Talk:War on women/Archive 3

Pay discrepancy in the Obama White House
A recent addition I made regarding this was reverted. The stated reason was that my linked article did not discuss the "War on Women". Which is true if one takes "discussing the War on Women" to mean "using the phrase 'War on Women'.

The problem I am having here is that when I added links about the Taliban War on Women, those were reverted because, it was explained to me, that even though the articles did in fact talk about what a literal War on Women, they were not relevant to the article because "War on Women" was an idea, not a phrase.

If that is the case, then surely the Obama White House pay difference is relevant, as it does pertain to the idea -- William Jockusch, not logged in. 98.222.48.17 (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I just clicked on a few links at random from the references. The following ones did not contain the phrase "War on Women":
 * http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-abortion-states-kansas-idUSTRE7704FQ20110801
 * http://www.wwl.com/pages/12872531.php?contentType=4&contentId=10426456
 * http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/us-usa-abortion-idaho-idINBRE92603L20130307 -- William Jockusch, not logged in. 98.222.48.17 (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And what "idea" do they pertain to? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole article is extremely unbalanced. The article is about Democrats' attack on Republicans, not Republicans' attacks on women. Much of it should be refactored into other articles (e.g. Abortion in the United States) while the content about the political strategy should be kept. —Designate (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you mean? Surely an article on a campaign of initiatives must include examples of those initiatives. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is not on a campaign of initiatives, it is on democratic response and classification of republican supported initiatives. There is a huge difference. You're implying that there actually is a war on women, while the NPOV of wikipedia is that democrats say there is a war on women, and these are the examples they say are part of that war. Rgambord (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We've been through this; you may want to review older discussions. The topic is verifiable and supported by neutral and reliable sources, but it happens that Democrats came up with a catchy name for it. If you object to the name, you might consider starting a move discussion, but it probably will not be successful; hacking and slashing at the article because any topic Democrats comment on is now a partisan opinion is less likely to be successful. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm a bit confused by what you've written. I take it that you're issue with my post is that you want me to replace democrats with "observers", since democrats don't monopolize pointing out instances of the "war on women"? If that's the case, I agree with you. Could you please explain what you meant with your last sentence about hacking and slashing? Thanks. Rgambord (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * User Designate, above, had suggested moving a great deal of the article's content to other articles; when you commented after, I assumed that you were citing your issues with the article (your perception of it as not a real topic) as a rationale for the same action. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If the words "War on Women" or something to that undeniable effect are not present in a source, then it doesn't belong in this article. It would be a violation of WP:OR. Wikipedia's job is to document other sources, not to insert things that you or others think are part of a war on women. If a credible source doesn't cover it, then it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Please refer to WP:UNDUE "From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." (emphasis added)

There is nothing to stop me from citing an article that says a local girl scouts chapter somewhere was shut down due to lack of funding, and add it under the heading "War on Women", based on your logic. Unless a considerable number of people refer to that chapter closure as part of the War on Women or an "Attack on Women", or other very similar term, it's not relevant to the article and needs to be removed. If you feel that wikipedia's standards are too rigid or strict, then go here Rgambord (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * From my point of view, I only ask for equal treatment. If the Obama pay discrepancy is off topic because the article about it does not use the phrase "War on Women", and this is true even though the article in question is clearly intended to relate to the idea of equality for women, then the references I mention above should be considered off topic for the same reason. William Jockusch (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic of this article is War on Women. You're welcome to add your source to Gender inequality, or Gender wage gap. I'm not treating you any differently than anyone else. If the references above are off-topic, then we can reach a consensus to remove them, although I'm sure they are applicable to other similar articles on wikipedia, and should be moved, rather than deleted. Thanks, Rgambord (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion to come to consensus to remove the offending references. I'll start a section about it below.William Jockusch (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Honor killings
I recently added a section on "honor killings" to the section about violence against women. It was reverted with a comment that it was "off topic". Yet the following are all true: So how are honor killings off topic?William Jockusch (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The linked source was writing about violence against women.
 * The article already contained a section about violence against women. Therefore, apparently violence against women is relevant to the article.
 * The reason for the honor killing in question related specifically to women's rights. That is, the victim did not want to enter into an arranged marriage with a man who was almost 20 years older than she was.
 * The linked source referred explicitly to the War on Women.
 * There are numerous problems with your edit.
 * 1) You neglected to log in for that one (it seems you've been using that IP for quite some time). Given the contentious nature of this article (and your past with it), I would strongly recommend you try to remember next time.
 * 2) The content you added is not in the source you cited. Honor killings in India are not discussed.
 * 3) This article is about "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." Your edit does not relate honor killings 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, which, you may recall, is what this article is about. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:RS "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) 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." The article you provided as a reference is clearly listed as a blog/opinion piece. Also, you have made two changes now to the page that have been reverted by editors for what amounts to POV pushing. As per point 3 made by SummerPHD, this article is going to present what you perceive as a biased viewpoint because it describes a point of view that is critical of the Republican Party. It does not espouse that point of view, merely describes it. Your source more appropriately belongs in Honor killing. This is a topic that not everyone is going to be able to set aside personal beliefs and bias to edit. It's perfectly fine to accept that and refrain from editing, or ask for a second opinion before making edits. Please reach consensus before making such contentious edits, or I will take this matter straight to DRN and AN/I if necessary. You will find that the decisions of both boards will not be in your favor. Rgambord (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here again, we come to a double standard issue. Here are some references to the article that are obviously opinion:
 * http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/01/03/coming-women/
 * http://mg.co.za/article/2010-11-12-disgraceful-war-against-women
 * http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/03/19/120319taco_talk_talbot
 * So, is opinion acceptable, or not? William Jockusch (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will add that I am certain that the assertion above that I am POV pushing was made in good faith.  However, I am certain that this was merely a good faith omission by the commenter above, and if he or she had taken a look at the article, he or she would have noticed that I was merely attempting to bring balance.  After all, murder of a woman for being "too westernized" is a form of war against women, is it not?  Furthermore, I am certain that the above comments were not an attempt to silence a different point of view.  "Celebrate Diversity", we are told.  This must include ideological diversity -- how could it be otherwise?  Therefore, I am sure the author of the above comment was in fact celebrating the fact that someone has come to add ideological diversity to this article.  Any appearance of a different implication from the above comments is surely a typo.William Jockusch (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a hint you can use in your future editing: if an article title is a constructed phrase (like "war on women," "separation barrier," or, I don't know, "Scottish Play") and you are justifying the inclusion of material by saying that the phrase totally aptly describes it, you're almost certainly adding something inappropriate. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the fact that my linked source explicitly relates the honor killings to the War on Women?, and that it further notes that the VAWA ignored honor killings, while Rep. Wolf introduced legislation to combat them? How is that not directly on point?William Jockusch (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces (rather than slightly slanted reliable sources) are not generally acceptable, unless the person giving the opinion is a prominent member of a large group, etc... as described in WP:RS and in Jimbo Wale's comment on WP:UNDUE, and the opinion is listed as having come from that person, not as a simple statement of fact. If there are sources that you don't think qualify as RS, then list them (as I suspect you have below), and then be bold and delete them, or wait for any objections before doing so. I believe you are POV pushing because the article you've provided clearly does not belong in this article, though it arguably applies to other articles, which I have listed, so it's hard to WP:AGF here, but I guess WP:Competence might apply. Rgambord (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nina Shea is an international human rights lawyer with over 30 years' experience. She writes frequently about religious persecution. http://www.hudson.org/shea.  She has been a frequent contributor to National Review on the subject of religious persecution http://www.nationalreview.com/author/177438.  Therefore, I believe it is fair to consider her an expert in the field. William Jockusch (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, she is prominent, however there are many issues with including the material beyond WP:RS, as User:SummerPhD pointed out. I'm not going to continue to argue this one, because the simple answer is that the material does not relate to the subject of War on Women, because it is using the phrase "War on Women" as a contrast to honor killings, and so is therefore saying that honor killings are not part of the war on women as defined in War on Women. Rgambord (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

References that do not refer to "War on Women" should be removed.
At a minimum, this includes the following:
 * http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html
 * I'm on the line about this one. Strictly speaking, it's a candidate for removal, but it's used as a source to verify certain claims which are then later commented on and tied into the war on women by different sources. I would keep it, but if you disagree, by all means wait for a 3rd opinion or hop over to RS/N Rgambord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-abortion-states-kansas-idUSTRE7704FQ20110801
 * http://www.wwl.com/pages/12872531.php?contentType=4&contentId=10426456
 * http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/us-usa-abortion-idaho-idINBRE92603L20130307 William Jockusch (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Opinion articles of dubious reliability:
 * http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/01/03/coming-women/
 * For this article, I agree it is from a personal blog. However, the person writing the blog is Kaili Joy Gray, Associate Editor at The Daily Kos, and who writes a weekly series entitled "This week in the War on Women." She might be considered notable enough to have an opinion worth including in an encyclopedia, but it should definitely be made clear that the content is her opinion, if it is not already so. Rgambord (talk)
 * My biggest concern over this article is with its tone. There are plenty of things one can say about Randall Terry while sticking to facts.  Terrorist is not one of them.  And the article says that a Democrat held up health care reform in order to extort certain demands.  And pro-lifers are repeatedly referred to as forced birthers.  To turn things around, suppose that an article referred to the Democratic party's racist decision to filibuster Miguel Estrada, Planned Parenthood as baby killers, and said that Obama was closing air towers as part of the sequester in order to extort additional spending from Congress.  Would that be an RS? William Jockusch (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I don't have enough experience to say other way. Personally, I think she's a RS if and only if it is made clear that the cited material is her opinion. Rgambord (talk)
 * With no one else apparently inclined to jump in, I've brought this one up on the RS noticeboard .(talk) 14:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * http://mg.co.za/article/2010-11-12-disgraceful-war-against-women William Jockusch
 * I agree, this article does not belong on wikipedia. It does not meet the criteria for WP:RS, as it is an opinion piece and the author is a pseudonym for which I can find no information. Rgambord (talk)
 * http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/03/19/120319taco_talk_talbot
 * This article almost certainly meets the criteria of WP:RS. Margaret Talbot is a prominent enough figure to use as a source. As the piece is an opinion article, WP police requires her name be attached to any content associated with it. Rgambord (talk)

IDK how the auto-purger works, but I think this topick should stay around until while the NPOV noticeboard discussion is running.William Jockusch (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (comment)Does anyone object to posting this section to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard?  Rgambord (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard
I've started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard on the question of whether it is fair to limit this article to uses of the term "War on women" to attack conservatives/Republicans.William Jockusch (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Abortion restrictions
In the Abortion restrictions section we have the following graph.

Regarding the 2nd sentence, is this germane to this article which is about Republican initiatives restrticing women's rights? I don't know much about Yoest or her colleague who penned the op-ed, but one would assume they probably side with Republicans and that their use of WoW is not in step with this article. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's the same usage that this article uses (Republican initiatives, not Democratic ones or other unrelated things). Yoest is scare-quoting it, but it's about Republican laws in Indiana. Whether or not we should use this advocacy piece is another question (obviously real sources exist on this Indiana law), but the law itself is pertinent. Can you clarify what you want to do? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Self flagellation doesnt seem to fit the bill for this topic either; Are there RS tying the Indiana law to the phrase WoW?  This source, like many in this article is opinion based.  We have woefully few RS (any?) actually stating there is a WoW but untold number of columns stating otherwise.  A good portion of these op-eds should go and we should be left with the RS that cover notable opinions, because that is what the RS is supposed to do in the first place.  If the point of this graph is to tell the reader that UFL is the mapmaker for the WoW, I'd imagine we have a RS reporting on this and soliciting opinions from the interested parties, one if which should be stating this is all part of the GOP WoW.  Otherwise it's synthesis.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The very first sentence of this article defines the "War on Women," whether accurate or not as a catchphrase, as the perception or claim among some politicos to "describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that they see as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights." The intro references "access to reproductive health services, particularly birth control and abortion services; how violence against women is prosecuted; how rape is defined for purposes of public funding of abortion for rape victims." I don't understand why sources can't be included if they don't explicitly include the WoW catchphrase so long as they are referencing new laws regulating reproductive rights. You have entirely removed the "Reproductive rights" intro by claiming that a report which documents increasing abortion restrictions, as defined in the intro, is somehow synthesis. The article correctly notes that the GOP disputes the catchphrase, but it does not violate NPOV or constitute synthesis to include studies or articles which reference changes to law which directly impact reproductive rights. Quac (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Quac is making a valid point. A lot of discussion lately has been focused in a really n00by way on the article title, as though we weren't experienced users who knew that articles were about topics and not about combinations of words. But this article is about the political initiatives; that means reliable sources on that phenomenon aren't less admissible because they don't use the phrase, any more than sources that do use the phrase about an unrelated thing are admissible. We still have to be as careful as we'd ever be to avoid synthing in individual incidents, but this is clearly not an instance of that. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's right, if the source describes Republican initiatives that have been observed to limit women's rights then the source is on topic. There is no absolute need to have the phrase "War on Women" in the source; a discussion of the topic is sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct. Avoid synth, but also avoid too legalistic requirements for use of the words WOW. Obviously the GOP and their support groups, like Americans United for Life, are never going to describe their own efforts as a WOW, but women and all others outside the GOP are perceiving their efforts in that way, and it has cost the GOP a large percentage of the women's vote. Thus documentation of their efforts is legitimate content, even if it doesn't use the words WOW. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the % of Women vote went UP in 2012 relative to 2008. Now it may have cost the GOP in previous years, but the hard numbers do not prove this to be true for these recent issues, even though the popular opinion is that it did.  Arzel (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The use of the Guttmacher source (and graph) is synth plain and simple. It makes one claim, that abortion restrictions have increased.  No where does it say that this is due to Republican efforts, nor do they call this a WoW.  While I understand, but to an extent disagree with the notion that sources need to reference WoW (this is the subject of the article after all), in this case we are stating cause and correlation without any sourcing whatsoever.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 10:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the POV being documented here is the Democratic/women's rights POV, not the way it looks from the Republican side. Note my recent edit: "Democratic strategist and rape survivor Zerlina Maxwell wrote a column in the Chicago Tribune in which she pointed out that state legislatures that enacted 135 pieces of legislation affecting women's reproductive rights were proof that the "Republican 'War on Women' is no fiction." She also cited the Guttmacher Institute's analysis mentioned above." The Guttmacher analysis is being used as proof that the Democratic perception is correct. You don't have to agree, but RS are stating that. It makes no difference whether Guttmacher mentions WOW or not. They are doing impartial analysis of what's happening, and whether they wish to do so or not, they are providing documentation which supports the Democratic position, and RS are stating that fact. The sources are connecting those dots, not us. They are doing the synthesis, not us. WE are the ones forbidden from making synthesis, but we allow others to do it and then we quote them. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem here is the Guttmacher source is being used to state there is a WoW in Wikipedia's voice. The text in the graph can be changed to reflect who is making this connection, but the graphic is being used inappropriately.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a legitimate concern, and the solution is not to delete it, but to tweak it. Attribution never hurts. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that I've looked at it, I don't see any problem. It appears to be a neutral description of what they found, and it doesn't point any fingers. It's Zerlina Maxwell who quotes them and uses their figures as proof for her assertion that "the "Republican 'War on Women' is no fiction." Would placing the first mention of Guttmacher after her mention help the situation? Please explain if you still see a problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Text in body

 * Guttmacher doesn't mention the phrase WoW, which is what this article is purportadly about.
 * Guttmacher doesn't offer an opinion as to the ramifications or causes about the rise in abortion restrictions.
 * Guttmacher doens't say these rise in restrictions are due to legislative efforts by Republicans

Frankly we shouldn't be using Guttmacher by itself for any/all of these reasons. At best we can say Maxwell uses Guttmacher to cite evidence of the WoW, but we don't even need be that verbose. Guttmacher isn't needed for us to make that claim about Maxwell's opinion. Leaving Guttmacher in stand-alone is Argument from authority. While the current phrasing does attribute Maxwell's use of Guttmacher, it doesn't relieve the synth that currently exists by stating in Wikipedia's voice that Guttmacher is making any other conclusions then that abortion legislation rose. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * LGR, instead of starting new sections, how about responding to what I've asked above. What is being stated "in Wikipedia's voice" that is problematic? The description is about as neutral as it gets. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The first sentence (besides mischarterizing the source) implies that the increase in restrictions is part of the WoW. So does the 2nd sentence. Without a RS stating it explicitly it should not be used in such a fashion.  The attribution is the most awkward I've ever seen.  Zeller's premise should come first, then whatever evidence she used (if we need even bother).  It's not like anyone is going to think she just made up those statistics out of thin air.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) In what way is it "mischaracterizing the source"? (2) In what way does it imply "that the increase in restrictions is part of the WoW"? Guttmacher doesn't participate in the politics, and therefore doesn't mention the WOW, AFAIK. Its numbers are used by Zeller as documentation for the fact that Republican legislation (if you know what's been happening, you would know that it is GOP legislation...) has been very much against abortion rights. That's an undeniable fact. It's a major part of the GOP platform. Guttmacher only documents what has happened, and Wikipedia states what Guttmacher has shown, without taking sides in the matter. That's our job here. (3) Is what they document being restated accurately? (4) Doesn't Guttmacher document abortion restrictions? (5) As to whether "Zeller's premise should come first," I already mentioned that as a possible solution above. (6) Why didn't you respond to it? That can easily be fixed. Do it instead of just complaining. Your complaining seems more like attempts to whitewash or gut this article. Why not be constructive? We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not tear it down.


 * You have six points to respond to. Just use the numbers and respond. Let's get this fixed through collaboration. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's my first attempt to rearrange it. Is this better?

Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Guttmacher graphic
This is even worse than the body text. No attribution whatsoever. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Then fix it. Use attribution. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Deleting the graphic entirely is not a fix. The source is documenting increases in abortion restrictions. It looks like we've reached a consensus that: sources are acceptable, even without the explicit mention of the War on Women catchphrase, if they document what Democrats and progressives are purporting to be the "War on Women," which includes state legislatures and abortion restrictions. I think BullRangifer's edit is perfectly adequate as a compromise; it references the Guttmacher study neutrally and Democratic stragetist Maxwell's claim that this is "proof" of the WoW. As I see it, Guttmacher is not being used as "Wikipedia's voice," as you put it. I think it would be worthwhile to address the six points that BullRangifer raised, but until then, simply deleting the graphic doesn't make sense. The graphic itself is just a visual representation of the Guttmacher study; why would the text be acceptable but not the graphic? -- Quac (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We have no RS making the claim that Guttmacher's data is evidentiary of a WoW. It is pure synthesis to state or even imply this and violates one of our core polices on original research. Let me break it down for you.  The NYT using Guttmacher data would be acceptable for us to use the same conclusions drawn by them.  For Maxwell, no.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. Since there is quite the desire to keep this article as only the Democratic WoW against Republicans this section does not fit.  It is OR to imply by the graphic that it is related to the editor defined title.  Arzel (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Arzel, are you being sarcastic? This article is about the GOP WoW, and thus also documents resistance to those attacks on women's rights. Stay on topic. The graphic is a visual illustration of the numbers from Guttmacher, and Zerlina uses those figures, quoting Guttmacher as her source, for stating that the WoW "is no fiction". -- Brangifer (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I am not being sarcastic. Several editors have gone to great lengths to limit this article to those actions which specifically target Republican supposed attacks on women.  Unless these editors are willing to open up this subject to the broad subject of WoW then this graph falls outside the guideline that they have defined.  You can't have it both ways.  Arzel (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the term "War on Women" is a Democratic and Women's rights meme to describe Republican legislation. Whether you agree with the Democrats and women's rights groups or not (and you obviously don't, hence your complaint), that's an incontrovertible fact, and this article was created to document what's happening, regardless of your interpretation of events. Lot's of GOP sponsored legislation regarding women has occurred. You are aware of that? This article documents a POV, a Democratic and Women's rights POV, summed up with the words (and meaning, whether it uses those words or not) "war on women."


 * The graph, since you mention it, describes Guttmacher's documentation of the results of actual legislation in GOP controlled states (regardless of how it's happened, the GOP has controlled what happened in limiting women's rights in those states and instances). Look up each state Guttmacher mentions and you'll see what I mean. Look up the few times they mention what has happened when Democratic governors have left office (they mention them by name), and what the GOP has then done to limit women's rights in the many areas described in this article. You might learn something. That the GOP has THEN (after the fact) attempted to misuse (historical revisionism) the Democratic term WoW to defuse the Democratic attacks on their very real WoW is another matter. If you wish to document those few instances (I've seen them), be my guest and seek to add them to the existing section for such instances. I would love to see more content there.


 * BTW, this all reminds me of the constant and years long obstructionism at the chiropractic article (I'm an expert on quackery, health fraud, and pseudoscience), where conservative chiropractors and their supporters constantly sought to eliminate any documentation of criticism in even the most RS. Well, such obstructionism only results in a Pyrrhic victory (without any victory). It creates a form of Streisand effect! It serves to increase the amount of content they seek to eliminate, and also strengthens the quality of the documentation for that content. I suspect that the reason they finally backed down was that their efforts were so counterproductive that they had pretty much shot off all their own toes and the series of chiropractic articles now contains documentation of serious problems in the profession. Many of those things would never have been written about here if they had not objected so much. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not realize that Chiropractic care was a conservative practice. Apparently they are pretty happy that Obamacare will treat it like real medicine.  BTW, I think it is quackery.  I agree that the Dems have successfully fooled many people into believing that there is a Republican war on women.  But like most things in politics, optics is more important than actual facts.  Dems seem more interested in attacking Reps here while ignoring the real war on women in many other countries where women have no rights.  Arzel (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A question. If the Guttmacher Graphic is relevant, then would the image at the top of this blog post be equally relevant? It appears to have about as good a connection to the subject of the article as the Guttmacher Graphic does. Or does the fact that this particular piece of evidence tends to refute, rather than support, the narrative somehow make it irrelevant? William Jockusch (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No RS is using the blog post as evidence relating to the WoW while sources are for the Guttmacher graphic. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are NO reliable sources using the Guttmacher graphic. That is the problem.  If you can find one, we can put the graphic back in.  The "source" being used in this case is the opinion piece which may only be use if attributed, which isn't being done with the graphic.  And then there is the issue with weight of this opinion if we were to go down that route.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The figures in the graphic are taken from Guttmacher sources. I'm sure that CartoonDiablo, who created the graphic(?) can place the proper refs at the image to document their exact source(s). -- Brangifer (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To make sure that we have the relevant refs at the graphic, I have added the other ones from Guttmacher, where the numbers come from. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Brangifer has restored the graphic with the cryptic summary "Name one ref. Leave refs at image to document sourcing, proving there is no synth." Can someone elaboarte as to what this might mean?   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A ref was not named, so I named it and then used that at the graphic. It's important to use both refs at the graphic to document that there is no synth violation. The refs prove that. The graphic is based on figures from Guttmacher refs (so there is no OR or SYNTH in the creation of the graphic), and the other ref clearly makes the connection between those Guttmacher figures and the GOP WOW as proof that the "WOW is no fiction". We are not doing any synthesis. Zerlina does it for us, and we quote her. Guttmacher tries to stay fairly neutral and rarely mention political parties, but they do mention that when Democratic governors who protected women's rights left office, those rights were lost (obviously because Republican governors took over). They also mention the numerous states in which these restrictions on women's rights are occurring, and they are states controlled by the GOP. Welcome to America (unless you're a woman), where religious freedom means the religious are free to impose their religion on others, and where men without a uterus or ovaries dictate what women can do with their bodies! (Oh, sorry, it's ONLY the Taliban in Afghanistan who do that...NOT ) -- Brangifer (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ignoring your irrelevant WP:SOAPBOX, Zerlina is only a reliable source for her OPINION. How many times does this need to be said?  Any conclusion that is added to an article MUST be derived from a reliable source -- not an opinion based source.  While we quote Zerlina in the body of the article, you are not doing that for the graphic.  That also must be attributed if we are to leave it.  There is seperation between text and graphics, just as there is seperation between text and infoboxes.  But even if we were to attribute this opinion, this raises the seperate issue of giving Zeller's opinion too much weight in the article.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Politics IS opinion, and Wikipedia documents those opinions, and it also documents the facts and numbers which those opinions are based on. It's perfectly proper, and is required to document this matter. Now if you feel that adding Zerlina's name to the graphic would help, that can be done, although it's a bit pedantic. Giving the opinion that IS the subject of the article the weight required for documentation is not too much weight. If we left it out then we'd have no article, and it would have the weight you'd like to give it. Fine, that's your opinion, but it won't do for editing here at Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments like these "full attribution. More than enough for even a kindergartner." do nothing to move civil discourse forward. I suggest you refrain from making similarly snarky and attacking edit comments in the future.  They are viewed as personal attacks.  Arzel (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Attribution of opinion is requried. Of course this article relies heavily on opinion.  But we don't state that opinion twice.  And we certainly don't mislead the reader with a graphic from a highly reliable source with a conclusion the source does not make.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be more specific, and instead of just griping, provide examples of the problem(s) right here, preferably with diffs, and we can fix the problem(s). For instance:


 * 1) You seem to imply that attribution is missing. If that's what you mean, where is the problem located? What's the exact wording. Can it be fixed?
 * 2) Also you state that an opinion is repeated twice. What is being stated twice, and where is that happening? Can it be fixed?
 * 3) Regarding the graphic image you mention. Where is a "conclusion" the source "does not make" being attributed to that SAME source? If that's not happening, there's no problem, or are you thinking of something else? I don't see anything even remotely related to that happening there. The text of the graphic currently states "Zerlina Maxwell cited these figures from the Guttmacher Institute, which found that state restrictions on abortion greatly increased in 2011." What's wrong with that text? Zerlina Maxwell does cite Guttmacher's figures (see the ref). That's an NPOV statement of fact. The rest of the statement is also a totally NPOV statement of fact: "... Guttmacher Institute, which found that state restrictions on abortion greatly increased in 2011." Is that not true? All the refs state those facts. Guttmacher really did document those facts. We are not making any synthesis. We are only stating, very neutrally, statements of fact about what they said, with no conclusions at all.

Help me here, and be very specific so we don't waste bytes and/or misunderstand each other. Use the numbering I have provided. Don't start another thread. Let's work on it. This is how collaborative editing works. We can do this together. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia article in the news
This article, War on Women, was mentioned on the Rachel Maddow show on this date. Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Utterly disgusting, a blatant assault on WP, if this [], if the "Transcript" part is what you are talking about. A national network show advocating vandalism of Wikipedia to further partisan objectives needs to be condemned by all Wikipedia editors.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Anonymous209.6 is either trolling or completely out of touch. The only mention of this article is just after 6:30 where Maddow says "it might be time for an update" to this article after discussing four stories that seem to be connected to the topic here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Anonymous is neither (WP:PA?). Unscintillating pointed out that a national TV commentator advocated vandalism of WP, I pointed to the offending section, which relates to puppetry of a kind, and causes bad editing, such as much of this article. That SPhD likes the kind of Vandalism that may result is irrelevant. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating pointed out that this article "was mentioned on the Rachel Maddow show on this date," nothing more. Maddow said, "With all of that happening and republicans asking us to reflect on the possibility of the romney presidency, and gee, why did that happen, might be time for an update on the Wikipedia page on the war on women," nothing more. To find "vandalism" in both of those statements requires a secret decoder ring most of us don't have access to. I'll step out on a limb here: I do like having Wikipedia updated. (Note to Anonymous209.6: By "update", I mean "update", not "vandalism of Wikipedia to further partisan objectives". I suspect Unscintillating and Maddow use a definition similar to mine as the alternative seems to be completely not reflecting what is true or actual. By "out of touch" I mean "not reflecting what is true or actual".) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Most biased article on wikipedia
The first paragraph basically says there is a real war on women and blames it on Republican policies. The "war on women" is opinion, it is not proven fact. However major Obama fan BullRangifer has made it clear here that he only wants his biased opinion used. Wikipedia is so biased. It has no right to call itself an encyclopedia.Bjoh249 (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW the expression is only used in the United States by liberal Democrats.Bjoh249 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have suggestions for improving the article? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Texas Senate Bill
Do we have a reliable source that links the Texas Senate Bill to the alleged War on Women? If not, we should remove the section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The New York Times and Washington Post link it in their articles. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither links work. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nikki Haley

 * This is a continuation of this thread above, where much of the content is about Haley. Brangifer (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

We're seeing a similar policymic problem with Nikki Haley. The addition of more sources about the bill do not mention the "war on women," so the problem remains and the section should be removed unless a valid source exists to link it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Above we have been discussing the use of Policymic as a RS which does mention this Haley incident as an example of the War on Women. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Franks and Policymic
Trent Franks was controversial both for the fact that his bill banned abortions at a certain date with no exceptions and his rape remarks. It is why there are different sources in both sections. As to Policymic, it is used throughout Wikipedia. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What part of Duplicate information do you not understand? Policymic is a blog that is not appropriate for BLP issues.  Stop using WP to promote your personal activism.  Arzel (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also don't see why we should be using policymic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from the obvious WP:Civil and WP:GF, WP:Blogs are not banned from Wikipedia and Policymic is used throughout the site. Here is a search to demonstrate what I mean. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When you have BLP related issues, you need a better source than a blog. You know or should know better.  Your continued attempt to include duplicate information makes it all but impossible to assume any good faith.  You have not provided any rational for the duplicate information and your state reason is no reason to include basically verbatim information in two separate areas, it would appear you are trying to make a point about Franks and thus are also in violation of BLP for Franks as well.  Arzel (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, this article is not a BLP and Policymic is used throughout similarly non-BLP articles (e.g. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson campaigns, Hegdes v. Obama etc.). And completely different sources and entirely different issues are not "basically verbatim information." Controvert over bans of abortions =/= controversy over rape remarks.
 * Secondly, you are clearly reverting new information, such as the military sexual assaults and Texas's reaction, which have nothing to do with Franks or Policymic. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, that policymic is used on 61 of over, what, 4 million articles is not evidence of anything. In fact, a good argument could be made that it shouldn't be used on any.  That might be another project for another day, the question is whether it's appropriate here based on the available policies.  We should probably err on the side of caution, as we should with other blog-type and highly-partisan sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as unreliable and I'd agree on caution if this was an actual BLP. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it reliable, especially when concerning living people? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First it's worth pointing out that "War on Women" is a not a living person and thus this article is not under the scrutiny of BLPs. And Policymic is not just a bunch of random blogs, the site is based on articles written by millennials which has an editorial policy and at least is not immediately unreliable. I agree if this was an actual BLP then I would caution against it. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * BLPs exist in the article, so the article must also conform to that policy when talking about those people. Franks is a living person.  The Policymic editorial policy appears to be mostly nonexistent, so it looks like we should remove the Franks stuff per policy and per your own claim given how BLP works. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This source seems good for the rape center budget material. --Dailycare (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that the NYTimes piece does not link it to the "war on women." Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP does indeed apply anywhere, and Polycymic is a RS, not just any blog. There are no BLP issues with its use here. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thargor Orlando, good point - the NYT piece indeed doesn't mention the "War on Women" concept. --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:BullRangifer, the discussion at the RSN seems to think otherwise. 21:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing conclusive about that RSN discussion, and in fact there are some erroneous ideas which I have countered. The content is not an issue. All are agreed on that. The title mentions the War on Women, which makes it even more applicable, and which of course disturbs you in your efforts to whitewash the issue, or at least the governor Haley. Too bad, but Policymic is a RS. It's not a blog, and we aren't quoting a crowdsourced article. We could also use other sources that deal with the same issue, since we've long had a consensus that the words "war on women" don't have to be used in every reference as long as the issue has been tied to the war on women in at least one of them. That opens the door for more documentation of the issue without every ref having to mention the WoW. So instead of trying to sweep a significant event under the rug, let's be constructive and document it more fully by adding more sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Brangifer, in that case using an alternative source might be a good idea. Maybe, if you've agreed the phrase "war on women" isn't necessary to establish relevance, the NYT piece could be useful after all. --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm dropping in from the Reliable sources noticeboard. Let me clear up a few things. First, WP:BLP applies anywhere living people are mentioned. It does not matter whether the article is a traditional biography or not. BLP applies everywhere living people are mentioned. Second, blogs are self-published sources. Self-published sources are largely not acceptable as sources. There are two classes of exceptions: See WP:ABOUTSELF. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, never use an SPS as a third-party source about living people, even if the author is an expert.
 * If the source is being used as source about themselves, usually in articles about themselves, so long as:
 * 1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

NPOV Violations
I see the current bound of activism is reaching a crescendo. Cartoon Diablo is continually inserting duplicate information into this article along with questionable information from blogs in BLP related issues. It is one thing to present your activism in a neutral tone, it is entirely different to use WP for activist purposes, which is exactly what this article is becoming. Arzel (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Arzel, such as the less than neutral point of view currently found in the first sentence of the lead. My edit changing "Republican Party initiatives . . . that restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights" to "Republican initiatives . . . that restrict rights and entitlements claimed for women, especially those involving reproduction" was recently reverted. While the former wording is certainly more concise and less "clunky", it is also far less neutral, as it clearly leads the reader toward the notion that Republicans are trying to violate well established rights rather than working within the parameters courts have established regarding such rights. The fact that "reproductive rights" is an "accepted phrase" in the English language means very little here. It doesn't obligate Wikipedia editors to use it as it is used here. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources, including from GOP figures like Lisa Murkowski, is that it is an attempt to limit women's rights. There is no source to show that it has to do with "entitlements" and the debate is mostly over whether it exists, but the definition of the phrase is not in doubt. CartoonDiablo (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of Wikipedia's article on Women's rights defines the term as "the rights and entitlements claimed for women and girls of many societies worldwide." Do we want to give the reader a clearer more neutral explanation of what is meant by "women's rights" in the context of the topic or do we want leave in wording that presents the problem that I have explained in the above comment.? Badmintonhist (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's redundant to use a definition of a definition, especially when it's not relevant to the original definition. It's why the article doesn't say "women's rights and entitlements and legal concepts and human constructs and etc. etc." CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't address the "question begging" nature of the current wording; a breach of Wikipedia's core policy of NPOV. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell no question is being begged with the current definition. If anything adding in tangential wording like "rights and freedoms and entitlements etc." would be begging the question. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't been reading diffs on this lately, but seeing the discussions flare up again, I took the opportunity to make a fresh review of the article. I've placed the parts that stood out as potential problems in the cot box below. Kilopi (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * trying to force their social views and religious beliefs
 * This phraseology is usually pejorative and can be used to refer to any act of legislation.  All laws, including the ones that repeal an existing law, are an attempt to force one's social views on those who may not share them. Since it fails to differentiate the laws being discussed from any other laws, it should be removed as redundant.


 * how rape is defined for purposes of public funding of abortion for rape victims
 * I think this tries to sell the law as more than it is and would be more honest if reversed: "... cut public funding of abortions for some victims of rape." The primary definition of rape is a criminal act and that definition is unchanged by the legislation referred to here. The wording disguises the fact that none of these laws impact the rights of a victim to pursue justice against her assailant.


 * personhood laws, fetal pain laws
 * We're talking about fetal personhood here, right? I've seen some heated discussions about corporate personhood too, but not framed as a gender issue.


 * There's no such thing as "fetal pain laws". Fetuses either feel pain or they don't depending on their level of gestational development, but that is a matter of science, not of law. Republicans may have put that in the title of a bill to help sell it, but we're smarter than that and don't have to repeat their doublespeak. I assume what we're talking about is laws restricting late-term abortions, possibly with some quasi-scientific justification for how "late-term" is defined.


 * an additional 944 provisions introduced in state legislatures, half of which would restrict access to abortion
 * The source is good, and this text section is faithful to it, but I'm not sure it goes where you're trying to take it. Did the other half increase access? How did they count bills that would increase access in some cases and decrease access in others? This statistic could easily be meaningless or close to it.


 * Democratic strategist and rape survivor
 * Is it necessary to play the victim card here or is it sufficient to identify her professional expertise? Even if she self-identifies as such (and she doesn't in that source), I don't believe we should. The publisher introduces her as "Democratic strategist and contributing writer" and that is good enough for me.


 * allow the killing of abortion providers
 * No. No it does not. Key to neutrality is making clear whether we're talking about the literal text of the bill or what its opponents said it would imply. I strongly suspect that had the bill passed, the first person who shot an abortionist based on this legal advice from Mother Jones would have found out in short order that this interpretation was incorrect.


 * are linked to breast cancer,[74] a claim that has been refuted
 * Did you mean causally linked? Obviously there's a correlation, if only due to fact that both are strongly correlated to the lack of a Y chromosome. A causal link (or the lack of one) is more interesting therefore I'd rather that fact come from a WP:MEDRS than the Huff'n'Puff.


 * convened an all-male panel
 * Ignoring whatever qualifications they had for being invited to the panel, and whatever they said once there just to point out that they have penises and are therefore less qualified than a woman? The source article puts it in better context. I think the adjective is WP:UNDUE weight unless it can be rephrased, "The panel, criticized by [...] for being all-male, ..."


 * The future of the Women's Health Program
 * Why? Even if Texas cut their funding to 0, they'd still be funded at at least 90% from the feds, right? The cite is a deadlink, so I still don't know the real story.


 * Susan G. Komen for the Cure stopped funding Planned Parenthood
 * So what if they did? The sources leave no doubt that this happened, but why is it here? Who alleges Komen to be among those waging the War on Women?


 * Violence Against Women Act, which provides for
 * VAWA is 176 pages and covers a few different things and summarizing a lengthy bill in so few words gives the summarizer a lot of opportunity to create bias in choosing which aspects to mention and which to omit. According to the given source, at least some of the "fierce opposition" was due more to a "War on Gays" or a "War on Illegals" than a principled opposition to shelters as might be inferred from the text here.


 * cut $758 million from WIC
 * This has no context, and the biased source doesn't provide any either. At minimum, this needs the prior, requested, proposed, and enacted budgets. When this article or any of its sources refuse to provide that context, it makes me wonder what they're trying to hide.


 * Brief responses to a few things in the box:
 * "how rape is defined for purposes of public funding of abortion for rape victims" is appropriate. The controversy stemmed only partly from the fact that the law in question would have reduced the number of rape victims who could have abortions - it was also to do with the fact that existing federal law (Hyde Amendment) allowed for funding of abortions in cases of rape, full stop, and the law would allowed only victims of "forcible rape" to have the exemption.
 * Agree re: fetal personhood laws, but similar to my point above, the criticism of "fetal pain laws" isn't just the fact that they restrict later-term abortions - it's that the ostensible basis for doing so is scientifically unsound. We can make it clearer in the text, as you suggest, that the actual goal/effect of the law is to restrict or ban late-term abortion, but I do think the justification is relevant.
 * Agree re: justifiable homicide law; we can write that opponents found it problematic because it could be interpreted in X way without saying that that was actually the point. (Specifically, IIRC, this was originally a piece of model legislation in which pregnant women could use deadly force in response to threats against their fetus, but the SD law extended that defense to third parties, which some interpreted as potentially allowing those third parties to kill abortion providers.)
 * Re: abortion and cancer - let's be serious now, the proponents of the link are not arguing that they're correlated because they happen to women and we're not saying they argue that. It probably depends on which advocates you ask, as I imagine some will claim a direct causal relationship and some will claim an "association." Neither are supported, however (see sources at Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis).
 * Domestic violence is identified in the source as the relevant issue in the discussion re: renewing VAWA - I don't think we're claiming that Republicans opposed renewing it because they oppose domestic violence prevention (although some of the activist groups quoted in the article do), but all that means is that we could expand it with their stated reasons for opposing, the way we talk about Topeka's decriminalization of domestic violence in the paragraph below.
 * –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the 1st item. Rape is by definition a forcible act, how is it any different?  Arzel (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Things like statutory rape are not, it's why there was news about it to begin with. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Statutory rape is identified in the source as one that would presumably not be covered, but there was also concern that other rapes would also be excluded (acquaintance rape, drug-facilitated rape, etc. - the most common sorts - since "forcible rape" has no explicit definition) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Coercion (which is what several of those would fall under) is defined as forcible under the definition, none of the examples you have provided make any difference to the basic premise. Arzel (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My own personal perspective isn't at issue and I haven't discussed it. Is there anything you wish to say that is related to improving the article? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have made an argument that there is a difference, yet I have shown that there is not, so what is your issue with it? Arzel (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made no such argument, because my own personal opinion is not the be-all and end-all of the extant political debate and neither is yours. We use reliable sources and what they say there was debate over. Again, is there anything you wish to say that is related to improving the article? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Trent Franks 1
Another incident to mention. The remarks are directly tied to similar remarks by Todd Akin:


 * Blake, Aaron. GOP congressman: Rate of pregnancies from rape is ‘very low’. The Washington Post, June 12, 2013

Brangifer (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article does tie this to Akin's remarks. However, we need a reliable source tying it to the Republican "War on Women" to include it here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles connecting Franks with the WoW:

CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Trent Franks’s abortion claim and the manly Republican Party, Washington Post.
 * The War on Women is back, The Week
 * Rep. Trent Franks: Just Another Idiot When It Comes to Abortion, The Daily Beast.


 * Franks is already in the article, quit duplicating the information. Arzel (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I see CD again wishes that this information be duplicated. If you have a problem with the way it is presented, re-write his section, but don't duplicate it into separate section, it is highly POVish and undue weight to do this.  Arzel (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mandatory ultrasound
It should be noted/added in the article that this invasive medical procedure has no scientific or medical purpose in this case. It serves merely to intimidate women for political and religious reasons. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is duly noted, however considering that millions of women have this ultrasound performed annually for medical reasons related to the health of the fetus it is difficult to accept your premise. Arzel (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * you are clearly not understanding the issue. this is, in cases like this, UNNECESSARY (aka not based on any medical or scientific research) and INVASIVE trasvaginal probe ultrasound procedure dictated by religious politics - which in turn became a law contradictory to First Amendment. Furthermore this is not about some stomach ultrasound you have seen in the movies.

50.9.97.53 (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That millions of women have this ultrasound performed annually is no defense of performing it in this instance. Millions of people have anal probes every year. But a law mandating that all men have anal probes before they get a prescription for Viagra, has no scientific or medical purpose. It's just something done to humiliate, intimidate, frighten, and even traumatize. Furthermore, THIS is not the ultrasound that pregnant women typically get. Pregnant women typically get abdominal ultrasounds. Transvaginal ultrasounds are not typically performed unless there's some kind of problem with the pregnancy. These transvaginal ultrasounds are not designed to address any medical problems with the pregnancy.QuizzicalBee (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Transvaginal ultrasounds are doing early in the pregnancy when a normal ultrasound is unable to easily detect the fetus. They are common and your comparison to a rectal exam is stupid and pointless as both men and women get them.  Arzel (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A woman that does not want to have a child at that time in her life is not interested in the health of the fetus.Gandydancer (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source, by all means point out that the goal of the mandatory ultrasound is to show the embryo or fetus to the pregnant woman in the hope that she will choose not to have an abortion, rather than to allow the doctors to see anything. IIRC, not all mandatory ultrasounds are transvaginal, but we could also talk about specific concerns related to those. (NB at Types of abortion restrictions in the United States we also could expand the subject! help) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "To force a physician to recite a scripted oral description of the findings if the pregnant woman declines is abusive. The proposed requirements do not make abortion safer for women, but do create unnecessary bureaucratic barriers and add both emotional and financial stress to an already difficult decision," said the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in a statement: http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=298958

50.9.97.53 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Why not add it here and/or at Types of abortion restrictions in the United States? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * here is in detail professional research state by state : http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/16/2/gpr160207.html

50.9.97.53 (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For those inclined. Mandatory Vaginal Ultrasounds are NOT required in some (any from what I can tell) states. Maddow was given a Pants on Fire for making this claim and it does no service to try and misrepresent the truth here either. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo: Re your recent edit summary, I think people are talking past each other a little. It is not that transvaginal ultrasounds are never mandated, but rather that they are not always mandated. I think Arzel's edit is fine, and we may be able to clarify that in cases where transvaginal ultrasounds have been mandated (eg. the original version of the Virginia law) they have been particularly controversial because in addition to being an additional procedure for political rather than medical purposes (the objection to all the ultrasound requirements), they are also invasive. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression from the sources that, in cases of abortion, they are always mandated before getting the abortion. I have not seen any source claim the laws are only for certain abortions or not always mandated etc. If the context is ever mandated then obviously they aren't because it's for abortion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The laws in question mandate ultrasounds for all abortions (sometimes with a rape exception), but not all mandated ultrasounds are transvaginal - does that clear things up? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That actually does, thanks. I'll clear it up in the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't clean it up, you simply removed a source which shows that they are not required and added additional ambiguity when we have sources that clearly state they are not required. Arzel (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * little science here: ultrasounds ARE REQUIRED before abortion.now, because fetus is too small to see, or to hear the heartbeat, the ultravaginal probe is necessary to accomplish this aka getting closer to the fetus.logic and science.

50.9.97.53 (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ultrasounds are required, Vaginal ultrasounds are NOT required. Arzel (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * you seem to have a problem following simple logic and scientific fact:the new law requirements can not be accomplished by ordinary ultrasound

50.9.97.53 (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * GUYS. As the name would suggest, the United States has STATES. You are BOTH RIGHT. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Trent Franks 2
Ok, this is getting a little ridiculous. Cartoon Diablo continues to insert duplicate information regarding Franks into this article. Additionally, CD seems unwilling to explain why this duplicate information should be included. I started a section above already, and he/she has not responded. It seems that the only response CD can do is to give me edit warnings and revert the addition of duplicate information. It is getting very difficult to assume good faith regarding this issue. Arzel (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Can those who are putting this information in twice please explain why instead of this edit war? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I too would like to see an explanation. BRD is a good thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I said it well over a week ago but there are two different controversies: first there is the controversy of the "incidents of rape are low" remarks and second there is the controversy of the ban itself and the lack of protections for rape and incest etc. Both were compared to Todd Akin but both had very different sources (David Weigel defending Franks over the former controversy etc.).
 * You can make an argument as to whether to keep Akin comparison for the latter but controversy over the ban ≠ controversy over the rape remarks. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, and just so we have it here, are both issues related to the "war on women?" Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why they wouldn't be, they're both linked by the sources to the WoW. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Trent Franks and "rare"
I could have sworn we discussed this a while ago, but it was a different article, so I suppose we should bring it up here. Is there some sort of objective measure of "rare" we can use to unilaterally declare, in Wikipedia's voice, that pregnancy from rape is rare? This has no bearing on how we feel about his statement, I'm just not convinced we should be making such a direct, declarative statement that he's right or wrong on this. This isn't Todd Akin. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Week says the US pregnancy rate is about 5 percent in the rape of women of child-bearing age. The Week cites the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network which hosts a page which does not support this number specifically for rape, but only for "one-time, unprotected sexual intercourse." They describe methodologies which will skew the numbers for rape, including rape victims who were using birth control, uncounted rape victims who were younger than 13 but still might have gotten pregnant, rapists who wear condoms, rapes that consist of multiple events, and rapists who penetrate with something other than their penis.
 * About 19,500 abortions in the US are carried out to rid the woman of a pregnancy she said was the result of rape or incest.
 * "The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year... Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency..." Holmes et al, "Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women."
 * "Our analysis suggests that per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual [sex] pregnancy rates by a sizable margin..." Jonathan and Tiffani Gottschall, "Are per-incident rape-pregnancy rates higher than per-incident consensual pregnancy rates?" Per the Gottschalls, Franks is dead wrong. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My view is basically what I said in my edit summary. Maybe there's no objective measure of "rare," but given the available evidence that pregnancy from rape is more common than pregnancy from consensual sex, what you're saying (Thargor) is that Franks clearly was just talking about how rare any pregnancy is. But that's not supported by the sources at all. He said something incorrect, not something inane. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I actually take his point at face value, that pregnancy from rape is rare. That we have to discuss whether 5% constitutes rare or not pretty much answers the question as to whether we can accurately say that he was incorrect. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is much discussion to be made here, as Roscelese's edit ("Franks incorrectly stated ") is POV and goes against the policy of Wikipedia WP:NOPOV. Wikipedia should not attribute right or wrong, correct or incorrect, as its position should be neutral. I know it's not always easy, but that edit is against policy. I invite Roscelese to kindly revert themselves. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, it was Sue Gardner's edit that you have a problem with. She's the Executive Director of Wikimedia Foundation. Just wanted you to know who you would be reverting. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Newchildrenofthealmighty, the neutral position here is the fact that the possibility of pregnancy from rape is exactly the same as the possibility of pregnancy from consensual sex. To say otherwise is incorrect and wrong. Gandydancer (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's slightly higher, actually, though not necessarily outside of a margin of error/confidence. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Did I wake up in bizarro world today? Thargor, your having begun a discussion is hard evidence that your edit is correct? Newchildren, it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia to contain anything about facts? What is going on? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That we're having a discussion about what constitutes "rare" is evidence that "rare" is a subjective term that's hard to nail down, yes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's completely wrong. Your having made a bad edit and then started a talkpage thread does not magically make it a good edit. The reliable sources seem to agree on what Franks said when he said "rare"; your personal disagreement with them doesn't mean there is ambiguity. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so where's the evidence that he's incorrect? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about a Google search? I found these pretty quickly.   These present the fact that more women become pregnant from rape than from consensual sex in contrast to Franks's claim, as they interpret it, that this is not the case. If we want to add that he later stated that he meant the number of abortions as a result of rape, that's another discussion, but what he actually said is demonstrably incorrect. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So the Washington Post factchecker didn't award it a rating and said "To some extent, one could argue that whether an incidence rate of one out of 20 is “very low” or not is a matter of opinion." A Democratic opponent disagrees with him, and Politifact answers a statement that wasn't made?  This doesn't really add up to actionable language here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it that you are ignoring the Gottschall's conclusion: "Our analysis suggests that per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual [sex] pregnancy rates by a sizable margin..." The Franks "incidence of rape resulting from pregnancy are very low" comment can be interpreted as referring to absolute rarity (1 in 20) or rarity as compared to consensual sex (higher with rape), but either way the "very low" comment is factually wrong. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The analysis does not actually address whether pregnancy from rape is rare, however, just that it's more likely than from consensual sex. It could mean all of it is rare, it could mean none of it is rare, it still doesn't disprove it being rare in isolation.  It's an opinion and a subjective judgement, and we should simply state it as is without qualification. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this compromise: omit "incorrectly," but add a sentence to the effect that rates of rape from pregnancy are equal to or higher than those for consensual sex? This would still reflect the sources, but without using a word you find problematic. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely fine with that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to use the word "incorrectly" followed by the sources Roscelese provided and the study mentioned? I would guess that the researchers were just as puzzled as I would be to find that rape resulted in a higher incidence of pregnancy and they then postulated that rapists seek out women more likely to produce offspring--and what else I don't know as it is a pay for reading site. Keep in mind the can of worms we are opening here. I'm not quite ready to accept as fact that rape is more likely (rather than just as likely) to result in pregnancy based on one study. Gandydancer (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so, because I feel adding the information from the studies is a worthwhile compromise between offering the information on the rarity/lack of rarity while not actually making a statement on Franks's comment. It appears the point was more for the data than to call out a specific person, and I think the way Roscelese put it is a perfect middle ground. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, very good edit. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A 5% rate of pregnancy per sexual act seems to be about the most reasonable number. However, that rate (which is effected by a host of factors), should not than be used to conclude that pregnancy from rape is "rare".Just in the United States, there are around 64,000 pregnancies from rape. The only way the claim that it is "rare" would be valid, is if you were claiming that unprotected sex itself rarely produces pregnancy. I don't think that is what the congressman meant.Casprings (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Context - Give the why
I don't want to divert from the topic above that needs to be addressed, but I'd also like to point out some issues with WP:NPOV. The article lays out a lot of legislation describing how it is bad, who says it's bad, or why some Democratic proposal which was good was fiercely opposed by Republicans. What is left out of all these is why the other side proposed or opposed the legislation. You'd think they were all complete monsters! Maybe that's the point... but we need to add balance to this. If we describe a bill or proposal, we need to describe in their own words why (and not using their opponents cherry picked comments of why). "In February 2011, House Republicans proposed a budget that would cut $758 million from WIC, a federal assistance program for low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under the age of five." WHY? "In April 2012, Governor Scott Walker signed into law an act that repealed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which allowed workplace discrimination victims redress in state courts." WHY? "The renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides for community violence prevention programs and battered women's shelters, was fiercely opposed by conservative Republicans in 2012"  WHY?  We give no context! What is their argument and point of view? Morphh  (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Before reading your comment, I was actually thinking about something similar with respect to the lede. (I'll elaborate above.) I agree that adding reasons, where it isn't obvious (eg. contraception restrictions because they are opposed to contraception), would help - however, I suggest that you probably meant that they need to be described neutrally, not solely in the terms used by proponents. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Taxpayer funding
On the last edit, the reported intent in many cases was to restrict tax payer funding of organizations that perform abortions (at least that's how they sold it). Are the motives fiscal conservatism or social conservatism or a mix (don't spend tax payer funds on things morally objectionable)? So I have issue when we assign motives as to restricting abortion (social) when it could be the funding that is at issue (fiscal). Is it that they want to restrict abortion or that they want to restrict the public funding of abortion? Seems a big difference to me. The argument regarding legal funding, of course, is that it's a shell game, which results the same as if they were legally allowed to spend it there (a distinction on paper). Morphh  (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your argument really holds water. These efforts aren't just cutting funding arbitrarily because the politicians want to be fiscally conservative - they and their supporters oppose contraception and abortion. However, I'm definitely not attached to the wording; I was just trying to find an alternative to "funding to organizations that perform abortion" because, well, many don't, and the initiatives wouldn't have prevented federal tax money funding abortions. Any ideas? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What was reported mainly was the "mix" view. On abortion, they don't want to fund things that they, and half the population, finds morally objectionable - it was the same argument with embryonic stem cells.  Also, there are very few politicians or supporters that oppose contraception - that assertion is ridiculous.  Contraception is especially applicable to fiscal and religious freedom concerns - it is the funding and the government forcing coverage of this that they have issues with.  They greatly disagree with those that think free birth control is a right, but have little objection to someone purchasing their own.  As for the wording, the example is Planned Parenthood - that's where the main coverage is at, so the focus should be on that point.   Morphh   (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your assumption that people who don't want a fraction of their tax penny to go to contraception have no problem with people using contraception is a little over-generous - but I'll stay on topic :P Please do propose specific wording. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They may object to it, but very few want to outlaw or ban contraception - that's fringe view, which should not be applied broadly as you did above. But as you say... I'll try to think of rewording.   Morphh   (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We can keep the focus on the example which is widely covered on state and federal legislation with regard to the abortion debate. So something like this would be fine. "The term is often used when targeting policies that reduce or eliminate taxpayer funding for women's health organizations, like abortion provider Planned Parenthood."  Morphh   (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly the problem I mentioned. Many of these clinics don't perform abortions, and I'm also worried that we're implying that the tax money might otherwise go to abortions. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The money going to abortions is their argument (not directly, but indirectly). The sentence I provided does not claim that they're all about abortion.  It says "reduce or eliminate taxpayer funding for women's health organizations", it then gives the most common and prominent example and the widely sourced reason "like abortion provider Planned Parenthood".   Morphh   (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The implication contra the Hyde Amendment isn't my primary concern. Like I said, my primary concern is that many of the clinics in question don't perform abortions at all. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we cover them in the article? I'm not seeing them.  Seems the defunding of planned parenthood is due the most weight for women's health organizations (as legislation was put forward by the fed and many states), but if you have another example that differs that has received wide coverage, we could also include it.  What was the primary reason for the other organizations, public funding of contraception?  Morphh   (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh I think I understand! Many Planned Parenthood clinics don't perform abortions. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see.. haha, sorry for the confusion. I don't see that changes the reason for why they are targeted for defunding and the reason the policies are put forward.  It doesn't seem that each clinic controls their own funding.  There is only one organization, regardless of how many clinics it offers.  The organization (not the clinic) is targeted because it provides abortions and they argue that funding it frees up funds that can be re-allocated for abortion.  I'd say that your concern may be a good argument for why it's unfair, but I'm not sure we should work that debate into the lead.  Morphh   (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there are specific instances where the law cut funds from no clinics that performed abortions and only ones that did not. (eg. if I'm not misreading this, although I admit I may be - been a long day. Which has also incidentally reminded me that I don't actually know the status of using state funds for abortion, so even though we'd want to avoid being misleading about these additional federal initiatives, the laws for states may actually have had an effect re: tax funded abortions for people on relief). Would it be possible to avoid this whole issue and write "women's health organizations such as PP" assuming that people know why PP is controversial to some, or is that an unreasonable assumption/does it introduce other problems? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's late and I'm running on empty myself, so I may have to reread this in the morning, but I didn't read that article the same. It seemed they defunded PP, then bragged that 12 abortion clinics closed, but those clinics didn't offer abortion services.  The law they passed doesn't appear to make any distinction between clinics and I expect it was PP that chose to close those particular clinics due to volume or whatever.  I'll have to think more about not mentioning the reason.  What about if we just say something like "eliminate taxpayer funding for women's health organizations with ties to abortion services, like Planned Parenthood."  or perhaps qualifying it like " can offer abortion services" or " at certain clinics".  Not sure.. it's late and I'm just tossing stuff up.. maybe something will stick and using different language could offer the motive connection without suggesting all the clinics provide the services.   Morphh   (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if we included the measures from PPFA, then it might address the concern regarding clinics, such as 3% or roughly 300,000 abortions each year, among 3 million people served. This might clarify that it's a small portion of their services to women.  "eliminate taxpayer funding for women's health organizations that offer abortion services, like Planned Parenthood where abortion accounts for 3% of their total services."  Another statistic that might be helpful, though not sure how best to include it (perhaps best left for the article body), would be that it gets about a third of its money in government grants and contracts.  Or perhaps more directly just say "women's health organizations that offer abortion services at some clinics, like Planned Parenthood."  Morphh   (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jumping off from your last one, "women's health organizations, some of which offer abortion services"? I think simplicity is good here, trying to avoid confusion over orgs vs. clinics. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If we avoid confusion over orgs vs clinics, then we should go with orgs (since that's how the funding is granted) and PPFA is a single org. Since there is not much (or no) weight due to reducing funding for orgs that don't offer abortion services, the statement doesn't seem that supportable.  We can't treat each clinic as an org - that's not how it operates and not how the funding is issued.    Morphh   (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Very true. Same wording but with "clinics"? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If we did that, then we get to an issue with the first part of the sentence as funding is not based on clinics. We can't replace organization for clinic after "women's heath" because the policies, while affecting clinics, target the organization.  It would seem to present that the policies target eliminating funding to any women's health clinics, with no particular reason, some of which perform abortions.  I think it should be clear that the organization is targeted due to the abortion services.  I'm ok with including something that implies how this effects their overall business, most of which is non-abortion related, but I don't want to give a false impression based on weight that the policies just target various women's health organizations.  Morphh   (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm out of ideas for now, so maybe some other users will come up with things that address both our concerns. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Lede
Let's try "War on Women refers to Republican Party initiatives that, taken as a whole, are considered a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights, in the United States." MilesMoney (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you share your objections to this version? Otherwise, your revert might be seen as unconstructive. MilesMoney (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please give me one minute to reply before berating me. No, I don't support that.  It changes several things which the other wording addresses better.  Please gain a new consensus before changing the lede.  It's obviously a contentious point and we've already reached agreement with the prior wording with at least four editors from different points of view.  Morphh   (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be very specific about what parts you have a problem with. As for prior agreements, I am not party to them and they are not binding upon me. Or, as they say, consensus changes. Now explain yourself. MilesMoney (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was getting to that... As for why I don't like this wording. For one, I find the prose more awkward to read then the prior version.  It adds additional commas which, while grammatically correct, pause the reader and reduce the flow.  Secondly, I think it changes the meaning to a contention of fact, which is the main point we're trying to address.  In particular, the modification of "seen" to "considered" is an issue.  I also preferred how the term is described as an expression, as appose to just saying it refers to Republican initiatives.  I also like how the prior version says the term is used to describe, again building on that aspect of how the term is applied when addressing the point of view.   Morphh   (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a choice between saying "as part of " without commas or "taken as a whole" with them. I'm not sure that either way is much better than the other.
 * Both "seen" and "considered" imply that this is a viewpoint of some sort, but they differ substantially in the details. There are many ways we might wish to consider a bunch of things. On the other hand, seeing is more passive, which paradoxically makes it a stronger claim, as it removes the element of choice. If I ask you to consider dogs as a form of livestock, that's very different from demanding that you see them as livestock. You can choose to consider, but you can't choose what you see. In this case, everyone sees the various laws, but some choose to focus on these particular laws and consider them in their entirely based on a particular shared effect. That's why we should say "considered".
 * The "is an expression" is inaccurate, awkward and unbalanced. "Counting your chickens before they hatch" is an expression. "War on women" is a term, in exactly the same way "World War II" is a term, in the same way most articles are about terms. Focusing on the terminological aspect would be like claiming World War II wasn't an event, but a bunch of words. It's not neutral because it implies that "War on Women" is just an expression, not a referent to something real, albeit considering in a particular way. That's why we should just say it refers to these things; it both defines it and makes it clear that what it refers to is not imaginary, just composed. Those who deny that there's a war on women are not denying that these various laws exist or that they take away rights which women used to have. They just don't like having it described as a "war", which is something we should say later in the article.
 * What's your third complaint?
 * Or fourth?
 * This is why I disagree with you. MilesMoney (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good effort MilesMoney, but I think the version that several of us a settled on is a little more adroit. I do agree that "is an expression" is not very well worded. Perhaps something like "War on Women is a term in United States politics that describes Republican Party initiatives that are seen as part of a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights." - MrX 19:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Try this:
 * "War on Women refers to Republican Party initiatives that are considered to be part of a wide-scale effort to restrict women's legal and reproductive rights in the United States."
 * This gets rid of the "taken as a whole" in commas and the "especially reproductive rights" in commas. It gets rid of "expression", since it's not an expression. It pushes "United States" to the end, which is fine because Republican Party should be a wikilink to Republican Party (United States), anyhow. MilesMoney (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is an expression. This version changes the meaning into an act that Republicans are supposedly taking versus a talking point against Republicans (which it is).  Arzel (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with using the word "term" over "expression" (I don't see much difference). MilesMoney stated that we should use "refers to" in order to make it clear that what it refers to is not imaginary, but the War on Women being something imaginary is an opinion.  For example, RNC chairman Reince Priebus stated “Now if the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars, then every mainstream media outlet talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on caterpillars, so then we’d have a problem with caterpillars. I mean, the fact of the matter is, it’s a fiction.”   So, I don't think using "refers to" would be proper in that context.  I'd be fine with MrX's revision, though with the current wording "used to describe" over "that describes" since the term is a metaphor, unless we want to swap "term" for "metaphor".  I'm fine with moving United States to the end.  I'm still not sure about "considered". I'll have to think about it some more and if the context changes how it reads and if it can be qualified without sounding weasely.  Morphh   (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling it a term would be redundant, like "Dog is a term for dog". Saying what the phrase refers to allows us to define it without necessarily endorsing it. "Dog refers to an animal that...". It would be clearer to just say "A dog is..." but we have to be careful to walk the fine line that policy requires of us. The usage of "war" within the term is metaphorical, in the sense that nobody's talking about tanks and troups, but the term as a whole is not a metaphor.
 * Priebus' view should be in the article, but it's nonsensical and doesn't address the point. He's objecting to it being termed a war, he's not denying that his party is pushing all of these laws that coincidentally have the effect of rolling back women's rights across the board. What War on Women refers to is real; he just doesn't want these things considered together and termed in a manner that highlights its. He claims that the war is a fiction, but he cannot deny that what the term refers to is real, and he does not. Don't be fooled by the spin. MilesMoney (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you get that, because they do deny they're restricting women's rights in many cases and we have plenty of sources that state this. Even in the clear case of banning abortion, they argue the women doesn't have the right to terminate a life; they argue that society restricts you from murder, but it's not denying a human right for example.  So again, the statement that they agree they're denying women's rights is not valid.    Morphh   (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)


 * Citation needed. At most, they can deny that the right to an abortion is a woman's right, but you'd be confusing legal and moral rights. It is a simple fact that a law that takes away a woman's legal right to an abortion is taking away a reproductive right, as the latter are defined as legal rights. Moral rights can't be taken away by law, although establishing what they are is harder. MilesMoney (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I addressed differing viewpoints regarding legal rights in prior discussions (which includes aspects of birth control, subsidization, and insurance mandates) but we're going down an unnecessary rabbit hole. As stated by Dimadick above "Isn't the distinction between legal and moral rights irrelevant here? The specific concept discussed is women's rights which has its own definition."  The sources treat the topic similarly.   Morphh   (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So long as you view it entirely from one perspective you will never understand. Morphh hit it correctly.  The right views it as destruction of life and therefore murder.  Your rights only extend as far as the rights of your neighbor, therefore the mother does not have the right to terminate the life.  The left views the life of the mother paramount to the fetus and does not view the fetus as a being with rights.  Moral objections aside, it comes down to legal arguments.  There may be moral objections, but this are not moral laws being proposed.  The right does not view it as taking a right from women but protecting a right of the infant.  Until you are willing to accept that reality you will have a biased view of the situation.  Arzel (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your summary is wrong and irrelevant. It doesn't matter how either side views it, it only matters that these are legal rights being removed. MilesMoney (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You will never understand. Your bias is so strongly held that you are incapable of understanding any other position then the one you personally hold.  I suggest you refrain from editing this and several other articles from which you are incapable of seeing any view but your own.  Arzel (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the personal attack, but you actually have only your guesses about what my position is. Pretty hard to paint me as biased when you can't identify the bias. MilesMoney (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this is a mess. First off, I suggest you all WP:DISENGAGE. Additionally, focus on content, not individuals. If you cannot handle this civilly, check out the dispute resolution page.

Here is my opinion: The lede seems perfectly fine. "The War on Women" is neither an expression nor term; it's a political rhetorical device like the "War on Terror", "War on Drugs", "War on Poverty", etc. The lede correctly notes that it is used by left-leaning and feminist groups to describe (however (in)accurately) the political platform and actions of right-wing groups. In describing the rhetorical device, the lede (1)makes very clear, with citation, what accusations/grievances comprise the "War on Women", (2) notes its historical use and meaning, and (3) describes criticisms of it. If you quibble is with "expression", I'll note that War on Terror and War on Drugs use "term", however these were government policies as well as rhetorical devices. Quite frankly, I don't see the semantic gravity of using expression/term/whatever. Looking at the definitions of expression and term, the former seems more apt. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Using "refers to" avoids trying to decide if it's a "term", "expression" or whatever. Why not do that? MilesMoney (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)