with the statement and the quote is in a reliable source, so the edit is valid and supported by reliable sources. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see he's really putting those bona fides to good use. Pulitzer prize, anyone? - MrX 01:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * he was a reporter and photographer for "The Pilot," Boston's Catholic paper. He was also the editor of the free community papers "The Somerville (Mass.) News and "The Alewife (North Cambridge, Mass.). Sounds legit to me.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the very first source of this Wikipedia article, which is a news article (which I have discussed before). I see no indication that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  If you say that this source is not reliable, then virtually none of the sources used to write the WoW article could be considered reliable, and there would not be a Wiki WoW article. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect this isn't your first rodeo. So you can probably figure out how to ask the folks at RSN if this source is reliable for usage.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked randomly and found that source 24 of the article is a search, not a source. How come you let sources like this slide while everyone analyzes my sources so meticulously, when they are obviously more reliable than most of the sources used in this article? My edit is more valid than most of this article. Time for me to make the edit? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Also, look at sources 22 and 23. Did you really allow these as sources? Why don't I just reference Google and say whatever I want? 69.37.2.59 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Your proposed edit is not neutrally worded.  Please suggest some new text that isn't as intentionally inflammatory.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wish to challenge a statement and/or source in this article, you may certainly do so -- independent of your claim here. Saying you do not like a different source being used to support a different statement has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not your claim here is valid. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't intentionally inflammatory. Again I say, "The article is already incredibly biased, so why haven’t you removed it? There are many blatant violations of Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy in this article, so really to uphold this policy I should erase most of the article. My edit is completely truthful and neutral, and is backed up by multiple reliable sources, so it does not violate the neutral point of view policy in any way. If you want to not allow this edit, you must disprove all of these sources with evidence backed up by other reliable sources." Back to the beginning again.  And the cycle continues... 69.37.2.59 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time for this now. Please let this sit 24-48 hours and I will propose some text.  Ok?   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay 69.37.2.59 (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, virtually the whole WoW article is inflammatory language. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It does not matter if good sourcing can or can not be found for this incident. Medical errors are not at all unusual and one surgical death is certainly sad, but not out of the ordinary. Gandydancer (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reread the proposed edit. The issue is not that a medical error occured, but that PP lies to women in order to cover it up. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless you can find a reliable source that says PP is part of the war on women we aren't including the edit. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The reliability of the source that says this was verified by the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, so it’s time to add the edit. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where was human events upheld as a reliable source? And the Sun Times article did not mention the war on women so it's irrelevant to the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The anon user is being horribly deceptive about the results of the discussion on WP:RSN. Some people expressed the opinion that the site would be a reliable source for the opinions of the person who wrote it but that those opinions would violate WP:UNDUE if they were in the article. The anon user conveniently dropped all mention of everything he or she disagreed with and is trying to pretend that editors there said something they did not say. DreamGuy (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View violation(s)
I propose removing the first sentence of the WoW article because it is a blatant violation of Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. The sentence states that the Republican Party caused a catastrophe called the “War on Women”, which is an extremely bias and partisan statement that a majority of people in the United States or at least near half of them would disagree with. With this dissenting portion so large, this bias sentence cannot be said to be neutral. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your POV war is not working here. Plenty of editors from all walks of life have joined to make this article as good as possible, so there is no need to call it a "blatant violation". If you don't like it, that is something I can't help you with. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Umm no, actually it says War on Women is a political catchphrase in United States politics, used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are seen as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights.


 * Nowhere does it say that Republicans caused a catastrophe, although I suppose you could make the argument that they have caused one, for themselves. - MrX 02:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The lede's very first sentence currently reads, "War on Women is a political catchphrase...used to describe Republican Party initiatives...that are seen as restricting women's rights [emphasis added here]". Perhaps they are seen that way by a named entity, but otherwise... That seems a shocking weaselism; the guideline WP:WEASEL states, "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis." This article is poor enough without such literally-unmitigated propaganda in the very first sentence. I'd fix it immediately myself, but I'm an infrequent (albeit experienced) editor who has no wish to be cited for some imagined violation.--<font style="font-variant:small-caps">→gab  24 dot  grab← 03:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Selective abortion
The entry should mention the fact that pro-choice people tend to forget that selective abortion, legal in the United States, targets mostly women. How come this is not a "war on women"?85.241.144.96 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about "a political catchphrase in United States politics, used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are seen as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights." If you have reliable sources describing selective abortion as being part of Republican Party initiatives restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights, we might be able to add this. Otherwise, you are off-topic. -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This should be added to the criticism of the expression, since its the Democratic Party that most supports abortion rights, including many of them, selective abortion.81.193.26.61 (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you will need reliable sources making this specific claim in reference to the "political catchphrase in United States politics, used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are seen as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights." Wikipedia does NOT accept original ideas. We merely summarize what reliable sources have to say about notable subjects. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * SummerPhD is correct. There is no published connection between selective abortion and the Republican "War on Women". Until a connection appears in reliable sources, we ignore it. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of the expression
To claim a "war on women" seems quite offensive for many people and there are still about 35% of pro-life Democrats. Shouldn`t be a session to express criticism of this so called catchphrase? Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter recently expressed support for a new abortion legislation and I don`t think he is engaged in such a fictitious war. Some people in here don`t want to improve articles, they just want to be too one-sided. About the criticism of the expression: 85.240.18.230 (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you find a political topic offensive, I'm sorry. Wikipedia is not going to rush to change the article so that one person is not offended.
 * Regarding the topic of "sex-selective abortion", that sort of abortion is very rare in the US. It's likely that a few Chinese- or East Indian-heritage couples have engaged in male-preferential abortions, but "the U.S. sex ratio, at 1.05 males for every female, is squarely within biologically normal parameters", according to Guttmacher research. In other words, the "problem" is essentially non-existent in the US. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What Carter said, sex-selective abortion, etc. is all moot here. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. If you feel there is poorly sourced material in the article, we can discuss that. If you feel there is on-topic material in reliable sources that isn't in the article, we can discuss that. This is NOT a forum for general discussion of the topic. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)