![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Please read the article on Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Summary style. This is not a "second article". It's meant to be the only article on the Sandra Fluke controversy. In fact, I think it's a good idea to move it there.
I'd prefer to have only short summaries of the media incident at Sandra Fluke or Rush Limbaugh, with the long version here.
But I won't edit war, even though I spent a lot of time discussing this beforehand and actually doing it. If the consensus is against me, I'll go with the flow. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 00:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the Sandra Fluke article should be integrated into this one. There is no reason to have a topic on Sandra Fluke except for this topic. Emeraldflames ( talk) 19:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Or, if you prefer - context, context, context. This should not be a standalone. The material is best served by being presented and engaged in a broader, deeper context. That is to say, the standalone approach isolates and weakens it, and inappropriately and misleadingly addresses the incident/controversy - by implication of its standalone status - as if it were sui generi.
It's not. Regardless of one's political or cultural (or sociological, or whateverical) take on RL's behavior and the response(s) to it, it is IOTTCO that the instigating behavior and the progress of the incident is of a piece with many other such incidents/controversies in RL's career. There are patterns to be discerned - on both RL's behavior and in the responses to it. This is also IOTTCO. Therefore, assuming appropriate Wiki eschewment of rightfully-dreaded ORIGINAL RESEARCH, the best way to offer readers their opportunity to detect or analyze such patterns on their own, is for the material to be offered in a proper, full, broad, deep context.
This means, ideally, that all material suitable for classification as singular Controversies reside in the main RL article under that heading.
If this is deemed too bulky, or too much of a side-track from the main flow of the main article (but, then, how could one consider RL's hi8story of controvbersial statements and the resultant blowback broohahas as other than part of the main flow of his career?) the very least, any standalone article should cover all appropriate RL controversies, in chronological order - with, in the main RL article, the appropriate "see main article "Rush Limbaugh Controversies" JTGILLICK ( talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn´t the first section be something like "Background", or "Sandra Fluke´s statement"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
As the article currently stands (1:44 US-Eastern, March 5th) it seems as though Rush used identical phrasing on two consecutive days when speaking about Ms. Fluke. It could also be that the last editor did not read the previous pages and wrote up the the information in a slightly different fashion. I know the article is changing rapidly but it would be good to have a clear reference as to when statements were made and if they were repeated. Something like 'The following afternoon Mr Limbaugh repeated his claim of...' 209.51.184.10 ( talk) 18:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
What is the point behind that? I think it should be "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy" Casprings ( talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead currently announces the Wikipedia conclusion that the Limbaugh comments were "misogynistic" in nature. That's an unsourced value judgment -- and it's also an unsourced conclusion.
The term "misogynic," as an adjective, means "having or showing a hatred and distrust of women." The term "misogynistic" is of course an alternative form of the adjective. See generally Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 735, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th Ed. 1976). Similarly, "misogyny" is defined as "hatred of women." American Heritage Dictionary, p. 803, Houghton Mifflin Company (2d Coll. Ed. 1985).
I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of making its own value judgments or drawing its own conclusions about the nature of Limbaugh's comments. If we can find a reliable, previously published third party source that has characterized the comments that way, that's a different matter. (If the sourcing is somewhere else in the article, I missed it.) Famspear ( talk) 23:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
In the background section of the article is not quite accurate. The following statements should be changed from
"Democratic members invited Barry W. Lynn, a prominent UCC minister and leader of the American religious left. Democrats asked the committee to substitute Sandra Fluke for Lynn, but committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) refused."
to
"Democratic members invited Barry W. Lynn, a prominent UCC minister and leader of the American religious left, and Sandra Fluke. When the committee restricted the Democratic members selection to a single panel member, the Democrats asked the committee that Sandra Fluke be that panel member, but committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) refused."
Reference: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/304550-1 67.168.49.195 ( talk) 21:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The second version is just not true. Fluke was simply not an invitee, never made it to the agenda or speaker list. There was no restriction on how many speakers could have been invited within the time frame before the agenda was set. Barry Lynn remained on the list because he was a late (on the morning of the hearing) scratch. Fluke had never been a speaker to that point. 00:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 ( talk)
Barry Lynn was submitted, approved, and put on the agenda and schedule, then he cancelled on the day of the hearing. The request to substitute Fluke for Lynn, who was the only witness submitted in advance by the Democrats, came an hour before the hearing.
C.E.S.; the only possible problems with the paragraph as it is now are 1) the word "substitute". Technically, no-one knew where Barry Lynn was when the panel started, and the chair offered to add him to the second panel if he arrived late. Fluke would have been an addition. 2) technically speaking, the Democrats hadn't submitted Lynn at the cutoff on Monday. When the 5:00 deadline to publish was coming, and no Democrat nominees had been submitted, phone calls were made, and Lynn was added based on verbal information. His written nomination was only received the day before the hearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 12:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Limbaugh slut affair is being redirected here. I don't know much about the situation but that title seems a little...odd. Thoughts? Nolelover Talk· Contribs 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the title "Sandra Fluke's Press Conference" to the correct "Sandra Fluke's Testimony," because it was not a press conference. There were no media there asking her questions, she did not speak to the media and was not interviewed by them.
Definition of press conference: arranged meeting with journalists: a meeting to which members of the press are invited to hear a prepared statement and to ask questions about that statement.
One definition of Congressional hearing: hearings may also be purely exploratory in nature, providing *testimony* and data about topics of current interest.
Hers was the latter, not the former.
Thank you.
Exactly10 ( talk) 03:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not "testimony" because it was not sworn.
It is not "Cogressional" because it was not in response to, or before, "Congress."
It was a statement in a contrived forum, staged to look like Congressional testimony, made without an oath binding before Congress, made only to Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This was thrashed through extensively when Fluke had her own page. "Congressional Testimony" has a specific meaning, and referring to Ms Fluke's speech as such confuses. Yes, it happened in an office in the Congress bldg, and there may be other meanings in a different context to the word "testify", but the whole phrase means something that Fluke never did.
No oath/other certification - no legal consequence for false testimony Does not have to follow guidelines, including subject, or a hearing. NOT subject to cross-examination NOT open to both parties NOT entered into the Congressional Record.
She spoke at a Democrat Party event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 06:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
AND THIS ARTICLE IS STILL LOCKED WITH NO ABILITY TO CORRECT THIS OBVIOUS DISTORTION. OPEN IT UP DEFENDERS OF THE FLUKE!!! 108.85.232.242 ( talk) 19:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC) gettingitright57
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
20:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hide behind your silly rules. There is no basis -- at all -- for calling the forum in which Fluke appeared and made a statement that was not under oath and not before any instrumentality of Congress a "hearing." This is kept locked by rank partisans. That is why wikipedia should not cover current events. This page sucks and should be deleted! 108.85.232.242 ( talk) 00:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)gettinginright57
I put three videos from the Wiki Commons page ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke ) It shows her testimony and the President response There are some more videos there, but I think that is the most important. Should any others be added? That said, the video I would really like to figure out how to put up is the video of Rush's statements ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05/1071386/-Video-53-of-Rush-Limbaugh-s-most-vile-smears-against-law-student-Sandra-Fluke ) Anyone have any thoughts on how to get this done? Casprings ( talk) 04:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Clearly crystal balling, but what type of event gets her a page again? Casprings ( talk) 04:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi‎ Casprings.
I feel the current state of the Background section provides far too much unnessary information regarding Sandra Fluke. I believe it puts too much emphasis on her and takes away from the actual article's purpose - the controversy.
How would you feel about shortening it a little, something along the lines of "...has been involved for many years working with families and etc etc." As it stands, I think after leading in from "Democrats asked the committee to substitute Sandra Fluke for Lynn," it almost seems like WP is making an attempt to justify her inclusion.
What do you think? - Xcal68 ( talk) 16:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
And I would love to have others chime in with their opinions. - Xcal68 ( talk) 16:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
AGREE. Her background section resembles more a CV promoting her as a Law Student than anything relevant to the Media flap. Should be taken out. She was pretty much unknown until the attempt to insert her into the hearing (perhaps this is the most relevant part as one of the reasons she was turned down as a speaker was that no-one could find out who she was). The only parts of her background that are RELEVANT are that she appeared at a media event the week before (org by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend), and that she founded a Catholic Students group that supported the Democrat/liberal/progressive agenda. Possibly also that she entered Georgetown with the intent to demand that the Health care policy be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 06:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Forum to avoid edit war problem is, prior to Feb 2012, is RAIL thin, and source for the breathless prose is a profile blurb in the Georgetown U press office that would have basically been written by Ms Fluke herself (though probably cleaned up)
INCLUDE
DELETE
Casprings; Simply deleting all factual, sourced references just because you don't think those facts advance your goals is inappropriate and contrary to the policy and purpose of Wikipedia. The Biography was a hash and best done away with, but if it is to be there, should cite RELEVANT biographical info, namely those that relate to law, insurance issues, contraception, or lead to the controversy. ALL the sourced items you deleted fit those criteria, none of those you substituted do. You are arguing that her only law article, which is also only one of two places she is know to have weighed in on insurance issues is NOT relevant, but her student activities unrelated to any issue in the controversy ARE relevant. POV is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 02:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Casprings; With regard to why the items, all solely from school profiles self-authored by Ms Fluke are inappropriate. Caps are used to distinguish comment from WP definitions and policy
It is not and never was "testimony" before Congress!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
It is still not adequate because the Steering Committee is NOT an committee of the Congress -- it is an association of Democrats only -- anything that gives the IMPRESSION that this was anything more than a mock up made to LOOK like a hearing is misleading SPIN and PROPOGANGA. 17:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC) GettingitRight57 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 ( talk • contribs)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The only information on such a controversy would come from the mass media. Does wikipedia really need to be a clearing house for summarizing the big story of the week? Shouldn't it wait until it shows up in other more substantial sources?
Just a thought. Ann arbor street ( talk) 05:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hear, hear. A little overstated, maybe; but mr. LoudmouthLimbaugh is most certainly not going to be that. Sintermerte ( talk) 10:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
DISAGREE This is not mere news, there are profound philosophical and legal principles at stake. I have appended an expanded version of my subheading segment Philosophy of human rights jurisprudence that was repeatedly vandalised/undone at the now-defunct Sandra Fluke page (on the conflicting tenets of positive law with universal natural law) with wikified linking to other humanism entries. I have also addressed the valid criticism of unsourced, unreferenced content by adding three references (69-71), particularly relevant citing a member of the Georgetown faculty who has gone on the record since the events transpired. MrsKrishan ( talk) 23:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems very unfortunate that this page and the related but now deleted page on Sandra Fluke herself seem to have become targets of political positioning. What is required is an examination of the broader issues raised by Fluke and Limbaugh and the political implications. This is particularly regrettable from the perspective of WP:WikiProject Feminism-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 01:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
For what purpose was Reason magazine labeled in this article as "pro-market"? Such a description seems beyond the subject controversy. — ADavidB 08:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
in the current WP:LEDE, it says "The Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy erupted on February 29, 2012, when American conservative talk-show host and noted antifeminist[1][2][3][4] Rush Limbaugh" ... Does Rush claim to be "an antifeminist?" I see that there are sources that accuse him of being against feminism, but it seems to me that the term "antifeminist" is not the most NPOV term. Perhaps a more NPOV term would be "critic of feminism." I am boldly changing the lede words to say he is a "noted critic of feminism" while keeping the piped link to Antifeminism. Thoughts? Peace, MPS ( talk) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Ironic that you would call positive sources as self-serving when the very sources you are using are self-serving as well. Anyhow, there is a clear difference between being a critic of feminism and anti-feminism which I clearly stated above. Sources attacking Limbaugh as such are not sufficient to label him as one. Arzel ( talk) 02:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
OBVIOUSLY, Paintedbird has a huge library and encyclopedic knowledge of radical feminist literature. HOWEVER, just because that is a term used in that world, doesn't mean that it is the right one for a general encyclopedia entry. While it IS used, it is done so as an insulting term (you know, like "slut", or "Political Theater") and, particularly in the lead, is inappropriate and CLEARLY not NPOV. If you wanted to put antifeminist in the section on criticism of Limbaugh, for instance, where OPINIONS are being listed, fine.
209.6.69.227 (
talk)
15:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Rush claims to be anti-feminist, at least, he coined the word 'feminazi'. Why would you doubt his position? 76.21.107.221 ( talk) 23:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time I've ever given Rush Limbaugh more than 2 seconds of my attention. I note with interest that a Google search of rushlimbaugh.com for the terms "antifeminist", "antifeminism", "anti-feminist", "anti-feminism" turns up several hits. None of them show Limbaugh referring to himself that way, some have Limbaugh saying that's how liberals characterize conservatives. In scanning a few of the transcripts, it seems to me that Limbaugh isn't against feminism in the sense of women feeling free to pursue their goals, it's militant feminism, the type that he claims tries to make women be men, that gets him all riled up. There are some references about he got "screwed up" by this, which might explain his bitterness on the subject.
In any case, if the list of sources above don't distinguish, as Limbaugh appears to do, between mainstream feminism and its militant faction, then the use of the term "antifeminist" should probably include a qualifier regarding what source applies that label. Otherwise he merely seems opposed to what he sees as militant feminists, a category in which he likely includes Sandra Fluke. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the name is really great. Suggest we put some thought in renaming the subject. I know this was thought out on the Sandra Fluke page, but I suggest we continue it here. Casprings ( talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Unwise to use the term "Fluke flap", as this is something large marine mammals, especially whales, do. Could be interpreted as an ad hominem insult to RL. 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 03:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
How about not having a separate article? This is absurd. "Limbaugh–Fluke flap"? Is this some kind of joke? Maybe mention this in the Rush Limbaugh article, but anything more is absurd. Where's the sense of perspective and proportionality? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
All right, you guys talk about it while I get some sleep and go to work tomorrow. Meanwhile, I've moved this page to
Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy because no one likes the term "
flap" as part of the article name.
Goodnight, all! :-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 05:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
[ Content section 10.]repeatedly undone, as was my contribution under Content section 4. on now-defunct Sandra Fluke entry. Revising a bold edit is not an edit war UNLESS revision = complete deletion/undo. I'm not the offending disruptive editor, rather User:AV3000 and User:ISTB351 are out of line. MrsKrishan ( talk) 03:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
In addition to the general sleaziness of Limbaugh's attacks, they lack severely in logic: getting one's expenses covered for doing X, is not the same thing as getting paid for doing X. Limbaugh himself is not getting his expenses covered for running his show, he makes money on it (however uncomprehensible that is to many of us).
HandsomeFella ( talk) 16:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Nonspecific criticism/attack/trolling
|
---|
It is filled with spin, misinformation, and crap. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC) |
I fopund the same lock on the artical on Eric Bell....which included a mention of supposed ATTACT by right wingers.....is wiki sucumbing to propoganda spinners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.209.44 ( talk) 16:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
OK -- you want specifics for what is obvious?
1. This article refuses to openly state the TRUTH that Fluke:
Did not testify
Did not do so before Congress
Was not under oath
Was not subject to cross-examination
2. Does not allow challenging of her facts:
That contraception is hard to obtain
That contraception costs more that $3000 per year
And, ridiculously -- that 40% of Georgetown Law Women SUFFER FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AS A RESULT OF NOT HAVING THE PILL COVERED BY INSURANCE Gettingitright57 ( talk) 18:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)gettingitright57
3. This article exists to give gravitas to what is a media/limbaugh tempest in a teapot and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Ms Fluke's use of religious grounds for defense of her claim that her clients' are harmed, as she refered to the Jesuit moral theology tradition at Georgetown using the Latin term cura animarum (a duty of "care of the soul," as applied to superiors for those entrusted to their supervision, as in the case of residential students enrolled at an institution of higher learning in loco parentis, in place of their parents) MrsKrishan ( talk) 23:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
i can see this becoming an editwar as she keeps adding wikilinks to natural law and procreative beneficence despite none of the sources on the page presenting it or using the term. she also adds her own original research for why contraception shouldn't be accepted. this is a vote to find out what the consensus is for keeping statements that aren't in accordance with the basic content policies: wp:V, wp:NPOV, WP:RS (aka not religious websites) and wp:OR standards. here are the diffs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy&diff=481429300&oldid=481428831
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy&diff=481567380&oldid=481519866
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy&diff=481567751&oldid=481567380
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Rush limbaugh.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rush limbaugh.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
There is a nascent edit war over how much Sandra Fluke biographical material should be included. I believe that, while her personal life should be minimized, information that helps the reader understand her academic accomplishments and career are appropriate. Such content includes universities attended, degrees earned, papers authored, employment (including self-employment), positions and responsibilities, and programs started and managed. Such information helps the reader understand how she came to take on the issue at Georgetown and thereby be selected by House Democrats to give testimony, while preserving her privacy. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 19:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Some of her background IS on healthcare and insurance. That is what is called the "Relevant" part. That is also the "Sourced" part. This has been written on extensively above in the "RE: Background" section above BEFORE editing by some, but NOT by others. "I think people want to hear what she has been doing since college" or "I think Sandra Fluke needs her own page" [and nakedly trying to undo the delete by posting on a different page] are not arguments for relevance on this page, nor do they trump properly sourced info. 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 20:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
ANSWER; in her one published law article she actually explains her reasoning and beliefs as to why contraception is a gay issue even though gay people don't have need of it (arguably the major theme of the "Congress" speech), and her arguments for mandated sex change operations is the same as those more briefly said in the speech. Referred to often in the debate with Limbaugh. Similarly, her media event the week before, she was one of 8 students, and her calling all moral objections to contraception "religious zealotry", the explanation of why the numerous free clinics were not adequate ("time on a bus traveling") and her condemnation of the "Catholic hierarchy", all criticized by Limbaugh, were not actually in the "Congress" speech, but were in the prior one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 22:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Both may need something for NON-CONTRACEPTIVE uses, ie without need FOR contraception. Her paper spoke of non-contraceptive uses, her editorial and all speeches talked about non-contraceptive uses. Trouble is, non-contraceptive uses are included in every Catholic institutions' health plan, and are a non-issue with regards to the conscience clause. One of the reasons the last-minute addition of Fluke was denied; she indicated that she wanted to speak to a hearing on the conscience clause, but indicated she was not going to speak about the topic of the hearing. 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 19:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This needs to be reverted back the the original intro. It needs to be a one paragraph brief concerning her life. Not a few cherry picked facts that make some happy. Casprings ( talk) 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
COMMENT ADDED LAST NIGHT BUT VANDALIZED; re why the only details Casprings includes are inappropriate
Casprings; PLEASE think before you edit war by blanking pages or putting questionable unsourced information in. She got into enough trouble over false information on the bio (such as age) the Democrats submitted the day of Issa's hearing, even though there is no evidence that SHE submitted it (and probably didn't). The information in her school bios has statements that aren't supported by the evidence, though they may be "slightly" true. All the "co-founded" and "sat on panel" and "initiated", when the rosters are published and she isn't on them are considered "exaggeration" on a Law school application, but considered lies on an application for a real job. She has not submitted them to an encyclopedia, where they would also be considered lies, don't you do it. There is a different standard for veracity. AND the vandalism of other people's comments by deleting them is not allowed. Stop it. DONE BY 03:11, 16 March 2012‎ Goethean (talk | contribs)‎ . . (103,103 bytes) (-816)‎ 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 13:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
14:14, 16 March 2012‎ Goethean (talk | contribs)‎ . . (103,988 bytes) (-1,216)‎ . . (rm attack which violates WP:TALKNO) (undo) I neither meant nor made a personal attack on the other editor. I'm not sure why you think asking someone to think first before edit warring is an attack.
I'm also explicitly NOT making a personal attack on Ms Fluke, quite the opposite. Ms Fluke evidently made some extravagant claims on her Law School application profile that, as long as they stay there, are not a big deal, just hubris. I am trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, and assuming good faith. There are very few College applications that DON'T overstate a few roles here and there, and it is expected, although hers are a little bigger than usual. Taking those out of a place where they are not considered unethical, and putting them into a place Ms Fluke did NOT intend them, where they are NOT regarded as harmless exaggeration is unfair to Ms Fluke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 16:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reliable secondary source that details the notability of "Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons?" Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Single publication - impermissible synthesis
IP editor states that the "singular" nature of Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons is important and not original research. I dispute both.
Important Wikipedia judges the importance of information by sourcability - if information is mentioned in reliable secondary sources, it is notable. If not, it is not. I don't believe the singular nature of the publication is mentioned. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Research IP editor says the information can be confirmed by "search of Law db considered authoritative." This is WP:OR, and cannot be included. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
A Lexis or Hein search is not considered "original", Ms Fluke shows up in legal databases once. That can change, if you can find another, that is considered sourced. It is easily verifiable [the sine qua non of Wikipedia] repeatable [you are welcome to do so] and refutable. 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 03:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a nascent edit war over the word single in "... she authored a single paper, in The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, titled "Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons." Would those who support the word single kindly explain its significance. What is a single paper? Is it to say that this is the only paper she's had published in that journal? Is it to say that there was an issue of the journal that this paper filled to the exclusion of all other papers? Please explain the meaning of single. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 04:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Please read the article on Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Summary style. This is not a "second article". It's meant to be the only article on the Sandra Fluke controversy. In fact, I think it's a good idea to move it there.
I'd prefer to have only short summaries of the media incident at Sandra Fluke or Rush Limbaugh, with the long version here.
But I won't edit war, even though I spent a lot of time discussing this beforehand and actually doing it. If the consensus is against me, I'll go with the flow. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 00:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the Sandra Fluke article should be integrated into this one. There is no reason to have a topic on Sandra Fluke except for this topic. Emeraldflames ( talk) 19:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Or, if you prefer - context, context, context. This should not be a standalone. The material is best served by being presented and engaged in a broader, deeper context. That is to say, the standalone approach isolates and weakens it, and inappropriately and misleadingly addresses the incident/controversy - by implication of its standalone status - as if it were sui generi.
It's not. Regardless of one's political or cultural (or sociological, or whateverical) take on RL's behavior and the response(s) to it, it is IOTTCO that the instigating behavior and the progress of the incident is of a piece with many other such incidents/controversies in RL's career. There are patterns to be discerned - on both RL's behavior and in the responses to it. This is also IOTTCO. Therefore, assuming appropriate Wiki eschewment of rightfully-dreaded ORIGINAL RESEARCH, the best way to offer readers their opportunity to detect or analyze such patterns on their own, is for the material to be offered in a proper, full, broad, deep context.
This means, ideally, that all material suitable for classification as singular Controversies reside in the main RL article under that heading.
If this is deemed too bulky, or too much of a side-track from the main flow of the main article (but, then, how could one consider RL's hi8story of controvbersial statements and the resultant blowback broohahas as other than part of the main flow of his career?) the very least, any standalone article should cover all appropriate RL controversies, in chronological order - with, in the main RL article, the appropriate "see main article "Rush Limbaugh Controversies" JTGILLICK ( talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn´t the first section be something like "Background", or "Sandra Fluke´s statement"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
As the article currently stands (1:44 US-Eastern, March 5th) it seems as though Rush used identical phrasing on two consecutive days when speaking about Ms. Fluke. It could also be that the last editor did not read the previous pages and wrote up the the information in a slightly different fashion. I know the article is changing rapidly but it would be good to have a clear reference as to when statements were made and if they were repeated. Something like 'The following afternoon Mr Limbaugh repeated his claim of...' 209.51.184.10 ( talk) 18:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
What is the point behind that? I think it should be "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy" Casprings ( talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead currently announces the Wikipedia conclusion that the Limbaugh comments were "misogynistic" in nature. That's an unsourced value judgment -- and it's also an unsourced conclusion.
The term "misogynic," as an adjective, means "having or showing a hatred and distrust of women." The term "misogynistic" is of course an alternative form of the adjective. See generally Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 735, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th Ed. 1976). Similarly, "misogyny" is defined as "hatred of women." American Heritage Dictionary, p. 803, Houghton Mifflin Company (2d Coll. Ed. 1985).
I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of making its own value judgments or drawing its own conclusions about the nature of Limbaugh's comments. If we can find a reliable, previously published third party source that has characterized the comments that way, that's a different matter. (If the sourcing is somewhere else in the article, I missed it.) Famspear ( talk) 23:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
In the background section of the article is not quite accurate. The following statements should be changed from
"Democratic members invited Barry W. Lynn, a prominent UCC minister and leader of the American religious left. Democrats asked the committee to substitute Sandra Fluke for Lynn, but committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) refused."
to
"Democratic members invited Barry W. Lynn, a prominent UCC minister and leader of the American religious left, and Sandra Fluke. When the committee restricted the Democratic members selection to a single panel member, the Democrats asked the committee that Sandra Fluke be that panel member, but committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) refused."
Reference: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/304550-1 67.168.49.195 ( talk) 21:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The second version is just not true. Fluke was simply not an invitee, never made it to the agenda or speaker list. There was no restriction on how many speakers could have been invited within the time frame before the agenda was set. Barry Lynn remained on the list because he was a late (on the morning of the hearing) scratch. Fluke had never been a speaker to that point. 00:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 ( talk)
Barry Lynn was submitted, approved, and put on the agenda and schedule, then he cancelled on the day of the hearing. The request to substitute Fluke for Lynn, who was the only witness submitted in advance by the Democrats, came an hour before the hearing.
C.E.S.; the only possible problems with the paragraph as it is now are 1) the word "substitute". Technically, no-one knew where Barry Lynn was when the panel started, and the chair offered to add him to the second panel if he arrived late. Fluke would have been an addition. 2) technically speaking, the Democrats hadn't submitted Lynn at the cutoff on Monday. When the 5:00 deadline to publish was coming, and no Democrat nominees had been submitted, phone calls were made, and Lynn was added based on verbal information. His written nomination was only received the day before the hearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 12:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Limbaugh slut affair is being redirected here. I don't know much about the situation but that title seems a little...odd. Thoughts? Nolelover Talk· Contribs 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the title "Sandra Fluke's Press Conference" to the correct "Sandra Fluke's Testimony," because it was not a press conference. There were no media there asking her questions, she did not speak to the media and was not interviewed by them.
Definition of press conference: arranged meeting with journalists: a meeting to which members of the press are invited to hear a prepared statement and to ask questions about that statement.
One definition of Congressional hearing: hearings may also be purely exploratory in nature, providing *testimony* and data about topics of current interest.
Hers was the latter, not the former.
Thank you.
Exactly10 ( talk) 03:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not "testimony" because it was not sworn.
It is not "Cogressional" because it was not in response to, or before, "Congress."
It was a statement in a contrived forum, staged to look like Congressional testimony, made without an oath binding before Congress, made only to Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This was thrashed through extensively when Fluke had her own page. "Congressional Testimony" has a specific meaning, and referring to Ms Fluke's speech as such confuses. Yes, it happened in an office in the Congress bldg, and there may be other meanings in a different context to the word "testify", but the whole phrase means something that Fluke never did.
No oath/other certification - no legal consequence for false testimony Does not have to follow guidelines, including subject, or a hearing. NOT subject to cross-examination NOT open to both parties NOT entered into the Congressional Record.
She spoke at a Democrat Party event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 06:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
AND THIS ARTICLE IS STILL LOCKED WITH NO ABILITY TO CORRECT THIS OBVIOUS DISTORTION. OPEN IT UP DEFENDERS OF THE FLUKE!!! 108.85.232.242 ( talk) 19:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC) gettingitright57
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
20:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hide behind your silly rules. There is no basis -- at all -- for calling the forum in which Fluke appeared and made a statement that was not under oath and not before any instrumentality of Congress a "hearing." This is kept locked by rank partisans. That is why wikipedia should not cover current events. This page sucks and should be deleted! 108.85.232.242 ( talk) 00:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)gettinginright57
I put three videos from the Wiki Commons page ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke ) It shows her testimony and the President response There are some more videos there, but I think that is the most important. Should any others be added? That said, the video I would really like to figure out how to put up is the video of Rush's statements ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05/1071386/-Video-53-of-Rush-Limbaugh-s-most-vile-smears-against-law-student-Sandra-Fluke ) Anyone have any thoughts on how to get this done? Casprings ( talk) 04:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Clearly crystal balling, but what type of event gets her a page again? Casprings ( talk) 04:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi‎ Casprings.
I feel the current state of the Background section provides far too much unnessary information regarding Sandra Fluke. I believe it puts too much emphasis on her and takes away from the actual article's purpose - the controversy.
How would you feel about shortening it a little, something along the lines of "...has been involved for many years working with families and etc etc." As it stands, I think after leading in from "Democrats asked the committee to substitute Sandra Fluke for Lynn," it almost seems like WP is making an attempt to justify her inclusion.
What do you think? - Xcal68 ( talk) 16:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
And I would love to have others chime in with their opinions. - Xcal68 ( talk) 16:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
AGREE. Her background section resembles more a CV promoting her as a Law Student than anything relevant to the Media flap. Should be taken out. She was pretty much unknown until the attempt to insert her into the hearing (perhaps this is the most relevant part as one of the reasons she was turned down as a speaker was that no-one could find out who she was). The only parts of her background that are RELEVANT are that she appeared at a media event the week before (org by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend), and that she founded a Catholic Students group that supported the Democrat/liberal/progressive agenda. Possibly also that she entered Georgetown with the intent to demand that the Health care policy be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 06:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Forum to avoid edit war problem is, prior to Feb 2012, is RAIL thin, and source for the breathless prose is a profile blurb in the Georgetown U press office that would have basically been written by Ms Fluke herself (though probably cleaned up)
INCLUDE
DELETE
Casprings; Simply deleting all factual, sourced references just because you don't think those facts advance your goals is inappropriate and contrary to the policy and purpose of Wikipedia. The Biography was a hash and best done away with, but if it is to be there, should cite RELEVANT biographical info, namely those that relate to law, insurance issues, contraception, or lead to the controversy. ALL the sourced items you deleted fit those criteria, none of those you substituted do. You are arguing that her only law article, which is also only one of two places she is know to have weighed in on insurance issues is NOT relevant, but her student activities unrelated to any issue in the controversy ARE relevant. POV is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 02:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Casprings; With regard to why the items, all solely from school profiles self-authored by Ms Fluke are inappropriate. Caps are used to distinguish comment from WP definitions and policy
It is not and never was "testimony" before Congress!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
It is still not adequate because the Steering Committee is NOT an committee of the Congress -- it is an association of Democrats only -- anything that gives the IMPRESSION that this was anything more than a mock up made to LOOK like a hearing is misleading SPIN and PROPOGANGA. 17:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC) GettingitRight57 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 ( talk • contribs)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The only information on such a controversy would come from the mass media. Does wikipedia really need to be a clearing house for summarizing the big story of the week? Shouldn't it wait until it shows up in other more substantial sources?
Just a thought. Ann arbor street ( talk) 05:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hear, hear. A little overstated, maybe; but mr. LoudmouthLimbaugh is most certainly not going to be that. Sintermerte ( talk) 10:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
DISAGREE This is not mere news, there are profound philosophical and legal principles at stake. I have appended an expanded version of my subheading segment Philosophy of human rights jurisprudence that was repeatedly vandalised/undone at the now-defunct Sandra Fluke page (on the conflicting tenets of positive law with universal natural law) with wikified linking to other humanism entries. I have also addressed the valid criticism of unsourced, unreferenced content by adding three references (69-71), particularly relevant citing a member of the Georgetown faculty who has gone on the record since the events transpired. MrsKrishan ( talk) 23:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems very unfortunate that this page and the related but now deleted page on Sandra Fluke herself seem to have become targets of political positioning. What is required is an examination of the broader issues raised by Fluke and Limbaugh and the political implications. This is particularly regrettable from the perspective of WP:WikiProject Feminism-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 01:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
For what purpose was Reason magazine labeled in this article as "pro-market"? Such a description seems beyond the subject controversy. — ADavidB 08:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
in the current WP:LEDE, it says "The Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy erupted on February 29, 2012, when American conservative talk-show host and noted antifeminist[1][2][3][4] Rush Limbaugh" ... Does Rush claim to be "an antifeminist?" I see that there are sources that accuse him of being against feminism, but it seems to me that the term "antifeminist" is not the most NPOV term. Perhaps a more NPOV term would be "critic of feminism." I am boldly changing the lede words to say he is a "noted critic of feminism" while keeping the piped link to Antifeminism. Thoughts? Peace, MPS ( talk) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Ironic that you would call positive sources as self-serving when the very sources you are using are self-serving as well. Anyhow, there is a clear difference between being a critic of feminism and anti-feminism which I clearly stated above. Sources attacking Limbaugh as such are not sufficient to label him as one. Arzel ( talk) 02:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
OBVIOUSLY, Paintedbird has a huge library and encyclopedic knowledge of radical feminist literature. HOWEVER, just because that is a term used in that world, doesn't mean that it is the right one for a general encyclopedia entry. While it IS used, it is done so as an insulting term (you know, like "slut", or "Political Theater") and, particularly in the lead, is inappropriate and CLEARLY not NPOV. If you wanted to put antifeminist in the section on criticism of Limbaugh, for instance, where OPINIONS are being listed, fine.
209.6.69.227 (
talk)
15:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Rush claims to be anti-feminist, at least, he coined the word 'feminazi'. Why would you doubt his position? 76.21.107.221 ( talk) 23:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time I've ever given Rush Limbaugh more than 2 seconds of my attention. I note with interest that a Google search of rushlimbaugh.com for the terms "antifeminist", "antifeminism", "anti-feminist", "anti-feminism" turns up several hits. None of them show Limbaugh referring to himself that way, some have Limbaugh saying that's how liberals characterize conservatives. In scanning a few of the transcripts, it seems to me that Limbaugh isn't against feminism in the sense of women feeling free to pursue their goals, it's militant feminism, the type that he claims tries to make women be men, that gets him all riled up. There are some references about he got "screwed up" by this, which might explain his bitterness on the subject.
In any case, if the list of sources above don't distinguish, as Limbaugh appears to do, between mainstream feminism and its militant faction, then the use of the term "antifeminist" should probably include a qualifier regarding what source applies that label. Otherwise he merely seems opposed to what he sees as militant feminists, a category in which he likely includes Sandra Fluke. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the name is really great. Suggest we put some thought in renaming the subject. I know this was thought out on the Sandra Fluke page, but I suggest we continue it here. Casprings ( talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Unwise to use the term "Fluke flap", as this is something large marine mammals, especially whales, do. Could be interpreted as an ad hominem insult to RL. 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 03:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
How about not having a separate article? This is absurd. "Limbaugh–Fluke flap"? Is this some kind of joke? Maybe mention this in the Rush Limbaugh article, but anything more is absurd. Where's the sense of perspective and proportionality? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
All right, you guys talk about it while I get some sleep and go to work tomorrow. Meanwhile, I've moved this page to
Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy because no one likes the term "
flap" as part of the article name.
Goodnight, all! :-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 05:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
[ Content section 10.]repeatedly undone, as was my contribution under Content section 4. on now-defunct Sandra Fluke entry. Revising a bold edit is not an edit war UNLESS revision = complete deletion/undo. I'm not the offending disruptive editor, rather User:AV3000 and User:ISTB351 are out of line. MrsKrishan ( talk) 03:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
In addition to the general sleaziness of Limbaugh's attacks, they lack severely in logic: getting one's expenses covered for doing X, is not the same thing as getting paid for doing X. Limbaugh himself is not getting his expenses covered for running his show, he makes money on it (however uncomprehensible that is to many of us).
HandsomeFella ( talk) 16:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Nonspecific criticism/attack/trolling
|
---|
It is filled with spin, misinformation, and crap. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC) |
I fopund the same lock on the artical on Eric Bell....which included a mention of supposed ATTACT by right wingers.....is wiki sucumbing to propoganda spinners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.209.44 ( talk) 16:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
OK -- you want specifics for what is obvious?
1. This article refuses to openly state the TRUTH that Fluke:
Did not testify
Did not do so before Congress
Was not under oath
Was not subject to cross-examination
2. Does not allow challenging of her facts:
That contraception is hard to obtain
That contraception costs more that $3000 per year
And, ridiculously -- that 40% of Georgetown Law Women SUFFER FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AS A RESULT OF NOT HAVING THE PILL COVERED BY INSURANCE Gettingitright57 ( talk) 18:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)gettingitright57
3. This article exists to give gravitas to what is a media/limbaugh tempest in a teapot and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitright57 ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Ms Fluke's use of religious grounds for defense of her claim that her clients' are harmed, as she refered to the Jesuit moral theology tradition at Georgetown using the Latin term cura animarum (a duty of "care of the soul," as applied to superiors for those entrusted to their supervision, as in the case of residential students enrolled at an institution of higher learning in loco parentis, in place of their parents) MrsKrishan ( talk) 23:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
i can see this becoming an editwar as she keeps adding wikilinks to natural law and procreative beneficence despite none of the sources on the page presenting it or using the term. she also adds her own original research for why contraception shouldn't be accepted. this is a vote to find out what the consensus is for keeping statements that aren't in accordance with the basic content policies: wp:V, wp:NPOV, WP:RS (aka not religious websites) and wp:OR standards. here are the diffs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy&diff=481429300&oldid=481428831
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy&diff=481567380&oldid=481519866
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy&diff=481567751&oldid=481567380
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Rush limbaugh.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rush limbaugh.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
There is a nascent edit war over how much Sandra Fluke biographical material should be included. I believe that, while her personal life should be minimized, information that helps the reader understand her academic accomplishments and career are appropriate. Such content includes universities attended, degrees earned, papers authored, employment (including self-employment), positions and responsibilities, and programs started and managed. Such information helps the reader understand how she came to take on the issue at Georgetown and thereby be selected by House Democrats to give testimony, while preserving her privacy. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 19:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Some of her background IS on healthcare and insurance. That is what is called the "Relevant" part. That is also the "Sourced" part. This has been written on extensively above in the "RE: Background" section above BEFORE editing by some, but NOT by others. "I think people want to hear what she has been doing since college" or "I think Sandra Fluke needs her own page" [and nakedly trying to undo the delete by posting on a different page] are not arguments for relevance on this page, nor do they trump properly sourced info. 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 20:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
ANSWER; in her one published law article she actually explains her reasoning and beliefs as to why contraception is a gay issue even though gay people don't have need of it (arguably the major theme of the "Congress" speech), and her arguments for mandated sex change operations is the same as those more briefly said in the speech. Referred to often in the debate with Limbaugh. Similarly, her media event the week before, she was one of 8 students, and her calling all moral objections to contraception "religious zealotry", the explanation of why the numerous free clinics were not adequate ("time on a bus traveling") and her condemnation of the "Catholic hierarchy", all criticized by Limbaugh, were not actually in the "Congress" speech, but were in the prior one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 22:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Both may need something for NON-CONTRACEPTIVE uses, ie without need FOR contraception. Her paper spoke of non-contraceptive uses, her editorial and all speeches talked about non-contraceptive uses. Trouble is, non-contraceptive uses are included in every Catholic institutions' health plan, and are a non-issue with regards to the conscience clause. One of the reasons the last-minute addition of Fluke was denied; she indicated that she wanted to speak to a hearing on the conscience clause, but indicated she was not going to speak about the topic of the hearing. 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 19:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This needs to be reverted back the the original intro. It needs to be a one paragraph brief concerning her life. Not a few cherry picked facts that make some happy. Casprings ( talk) 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
COMMENT ADDED LAST NIGHT BUT VANDALIZED; re why the only details Casprings includes are inappropriate
Casprings; PLEASE think before you edit war by blanking pages or putting questionable unsourced information in. She got into enough trouble over false information on the bio (such as age) the Democrats submitted the day of Issa's hearing, even though there is no evidence that SHE submitted it (and probably didn't). The information in her school bios has statements that aren't supported by the evidence, though they may be "slightly" true. All the "co-founded" and "sat on panel" and "initiated", when the rosters are published and she isn't on them are considered "exaggeration" on a Law school application, but considered lies on an application for a real job. She has not submitted them to an encyclopedia, where they would also be considered lies, don't you do it. There is a different standard for veracity. AND the vandalism of other people's comments by deleting them is not allowed. Stop it. DONE BY 03:11, 16 March 2012‎ Goethean (talk | contribs)‎ . . (103,103 bytes) (-816)‎ 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 13:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
14:14, 16 March 2012‎ Goethean (talk | contribs)‎ . . (103,988 bytes) (-1,216)‎ . . (rm attack which violates WP:TALKNO) (undo) I neither meant nor made a personal attack on the other editor. I'm not sure why you think asking someone to think first before edit warring is an attack.
I'm also explicitly NOT making a personal attack on Ms Fluke, quite the opposite. Ms Fluke evidently made some extravagant claims on her Law School application profile that, as long as they stay there, are not a big deal, just hubris. I am trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, and assuming good faith. There are very few College applications that DON'T overstate a few roles here and there, and it is expected, although hers are a little bigger than usual. Taking those out of a place where they are not considered unethical, and putting them into a place Ms Fluke did NOT intend them, where they are NOT regarded as harmless exaggeration is unfair to Ms Fluke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 16:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reliable secondary source that details the notability of "Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons?" Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Single publication - impermissible synthesis
IP editor states that the "singular" nature of Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons is important and not original research. I dispute both.
Important Wikipedia judges the importance of information by sourcability - if information is mentioned in reliable secondary sources, it is notable. If not, it is not. I don't believe the singular nature of the publication is mentioned. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Research IP editor says the information can be confirmed by "search of Law db considered authoritative." This is WP:OR, and cannot be included. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
A Lexis or Hein search is not considered "original", Ms Fluke shows up in legal databases once. That can change, if you can find another, that is considered sourced. It is easily verifiable [the sine qua non of Wikipedia] repeatable [you are welcome to do so] and refutable. 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 03:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a nascent edit war over the word single in "... she authored a single paper, in The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, titled "Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons." Would those who support the word single kindly explain its significance. What is a single paper? Is it to say that this is the only paper she's had published in that journal? Is it to say that there was an issue of the journal that this paper filled to the exclusion of all other papers? Please explain the meaning of single. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 04:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)