Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Women (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep (non-admin closure) → TheSpecialUser TalkContributions 15:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

War on Women
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This was deleted once before for being a partisan screed. Looks to be much the same again. Opening paragraphs fail miserably at conveying a neutral point-of-view, and the rest of the article is basically a bunch of existing reports with an original synthesis. This type of article does not belong on Wikipedia, and thus it should be deleted with extreme prejudice.  McDoob AU  93  19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. -- McDoob  AU  93  19:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a term only used figuratively. This is a normal manifestation of language. "War on women" does not have a designated significance. It is only a loosely used term. It merely expresses what some view as harmful to women. We don't have an article Harmful to women because this is just an ordinary word construction. It is basically the same for War on Women. It can be used figuratively but it has no fixed meaning. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Opinion piece, as defined, article by its existence asserts that Republican are waging a War on Women.
 * DeleteThanks for fixing nomination. relevant entries reproduced here.

Previously Deleted with cause. Re-posted as an opinion piece, with all previous problems except WP:QUOTEFARM. Tagged for speedy deletion, removed with expectation that AfD tag would be placed immediately, solely based on the fact that re-posted article was different, not that it did not have almost all the same problems. Is not an encyclopedia entry, title by its existence states, in Wikipedia's voice, that there exists a Republican War on Women, a highly contentious assertion that due to its POV nature, precludes the article ever approaching NPOV. Helpful suggestions that the article be limited to discussion of War on Women only as a Political Meme, bringing it potentially to NPOV rejected. WP:ATTACK WP:NOR WP:NOT Apparent from mostly fairly civil Talk page that there needs to be two discussions, and they need to be separate. First is the discussion of whether an article that plainly states there IS a US Republican War on Women as such can exist. Then, and only then can there be a discussion of whether a separate page on the political meme, strictly limited as such, can be erected.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously there are notable accusations of a Republican war on women and there can be an article, just like it's obvious there are notable accusations of antisemitism or racism. The question in all cases is, is the amount of material WP:Undue to the overall subject? I've held from the start it should be about 1/3 or so of the article and the rest should be about past uses of the phrase. I think the article would stand a better chance of surviving if about 1/2 of current content was cut, the least notable and most partisan sounding parts, obviously. Since cutting is easier than writing, I'll think about it. CarolMooreDC 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename and keep. There is definitely a topic here to be carried by Wikipedia. Its title should be something like War on Women (US politics), Republican War on Women (US politics), War on Women (meme) or War on Women (political issue). There are far too many reliable sources reporting on the recent political use of the term to consider any sort of deletion. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Separate limited article is a separate argument. Numbers 1, 2, and 4 fail on same grounds as the AfD subject; statement that The War on Women is an actual War or Legislative War, utterly POV. Wat on Women (Political Meme, 2012 elections) may work, but that is a different subject. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a different subject. The recent brouhaha over the real or imagined Republican War on Women is the main element of War on Women, the exact article we are discussing here at AfD. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Currently, the article contains very good sources such as the books The W Effect: Bush's War On Women and The Republican War Against Women, and articles in Newsweek, Ms. magazine, Slate.com, Politico.com, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Huffington Post, International Business Times and ABC News. More sources can be found using the links at the top of this deletion discussion, resulting in the following:
 * "The war on women that isn’t: Liberals just need faux issue to exploit", Boston Herald, March 26, 2012. "If you've even been partially awake, you have no doubt heard the liberal histrionics about the so-called 'GOP War on Women.'"
 * "There is no war on women", New York Daily News, April 23, 2012
 * "From the Frontlines of the War on Women", Huffington Post, April 24, 2012
 * "Biden: 'War on Women' is Real, Will Intensify", ABC News, April 12, 2012
 * "Battle over 'war on women' continues", SunSentinel, April 12, 2012
 * "War on Caterpillars? Absurd. GOP War on Women? Reality.", Hufington Post, April 12, 2012
 * "Romney focuses on the 'war on women'", MSNBC
 * "GOP picks ‘War on Women’ fight while Romney benefactor makes alarming joke", MSNBC
 * "'War on Women' ignites a battle for voters", Miami Herald, April 30, 2012
 * "War on Women 2.0: Jobs", Washington Post, April 16, 2012
 * "War on women targets most vulnerable in Texas", MSNBC
 * "Connelly: GOP losing ground with 'war on women?'", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2011. "Republicans are waging a 'war on women,' charges the Democrats' new national chair, and her party is seizing on that war—real or imagined—to regain ground lost in the 2010 mid-term elections and boost President Obama's re-election."
 * "This 'war on women' isn't playing as it should", The Kansas City Star, March 16, 2012
 * "Withdrawing from war on women", Philadelphia Enquirer, April 18, 2012
 * "Boehner: What ‘war on women’?", MSNBC
 * "The Democrats' three-pronged plan for the 'War on Women'", The Washington Post, April 27, 2012
 * "The Vatican's War on Women", Huffington Post, April 25, 2012
 * "John McCain: 'War On Women' Is 'Imaginary,' 'Conjured' By Democrats", Huffington Post, April 26, 2012
 * "War on Women Affects Us All", Huffington Post, May 1, 2012
 * "The War on Women: Why Stay-at-Home Moms Need Permission to Get Credit", U.S. News Money, April 19, 2012
 * "War On Women: Catholic Bishops", Auburn Journal, April 12, 2012
 * "Bachmann: Pelosi's claims of GOP war on women 'pathetic', The Washington Post, April 27, 2012
 * "Democratic Fears Fade as War on Women Wounds GOP", The Daily Beast, April 18, 2012
 * "The truth about the war on women", Fox News, April 11, 2012. "They are declaring a nonexistent war on women for political gain so the president can keep his job."
 * "The War on Women: Why We're Fighting", Huffington Post, April 18, 2012
 * "Women's War on Women", Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2012
 * "Are Democrats Reaching On Latest 'War On Women' Claim?", NPR, May 1, 2012
 * "Hutchison talks Romney, War on Women", Houston Chronicle, April 12, 2012
 * "War on Women is Fabricated", Ashland Current, April 23, 2012
 * "Dissecting phony 'war on women'", Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, April 21, 2012
 * Backlash: the undeclared war against American women (2006) by Susan Faludi
 * George W. Bush and the war on women: turning back the clock on progress (2006) by Barbara Finlay, a scholarly Macmillan imprint.
 * These sources, even the ones denying a true "war on women", indicate that there is a tightly focused topic to be kept, one that discusses the US Republican trend against women's rights, first described in the 2000s during the Bush presidency, then commented upon in greater detail by political observers in 2011 and 2012. The most recent uproar comes from an early April announcement by Nancy Pelosi, made against the opposition party's proposed budget. Deletion is not called for in this matter! Only some trimming for focus and some expansion for coverage. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Addresses little. You CAN have an article that is entitled "Feminazi" as long as you qualify it as simply a pejorative neologism. Is extensively used, many articles and RS references in which it is used, a list longer than the one above. You CANNOT do what this article does, writing an article which includes an exposition on Feminazi positions, notable Feminazis, Feminazi controversies and criticisms of Feminazis, and the growth and evolution of Feminazism. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, left field. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep . Article is significantly improved from earlier version. The article refers to a specific political trend documented in reliable sources; perceived problems with the writing (or even the title..."2010s Republican policy wrt women"...) can be improved through editing, not deletion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Same problems as before except WP:QUOTEFARM, can't start an article "War on Women" if it is there to describe "a specific political trend", the bias and POV and OR is inherent in its title.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested a different title. Where is your delete argument now that the title concern has been addressed? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need an article on every Figure of speech. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Political slogans make for extremely bad articles - though it does show "silly season" is in full force and vigour. The prior AfD was clear on this as a topic.  Put it in 2012 Obama Campaign if the campaign slogan is really "important" to anyone. Collect (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. & others who have pointed out that is an opinion piece. Runs afoul of WP:SYNTH--JayJasper (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointy opinion piece, riddled with synth and NPOV issues. As there is no real "War on Women" the title is misleading to the point of being a political wedge.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do so many delete arguments point to the title as a reason? Articles can be renamed. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Had that been my only point, your reasoning would bear more weight. Regardless of title, the content is unacceptable for the reasons I stated.  The title shown only reinforces the objective of the creators.  Changing the title does not fix the otherwise fatal flaws and policy based shortcomings of the article.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  15:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just read a few references in the article, a number of them didn't mention a "War on Women". My hunch is that this is a notable campaign meme, but the author of the current version of the article heavily relied on OR and SYNTH. So, Keep and cleanup, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. A lot of delete arguments are arguing that the article should be deleted because its title is biased. This is not a valid or policy-compliant reason to delete an article, because articles can be renamed. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * it is not simply the title, but the perspective that the title brings if not radically constrained by parentheses. The other active editors asserted, that yes, they wished to keep the perspective of writing about the War on Women as a real War, or a Republican legislative plan, or a political issue, or any of the other combinations that assert that a War exists and is being fought, with combatants as defined. Such an article cannot exist and be in accord with Wikipedia policy or purpose. The appropriate forum to debate whether such an article can exist is a Deletion page. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep a topic that is getting extensive coverage in US politics. A politically charged debate like this one needs to be analyzed and explained by the Wikipedia community; how are we helping people otherwise? Also, a bad article title is not grounds for deletion; it's grounds for a move proposal. -- Ja Ga  talk  21:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia is neither the place for debate nor the place for analysis and explanation. It is a place for facts, not political posturing, and the title is the least of this article's issues, frankly. -- McDoob  AU  93  21:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What? You seem to be saying that there are no salvageable facts in the article. There are, of course. Here is an example of facts that can be kept going forward: "While the term is not new and has been used in other contexts, its use became common in American political discourse in 2011. Use accelerated rapidly in 2012 as both liberal and conservative news outlets began to discuss the term." What part of that do you think is wrong or counter-factual? Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the facts ... I am questioning the article's synthesis of these facts into a perceived coordinated attack. The article fails on several key Wikipedia policies: WP:NPOV (since the article attacks Republican initiatives); WP:OR (the aforementioned interpretation of the policy initiatives mentioned in the article); WP:SOAPBOX (fails three of the five points, specifically advocacy, opinion and scandal-mongering). Again, the title is the farthest thing from my mind in proposing this deletion. -- McDoob  AU  93  23:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In light of the article's perfectly apt meeting of the WP:GNG requirement for notability, and in light of my further sources showing exhaustively that there is a notable topic here, your stated problems with NPOV, SOAPBOX and SYNTH are just that, problems with neutrality, advocacy and synthesis. None of those are reasons for deleting an article that is most certainly a topic and is absolutely notable. They are reasons for improving an article. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is substantially different from the previously deleted version (which can be seen here). This topic has already played a notable role in US politics, having been discussed and debated in every major news outlet. I believe Binksternet's list above demonstrates some of the breadth and depth of coverage this has received. It seems that some of the arguments for deletion are confusing the article with the topic of the article. It may be that the topic is point-y or synth-y, but that doesn't mean that the article has those attributes as well. Whether or not that is the case, issues surrounding NPOV in the article can and are being addressed. There is currently a move discussion and the lead of the article was recently changed to address neutrality. Gobōnobo  + c 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So changing from this:
 * "The "War on Women" is a term used to describe legislative initiatives and policies that are argued as harmful to women. The term often refers to U.S. Republican-led policy initiatives enacted by the United States House of Representatives and state legislatures, primarily in 2011 and 2012."
 * To this:
 * "The "War on Women" is a politically-charged, perjorative term used to describe Republican initiatives in federal and state legislatures that the Left argues are harmful to women."
 * is considered improving its neutrality? -- McDoob  AU  93  23:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an argument for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Such an obvious delete... It's just the promotion of one side's political campaign slogan. It's also riddled with or, synth, and clearly bad/bias sourcing.  I was honestly surprised to see this article existed. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is what I call a POV Trojan Horse... No matter how "neutral" its phrasing and sourcing, the fundamental intent of the piece is partisan and political, as will inevitably be its content. Sort of the topical equivalent of the old "When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?" schtick. This is far improved over the first iteration of this topic, rightfully deleted. I still don't think it's a valid encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This term is now significant enough to merit an article about it. Plumber (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt – {with apologies for length} I wrote the lede. It got reverted and re-reverted immediately. The article swings from one extreme POV (the Feminazis are hijacking the Dem agenda and destroy the world) to the other (the GOP is on a Hitleresque crusade to crush female rights and destroy the world). I thought a decade of solid sources and historical context dating back a century would enable editors to write an article describing the slogan and its use. My lede tried to alternate, sentence by sentence, from POV to POV to preserve the integrity of the debate without choosing sides. I was wrong, I apologize and I agree this article should go will be nearly, but ONLY nearly, impossible to keep NPOV. I come to this conclusion through WP:OWN, WP:COAT, WP:SOAP, AGF, WP:NICE, WP:NASTY and several other issues. IF an article can be written in an encyclopaedic manner, I contend that it cannot be done by the editors contributing to this article today. Please consider nom's post above comparing the lede I wrote to a version a day-and-a-half earlier, ignoring the diff between. What I replace read, "The "War on Women" is a Political meme or slogan, borrowed from feminist literature, that has been adopted by the Democratic Party for the 2010-2012 election cycle, to change the focus of the election towards social issues. It has been used to group issues as disparate as abortion and student loan interest, and as a pejorative, to characterize conflicts with individual women or politicians. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus called it a "fiction" and compared it to a war on caterpillars." I spent several days reading all sources, arguments, edits and talk-page posts I could find in an effort to find a central, NPOV wording. I failed and I am heartily sorry for that. I believe with all my Wikiheart that there IS no middle ground. This article, if it continues to exist, will (imho) become a salt-lick drawing extreme POV from both sides. I found this during a normal browse through WP:AfD; I have already exited the debate and will not attempt to edit the article (if it survives) EVER again.  I recommend that the article be deleted and be salted If it is to survive, someone will need to babysit this article constantly until at least 2015. Perhaps a couple years after the election cycle, historical perspective will allow us, as a community, to reach consensus on what happened. For now, in light of the editing in place, I recommend that we ALL devote our Wikitime to articles with some slight chance of NPOV. Apologies, Cheers & Thanks, Last1in (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the problems you describe are not problems related to whether the article should exist, they are criticisms of the way Wikipedia deals very poorly with political advocacy. The article should not be deleted; your involvement in it is its own example of your ideals—you know that there is a topic here to be written about and you know that it should be presented neutrally. None of that is a valid reason for deletion. Can WP methods be improved? Yes. Can this article be neutral? I think it can. Is there a topic here? Of course there is—your own actions speak loudly. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Last1in: I thought your rewrite of the lede was a good compromise and hope that you change your mind about editing the article in the future. This is a contentious issue and there are bound to be strong feelings that will come up during discussion. Time and deliberation can mend fences. Gobōnobo  + c 04:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Based on further reading of user pages, talk pages and prior AfD discussions, I withdraw my recommendation to delete and salt. I think a neutral article could be written on this subject (hence my waste of three Wiki-days researching and writing a lede). I do not, however, think that it's likely to be written. I believe that the invaluable time of talented, neutrality-focused editors will be consumed by constant battles over the article and that Wikipedia as a whole will suffer for it. That, however, is not a valid criterion for deletion. Cheers & Thanks, Last1in (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I never saw first version but as I have opined from when I first saw this version the article should focus on the various uses of the phrase and have only a small section on the current controversy. Alternately, this article should be titled something like "War on Women" (2012 election issue). To say that the article should be deleted or permanently banned because it keeps going back and forth among different POVs is absurd. Under that rationale, we would ban all articles on Israel-Palestine conflict, Libertarianism and a host of other controversial topics. I've been too busy to deal with it personally, but I think it would be total WP:CENSORSHIP to delete an article on the topic itself and set back the Wikimedia Gender Gap project a few years. Maybe some people would like that? An example of systematic bias in Wikipedia??? CarolMooreDC 04:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems that such term indeed exist after looking at text and sources, although "left" versus "right" description is too simplistic. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - if this really is a "flash in the pan", we can always revisit this next year. - jc37 04:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - actually sums it up better than I can -  A l is o n  ❤ 05:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There are obviously sources. Just because the term reflects a POV doesn't mean we can't have a neutral article on the topic. That said, I should caution that Wikipedia ought to be covering the concept and not the term (we're not Wiktionary) and we shouldn't be adding needless bracketing after the name unless there is some other War on Women that needs to be disambiguated. I don't see any argument that such disambiguation is required, the argument instead seems to be that we ought to do it in order to be NPOV, which, quite frankly, is a pretty crap argument. Perhaps in the name of neutrality we ought to rename Academy Award for Best Picture to "Academy Award for Best Picture (in some people's opinion)" etc. etc. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - A notable topic as an extensively covered campaign meme. The deletion arguments here appear to have little to do with notability and more to do with concerns about NPOV, OR, SYNTH, etc., that can be addressed within the article by normal means. If Wikipedia has managed to put together a neutral article on Israel and the apartheid analogy, surely we can manage it for a US campaign issue, even if it includes a phrase that some disagree with. Khazar2 (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget about the disambiguation Israel and apartheid. CarolMooreDC 19:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tom Morris, Khazar2, Plumber, et al. Actually, I think the lead ("pejorative") is fully NPOV. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: too bad it can't say "well deserved pejorative".  CarolMooreDC 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a long-running, significant concept in American politics with a great deal of reliable third-party sources. I agree with Khazar2's summary of the problems with the arguments in favor of deletion. Catavar (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename I think it makes sense for us to have an article on this political meme, but the title is inherently POV. I would be open to the idea of creating a exception to the normal titling guidelines for cases such as this. Perhaps something like War on Women (U.S. political controversy) or War on Women (political slogan), so that it is clear we are not endorsing the blanket use of the phrase. But then again, we do have an article for Feminazi. Kaldari (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In some ways the argument over the name reminds me of the debate at Chink, which an editor wanted to rename Chink (racial slur) to show that Wikipedia didn't endorse that term either. While I suppose it wouldn't do much harm to label this as a political slogan/meme/catchphrase/controversy in the title, I'm generally reluctant to add parentheticals to the effect of "X (term we don't necessarily agree with)" if X doesn't need disambiguation. Khazar2 (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The difference being, to my mind, that the derogatory slur "Chink" is part of a 150 year historical legacy, give or take a decade, whereas "War on Women" is a partisan neologism for a current political campaign. One is encyclopedia-worthy, the other may or may not be when the smoke clears, but we should not succumb to recentism, following the logic of NOTNEWS, by assuming encyclopedic merit for an oft-used-and-momentarily-en-vogue political slogan. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I just went off on a tangent there, didn't I? Let me try again. The most recent parallel for parenthesis would be Santorum vs. Santorum (neologism) vs. Campaign for Santorum Neologism. But this is an editing question, to be decided elsewhere in the event of a keep result, which now seems likely. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename and refocus — The case for inclusion of a frequently used accusatory political term is weak, for reasons mentioned above. The topic of the term is simply too new and weakly established to be encyclopedic. What is encyclopedic is the subject of the policies of the Republican Party (United States) on women's issues, which presently amount to one line on that page, concerning abortion. Summarize the policies discussed here, and make this a sub-article Women's policies of the Republican Party (United States) and make the critiques of policies follow the very well-written articulation of them here.--Carwil (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Lots of sources have used this expression. --Taranet (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Binksternet's excellent arguments and sourcing.  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Reversal of my earlier support for deletion, per several subsequent arguments made in favor of keep - particularly those of Binksternet, CarolMooreDC & Tom Morris - and the sources presented. Agree with others that renaming should be considered.--JayJasper (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Binksternet, et al. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. The basic topic is notable; the current contents of the article is in considerable degree a COATRACK. The article ought to discuss the use of the term, not all anti-feminist & other illiberal measures and opinions `  DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not an opinion piece, this is a fact based piece, with a list below cited the 900+ bills Republicans have brought to the table to repeal the civil rights specifically of half the population.Keep in it's current incarnation. Specifically reference the "war on women" as corresponding to the tidal wave of legislation attacking the civil rights of everyone born female. The laws are primarily written by and passed by men, which is a fact. Simply include the factual content of the political party writing and passing these bills. Hyperbole has no place, facts do. 05:13, 10 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Thatismetoo (talk • contribs) 05:09, May 10, 2012


 * Keep -- Arguments in favor of keeping are compelling. This a fact-based article about a real phenomenon. Arguments for deletion seem to be based on a previous version, not the one we're reading this week.WGST490 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowballing on keep. Like it or not, the term is notable, there is no denying that. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Major argument fork confusing the debate. Solely an argument over whether 'War on Women' can exist as an article on an actual War, or a Legislative plan, or a historical reality, or a real issue, NOT whether Democrats are using it as a repetetive MEME. Rename needs a name, or is an argument that it is only a meme, and is a DELETE, not a KEEP vote. Evidence of the meme's use is Not an argument that there is a War or that this article can exist. Argument for an article solely on a Political meme was taken outside the argument for this article by consensus, and is a separate issue."209.6.69.227 (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. Evidence of the meme's use can be used in the article just as well as evidence that the Republican Party has been busy limiting women's rights. This article will not be limited to the smoke that may indicate a fire, it can include arguments discussing the fire if such arguments are accompanied by the phrase "War on Women" in the source. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with 209 on pretty much every point. First, this is not a vote; it is an attempt to reach consensus. I think the question is: Can an article entitled War on Women (1) cover a topic that is notable, (2) be written from a NPOV and (3) be supported by verifiable, reliable sources.
 * My WP:OR suggests that the rhetorical device has been used at least since the 1920s in much the same sense that it is being used today (only the specific issues have changed). Its recent resurgence is seen across the political spectrum (and far outside the US) as commentators opine on its validity as a concept, its use as a political tool, the accuracy of its message and its effect on the process. Neither the term nor an NPOV article about it would have a "side" since the term is discussed by those who oppose it as much as those who believe it - see Vast right-wing conspiracy and Read my lips: no new taxes. Your oft-repeated belief that it is nothing more than a repetitive meme is certainly part of that, but it not the totality of the history, notability, meaning or use of the term.
 * The assertion that an actual war should be proven before an article with the title can be created seems inconsistent with Wikipedia's community standards. Taking this outside politics for a moment (and not suggesting the War on Women is similar to these examples), your position would preclude articles on cold fusion, ZOG, ancient astronauts, Creation Science and Orgone – the title of each article references a term that is either completely fictional or completely discredited, but the articles are (or could be) NPOV. Whether we agree that there is a "war" on women is not relevant; only that we as a community agree that a notable, NPOV, sourced article could be written that informs the reader about something they see or hear about called War on Women. I think it's possible, hence the lede I wrote; I don't think it's likely with the editors active in the article space today, but that's no reason to kill the attempt. Cheers & Thanks, Last1in (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice to see everyone maintaining an NPOV here - I understand 's comments in particular were in jest but frankly I find the joke a tad distasteful. Incidentally, I don't see any reason to rename the article if there is no other use of the term "War on Women". (As another editor commented above, parenthesis are used for disambiguation and not to add disclaimers.) It is my belief that the article still has major POV problems (the lede needs to be reworded, for one), which is what this deletion discussion is about- not the notability of the term. OSborn arfcontribs. 18:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "well deserved pejorative" joke. Well, it wouldn't be a joke if a couple WP:RS actually used that phrase!!
 * In any case, as brought up by a number of people the phrase has been used often enough to over the years. I think it would be great if it had its own article, with a subsection on current political use. But the simple "War on Women" article can wait. Changing the name of the existing one to reflect the current political battle, per various suggestions here, is what's needed. CarolMooreDC 15:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to 2012 U.S. birth control insurance coverage mandate controversy; term is related to that parent article, and is not independently notable. Previous uses can be summarized and placed in a term history section that should be written with a NPOV, of which the present article needs serious work on.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but fix for POV writing. Subject is obviously notable. LK (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.