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 5 |
This article focuses on legislation passed in the United States since 2010 affecting women's rights, which has been referred to as a "War on Women". The article is not intended to cover other meanings of "War on Women" or to cover the pre-2010 legislative efforts other than to provide background and context. Gobōnobo + c 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
To put the objections to the current form in a little less strident manner, there is problem with the perspective. You are authoring this, focusing on "legislation passed,....which has been referred to as...". That makes what you wrote into an argument, that there IS a War on Women. The focus HAS to be on the PHRASE, its use by every Democrat in almost every race of this election cycle, and secondarily what the event or ISSUE (doesn't necessarily have to be legislation passed - it's the DEBATE, not the bill) is.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 09:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is substantially different from the deleted article (a version exists here). I've tried to address the concerns that were raised at the AfD discussion. Specifically, I feel that the nominator's rationale that the article was a quote farm and did not demonstrate that the topic exists has been addressed. Gobōnobo + c 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The edit box was far too small for my comments and reasoning on my decline of the G4 CSD. At it's simplest, the current page is vastly different from the page deleted in the previous AFD. Whether (or not) the AFD concerns have been met is likely an issue for another AFD. Also, I'm mostly expecting that this will would either go to AFD again (if I declined) or DR (if I deleted). And between those, I think that the better venue is a second AFD. So, to make it clear, my decline is not in any way a statement that a new AFD debate should not be started. I mostly expect one within the next day. But my point is simply that it is different enough that it is not IMHO CSD-G4 eligible. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Most of the sources in this article do not mention "War on Women." Only the biased far left wing sources do. Most do not mention the Republican Party, the alleged perpetrators of the so-called "War." Take for example Topeka repealing its domestic violence law. Nowhere is the "War" mentioned, nor are the council members identified as Republicans. Obvious coatrack. They could be Democrats for all we know. And what is the definition of the "War on Women?" Every left winger has a different definition. This article begins with an amorphous term coined by left wing sources in an election year, and then uses mainstream sources to fill in the blanks. This article is synthesis and Wikipedia is promoting a neologism.– Lionel ( talk) 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
And continues with incessant attacks on Ann Coulter and Michele Bachmann. Basically any conservative woman is fair game. The left wing feels that a conservative woman is a traitor to her race, all gloves are off. – Lionel ( talk) 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a good example of something that SHOULD be in the article on the political meme. The use of sexist language by Limbaugh or inappropriate comments by Freiss was condemned as the Republican War on Women by just about every Democrat on TV for weeks. Insubstantial as an issue, unless you count that foul language unequally affects women. The overwhelming silence of liberals concerning the same behavior towards conservative women politicians has been pointed out as evidence that the implied attack through use of the meme is insincere.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 03:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this article about the neologism "War on Women", and how Democrats are using this term against Republicans as a bludgeon in the 2012 election year?
Or is this article about a certain group of policies which Democrats metaphorically liken to a war on women?
If it's about the term and how it's used, lets have more info on how the term began to be used; what it means specifically; and any evidence provided by partisans or others for and against its usage.
If it's about policies regarded as harmful to women (i.e., tantamount to political violence), let's describe the harm expected to result from these policies, identify those who assert such harm is likely to occur, and give any evidence they may provide for this assertion; also, provide rejoinders (if any) from supporters of those policies, explaining such things as (a) the policies won't really hurt women (in their view, and with the evidence they provide) or (b) the policies are necessary, even if they hurt (some) women.
Again, for the "harmful to women" slant, let's be sure not to take sides: we must neither agree that the policies in question hurt women nor disagree, but rather summarize the viewpoints of those who say the policies are as harmful as a war as well as those who say the opposite. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 13:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
A neologism tag has been placed on the article, but this isn't the sort of article that is deleted under WP:NEO. There are ample sources in the article that address the "War on Women" as a subject, not just mentioning it in passing. This article goes beyond defining a simple term and defines the topic. "War on Women" is the accepted name for it. Here are some news articles that demonstrate the term is widely used (and this is just from the past 24 hours):
Gobōnobo + c 01:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: Leaving the comment intact for posterity, but I just realised how old this thread is. I apologise sincerely to sysops and such who read this page. I took Ed's remark a little too personally. Feel free to delete it. I'm sorry Ed, but did you just imply that "homophobes" feel the way they do out of CONCERN for us of orientations other than heterosexual? That's close to one of the most abhorrent views I've heard. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with improving the article, but I cannot let such an obnoxiously ignorant comment slide without any kind of repudiation. Peace. Psychonavigation ( talk) 05:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Problems this has:
Firstly, the "background" section is entirely classic original synthesis. No source justifies the overall concept that the section is pushing; it's just a collection of individual factoids pieced together.
Secondly, the bias of the overall article reeks. The argument being pushed is that the Republican Party is waging a war on women, and has been doing so for a long time now. This is done through a long recantation of fights over abortion legislation at state level, defunding Planned Parenthood at federal level, etc. Again we have original synthesis, because in the majority of the cases cited of the "war on women" it is completely unclear as to whether anyone else has linked them to the "war on women" besides the authors of this article.
Really the focus of this article ought not to be on the "war on women" but on the "war on women media controversy", about which I admit that a decent neutral article could be written, although it would be an entirely disgusting article of recentism, preserving on Wikipedia for immortality a two-month political back-and-forth that will be completely forgotten about elsewhere in two months. Really this would all belong better at 2012 Contraceptive mandate controversy or some such similar title.
The correct way to frame this is at User:Ed Poor/War on Women: "U.S. Democrats say Republican policy amounts to, particularly in regards to women's health.". Framing this as "X says Y", be this X Democrats or the media, or Democrats and the media, can be inherently neutral. Saying "The "War on Women" is a set of U.S. Republican-led policy initiatives" is simply not. For comparison, see how Weigel frames the "war on women" here [3] in terms of a media controversy.
For disclosure I am a British One Nation Tory, and couldn't care less about the ins and outs of US politics. Wikipedia's neutrality, however, is a different matter. Moreschi ( talk) 22:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The proposal was withdrawn
As the nominating editor, I've withdrawn per
WP:RMCI ("[Regarding] a proposal about which no one has yet commented, or which is unanimously opposed...the nominator may close the discussion as "withdrawn"."). Some of the opposition was only regarding the particular name I suggested, meaning other names may be suggested. --
→gab
24dot
grab← 14:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
War on Women → American conservatism and women – The title "War on Women" is grossly POV (or, per WP:NDESC, needlessly "judgmental"); the phrase itself ("War on Women") is actually a subset of what the article discusses and might only be a section (a section not titled "War on Women"). Besides the current name's overt prejudice, the name "War on Women" is USA- wonkish and impractically imprecise ( WP:PRECISE); is it a historical skirmish against ancient Amazons? Full disclosure: I believe the article body also needs serious work. →gab 24dot grab← 00:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Forgot to add the obvious; because it is JUST a political meme, you really can't call it anything else BUT what the meme is. A catch-phrase has to be a direct quote, by definition.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 18:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Would STRONG SUPPORT a rename to War on Women (Political Meme), a MUCH more appropriate title. Would welcom a discussion of whether any better suggestions are out there before tagging this with another separate Rename/Move tag.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 19:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Nominator note: I continue to feel that the current campaign label "War on Women" is a grossly disingenuous marketing effort intended by the political-left far more as a distraction than as a serious discussion. It seems to me that the propaganda slogan itself could be discussed in one article, and a separate article could discuss the alleged persecution campaign against half the human race. I had suggested a title to discuss the more substantive of the two topics (the latter), but my title suggestion has been roundly opposed and thus is withdrawn. IMHO, this current article exposes and combines two of the worst aspects of Wikipedia: 1) propagandist doublespeak, and 2) issue advocacy masquerading as unbiased encyclopedia. Where do we go from here? I suggest editors of all political persuasions take a look at the article " Death panel" (a name similarly chosen as intentionally provocative), and imitate some of it's approach. -- →gab 24dot grab← 14:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
What about the *real* War on Woman in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? Why not even a peep about these injustices?
Why is it that liberals oppose the use of the term "war" in reference to drugs or terrorism, but not a peep when this term is used against woman?
Why is pro-life legislation an attack on women and not an attack on the unborn who die from abortions? 69.60.103.171 ( talk) 04:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The lede has bounced from one extreme POV to another repeatedly. It's more like watching a tennis match than collaboration on a Wikipedia article. I tried to synthesize both extremes into a single, footnoted whole that strips as much of the rhetoric away as possible. No, my lede does NOT dismiss the term as a cynical meme created by Feminazis without a shred of merit. No, it does NOT decry some Hitleresque assault on the lives and freedoms of the daughters of America. In gathering sources (admittedly, not enough and not as strong as I'd like), both sides have points and we can describe them in an encyclopaedic way. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to judge the MERIT of a term. It's supposed to inform readers ABOUT the term and its use across the political spectrum.
I think that I created a starting point that describes both sides of the debate without trying to judge either so we can collaborate and reach consensus. I do not expect it to survive as is because nothing from a single editor will ever be perfect, but I hope I created something on which we can collaborate. I may not have succeeded but PLEASE discuss it here when (preferably before) making changes. Cheer & Thanks, Last1in ( talk) 20:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Lastin; noticed you had been composing ledes on your sandbox for a few days, before the reworking (after much discussion) began today (and I also notice that it is still there, so parts can be easily re-inserted). I think you are either missing the conversations taking place under "Scope" or have missed the point. You can't start an article with the title "Lastin is a pervert", and then insist that we discuss the issue, pro and con, and call it NPOV. The title, like "War on Women" is meant to be a pejorative, and like a meme or catch phrase always does, it reframes an issue in a way a partisan side wants. That IS what a meme in politics is used for. The only way there can POSSIBLY be an article with this title is if we ARE strictly speaking of the meme, cynical or otherwise, as a political tool in this current campaign. -- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 21:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
A Political meme or slogan can be used well and substantively, or as political theater, but they are all mostly the latter; memes aren't really proposed to enlighten, but to either demonize or change the focus of a debate. They aren't the debate itself. -- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 02:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
So a catchphrase is an example of a meme, and the idea that a meme is an idea that spreads rapidly from mind to mind, like a virus spreads from body to body, is straight from Dawkins, and not something added later by Vinge, Stephenson, or Gibson. A meme is the basic unit of idea transmission, just as Dawkins describes a gene as the basic unit of evolution in the rest of The Selfish Gene. Sometimes they're fleeting, sometimes long-lasting due to propagation, in the same way mutations and other genetic changes may have success and transmission, or quickly die off. Small point, but I do think meme, as used in this article, is fine as is. QuizzicalBee ( talk) 22:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This new lede is completely unacceptable:
It violates NPOV and is riddled with errors and unsubstantiated opinions. The new lede is basically reiterating the view put forth by the Republican party that the "War on Women" has no basis in reality and is just a political ploy by democrats, and the lede proposes a particular motive for those who use the term: "to change the focus of the election towards social issues". None of those things are proven. It quotes only Reince Priebus's opinion, as if quoting an opinion of the leader of the Republican party somehow either makes that position legitimate, or is NPOV. It presents only examples of the War on Women that initially sound a bit iffy as evidence of a war on women, since student loan interest doesn't have any obvious linkage just by itself. One could easily instead use the examples of passing laws forcing women to have doctors shove medical instruments into their vagina for no medical purpose if they want to have a different medical procedure, laws allowing employers to refuse to pay for certain medicine for women, laws outlawing abortion, laws making it nearly impossible to sue when women are discriminated against in the workplace, laws decriminalizing spousal abuse, laws making it legal for doctors to lie to women about the health of their fetus, laws forcing women to carry non-viable fetuses to term, laws that are already causing women to be imprisoned for having a miscarriage, and efforts to remove funds that help pay for poor women's mammograms and pap smears as well as basic medical services, as examples of the war on women. Basically, virtually every sentence of the new lede has a NPOV violation or is unsubstantiated. It also strikes me as bad form to unilaterally delete the lede that is existing and has been worked on for awhile by many editors. QuizzicalBee ( talk) 04:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That it is a catch phrase or meme extensively adopted by Democrats for the 2012 elections is without a doubt, and objectively factual. That it exists as such is completely NPOV. It is being used in just about every electoral race, and in every circumstance, some which seem to resonate, and some which are ridiculous. The idea that there IS an actual War on Women is NOT NPOV, but advocacy, and rejected by many. When an article is begun, the title essentially puts Wikipedia in the position of asserting that the title (or subject of the title) actually exists. You can't HAVE an article on a War on Women as an actual war, but you CAN have an article on a meme.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 01:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
To put it more succinctly, I am arguing FOR an article, and making the case that there IS a possible article with this title, as long as it is (as with all other WP articles) something which it is NPOV to say exists, namely the meme and its use. Other arguments are basically that they want to make this article something that has 1) Already appropriately been deleted 2) an opinion piece or attack site, which should be deleted 3) makes by its existence a POV statement that could not be supported in the body of an edited article. -- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 14:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The article
War on Women has been
proposed for deletion{{#if: | because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the
{{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.--
209.6.69.227 (
talk) 17:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
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) 18:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Women (2nd nomination)-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 20:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
A lot of this page is WP:OR and should be removed. I started work on it yesterday but was reverted, some more sources have been added (which is great), but a lot more are needed--unless you can cite a source that describes something as part of a "War on Women", it shouldn't be here. Here's a perfect example of what's wrong with this page, this sentence: "Iowa politicians proposed the "Women's Right to Know" bill in January 2012, which would require that a woman undergo an ultrasound and be asked if she would like to see an image of the fetus and listen to its heartbeat prior to receiving an abortion." is cited to a primary source. Now, you and I may believe that this is part of a "War on Women", but we can't add things to the page based on our opinions, we need reliable third party sources. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This statement "Use accelerated rapidly in 2012 as both liberal and conservative news outlets began to discuss the term." appears to be WP:OR and WP:SYN. I haven't read into many of the sources though, but from what I've seen, we do have a lot of this in the article. Morphh (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Interested editors may want to comment in this DYK nomination. Please note that subpage is place to discuss what would make for the most interesting and neutral hook; don't try to restart a "this article should be deleted" discussion there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
"War on women" might be more appropriate, as this is a political term that is more figurative and/or imaginary (depending upon one's point of view). Jesanj ( talk) 18:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The artical is apporate it needs to stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.64.35 ( talk) 20:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
What a load of crap. An obvious attempt to attack Republicans based off Democratic talking points. What is the point of this article other than to attack republicans and list out Democratic talking points. It is severely POVish in it's presentation and presents several aspects as if they are factual. Arzel ( talk) 16:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless someone can find neutral reliable sources saying it's an "attack" phrase that will be removed. Nor is it only used by Democrats or "the left" as Melinda Gates, and the National Organization for Women are not Democrats nor any one political ideology. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 20:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It is simply absurd to claim it is not an attack phrase. Pretty much this entire article is an attack on Republicans and talks about how Republicans have a "War on Women". This has to be pretty much the most blatently partisan article I have ever seen on WP. Arzel ( talk) 15:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
My edit summary was cut off: I meant to say in it that adding the {{ fact}} tags was a round about way of contravening the consensus. If you (CartoonDiablo) feel a source is needed, it would appear the Politifact and FactCheck sources above could be added. OSborn arf contribs. 22:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#War_on_Women. OSborn arf contribs. 02:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a primary source which we would use, but another example of the left using the phrase to attack the GOP. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/07/23/cbss-nancy-giles-insists-there-gop-war-women Arzel ( talk) 15:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'm involved now I've edited the article, but I can't really see any glaring NPOV issues with the article. For one, we can't justify "Democrat" or "leftist" at all with people such as Murkowski now joining the criticism against anti-abortion; if any person had a reason to not caucus with the Republicans, it's Murkowski. To claim it is is to devolve further into no true Republican mindset that isn't in sync with this article and makes most of the POV criticism look like the Conservapedia-esque "liberal bias" claim more than anything based in fact. I think the weight does lean more to the "exists" side; for example, even though only 31% of women believe the War on Women is wide scale, only 7% believe it doesn't exist at all. I can't see any glaring synthesis either, seeing as most anti-reproductive rights bills are now being described as part of this war against women. Sceptre ( talk) 19:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Here are some sources regarding the Republican Party's ' War on Women', starting with one from FoxNews itself:
It should be possible to find good quotes in them and use them as sources. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Please, let's keep this about the topic, not the editors. Accusations of incivility are counterproductive when they are themselves of questionable civility. This editor is just being helpful by sharing some sources. We should be thankful. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 04:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The article repeatedly claims Republicans tried to redefine rape. This is inaccurate; the bill in question simply narrowed the exceptions for the ban on public funding of abortion. "Rape" still meant rape and "forcible rape" still meant forceable rape. 75.118.51.238 ( talk) 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This deserves a look, thanks. Belchfire- TALK 22:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the closest application of the sources would lead to the sentence "restricting the availability of Medicaid-funded abortions to victims of "forcible rape" or child rape". On a personal note, I do agree that the purpose of H.R. 3 was to change the legal definition by stealth (much like a lot of these laws are stealth efforts), but I don't see adequate sources to support, at this time, the "redifining rape" argument (but probably enough to support the an argument about making some rapes not "serious enough") Sceptre ( talk) 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how Lionelt was able to convince the Dispute resolution assistant that there was a consensus reached but when there clearly wasn't. If anything the consensus was for mine, Sceptre's,Still-24-45-42-125's and Gandydancer's interpretation which matched with the actual sources. As it stands the issue is clearly not resolved. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 06:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The context of this matter makes it clear that it's relevant here, but exactly how should it be worded and framed?
After a firestorm erupted, he claimed he mispoke, which seems obvious. He chose poor wording, but his misunderstanding of biology was clear.
"Legitimate rape" was no doubt meant to mean "forcible rape", which is part of the "redefining rape" issue discussed in our article. The journalist comments: "His claim about “legitimate” types of rape is not completely foreign to the current Republican Congress, however. In 2011, the House GOP was forced to drop language from a bill that would have limited federal help to pay for an abortion to only victims of “forcible rape.” Akin was a co-sponsor on the bill." -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of RS discussing this. It's gotten "legs under it"...:
BTW, notability is only a requirement for article creation, not for article content.
Todd Akin: William Todd Akin (born July 5, 1947) is the U.S. Representative for Missouri's 2nd congressional district, serving since 2001. He is a member of the Republican Party.
Brangifer ( talk) 00:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9486582/Republican-congressman-says-legitimate-rape-does-not-cause-pregnancy.html talks about Akin in the context of... the war on women. No synthesis needed. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey y'all - I'm in the middle of a re-organization of the article. Minimal changes to content, but right now it seems like we have a mix of venue - House of Reps, state legislatures - and topic - PP, abortion. I'm organizing by subject, but if you think venue or chronology is better, let's talk - it just doesn't seem right for it to be mixed. Eg. I wanted to see if Todd Akin was mentioned in the article, and looked under "violence against women" to start. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes or No, is the scope of the War on Women successfully defined by this article's opening sentence? "The War on Women is a political catchphrase used in United States politics to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are seen as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights." Belchfire- TALK 06:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Two issues:
1) Is it appropriate to link to attack pages such as the Mourdock comments attack page? 2) While the discussion is going on, should the links be in the article or not? 140.177.205.223 William Jockusch ( talk) 16:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Casprings ( talk) 05:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
That these pages are attack pages is your opinion and not a consensus. Until such time as a consensus determines they are attack pages it is not a valid argument. Since they are in AFD right now, I imagine that consensus will be determined shortly. Sædon talk 06:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
What links are you talking about, please? KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Two different editors have seen fit to revert the following, which I had added to bring balance to the lede.
Female commentators have also used it to describe statements made by liberal commentators such as Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher.[url= http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html] [17] [18]
The stated justifications are both incorrect. One reverter claimed that Michelle Malkin is not RS. False -- blogs are RS for statements made by their author. The other implied that my addition was giving undue weight to statements by a single person. However, Michelle Malkin and Kirsten Powers are in fact two different people. William Jockusch ( talk) 01:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm missing where that content is in the article. The lead summarizes the article. We don't add stuff to the lead which is not already in the body, and we don't add less significant bits from the body to the lead, even in abbreviated summary form. You don't even have support to include this in the article, which is a prerequisite for adding it to the lead. Start by finding better sourcing, and then suggest a place for the content in the article. But I'm afraid if there is not considerably more coverage, then UNDUE would apply. KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This RS discusses the WoW as a practiced by the Obama White House
[19].
User:William Jockusch has made an addition
[20] (subsequently removed) which describes a WoW by the
Taliban. While I'll be the first to acknowledge the WoW is primarily used to describe actions by the GOP and conservatives, one can not be intellectualy honest and saying that this phrase is soley used in that manner. Like many other catchphrases, it has been co-opted for other uses. The way this article currently stands, it is not an article about the phrase "War on Women", bur rather a "GOP War on Women" and thus a
WP:COATRACK. I see no reason not to include sources that mention the White House, Taliban, etc. as long as the appropriate weight is given. My suggestion is to discuss the WoW and its history as the GOP being the primary belligerents (as demonstrated by the sources) but to also include the secondary belligerents.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:36, 7 November 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 5 |
This article focuses on legislation passed in the United States since 2010 affecting women's rights, which has been referred to as a "War on Women". The article is not intended to cover other meanings of "War on Women" or to cover the pre-2010 legislative efforts other than to provide background and context. Gobōnobo + c 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
To put the objections to the current form in a little less strident manner, there is problem with the perspective. You are authoring this, focusing on "legislation passed,....which has been referred to as...". That makes what you wrote into an argument, that there IS a War on Women. The focus HAS to be on the PHRASE, its use by every Democrat in almost every race of this election cycle, and secondarily what the event or ISSUE (doesn't necessarily have to be legislation passed - it's the DEBATE, not the bill) is.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 09:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is substantially different from the deleted article (a version exists here). I've tried to address the concerns that were raised at the AfD discussion. Specifically, I feel that the nominator's rationale that the article was a quote farm and did not demonstrate that the topic exists has been addressed. Gobōnobo + c 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The edit box was far too small for my comments and reasoning on my decline of the G4 CSD. At it's simplest, the current page is vastly different from the page deleted in the previous AFD. Whether (or not) the AFD concerns have been met is likely an issue for another AFD. Also, I'm mostly expecting that this will would either go to AFD again (if I declined) or DR (if I deleted). And between those, I think that the better venue is a second AFD. So, to make it clear, my decline is not in any way a statement that a new AFD debate should not be started. I mostly expect one within the next day. But my point is simply that it is different enough that it is not IMHO CSD-G4 eligible. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Most of the sources in this article do not mention "War on Women." Only the biased far left wing sources do. Most do not mention the Republican Party, the alleged perpetrators of the so-called "War." Take for example Topeka repealing its domestic violence law. Nowhere is the "War" mentioned, nor are the council members identified as Republicans. Obvious coatrack. They could be Democrats for all we know. And what is the definition of the "War on Women?" Every left winger has a different definition. This article begins with an amorphous term coined by left wing sources in an election year, and then uses mainstream sources to fill in the blanks. This article is synthesis and Wikipedia is promoting a neologism.– Lionel ( talk) 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
And continues with incessant attacks on Ann Coulter and Michele Bachmann. Basically any conservative woman is fair game. The left wing feels that a conservative woman is a traitor to her race, all gloves are off. – Lionel ( talk) 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a good example of something that SHOULD be in the article on the political meme. The use of sexist language by Limbaugh or inappropriate comments by Freiss was condemned as the Republican War on Women by just about every Democrat on TV for weeks. Insubstantial as an issue, unless you count that foul language unequally affects women. The overwhelming silence of liberals concerning the same behavior towards conservative women politicians has been pointed out as evidence that the implied attack through use of the meme is insincere.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 03:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this article about the neologism "War on Women", and how Democrats are using this term against Republicans as a bludgeon in the 2012 election year?
Or is this article about a certain group of policies which Democrats metaphorically liken to a war on women?
If it's about the term and how it's used, lets have more info on how the term began to be used; what it means specifically; and any evidence provided by partisans or others for and against its usage.
If it's about policies regarded as harmful to women (i.e., tantamount to political violence), let's describe the harm expected to result from these policies, identify those who assert such harm is likely to occur, and give any evidence they may provide for this assertion; also, provide rejoinders (if any) from supporters of those policies, explaining such things as (a) the policies won't really hurt women (in their view, and with the evidence they provide) or (b) the policies are necessary, even if they hurt (some) women.
Again, for the "harmful to women" slant, let's be sure not to take sides: we must neither agree that the policies in question hurt women nor disagree, but rather summarize the viewpoints of those who say the policies are as harmful as a war as well as those who say the opposite. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 13:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
A neologism tag has been placed on the article, but this isn't the sort of article that is deleted under WP:NEO. There are ample sources in the article that address the "War on Women" as a subject, not just mentioning it in passing. This article goes beyond defining a simple term and defines the topic. "War on Women" is the accepted name for it. Here are some news articles that demonstrate the term is widely used (and this is just from the past 24 hours):
Gobōnobo + c 01:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: Leaving the comment intact for posterity, but I just realised how old this thread is. I apologise sincerely to sysops and such who read this page. I took Ed's remark a little too personally. Feel free to delete it. I'm sorry Ed, but did you just imply that "homophobes" feel the way they do out of CONCERN for us of orientations other than heterosexual? That's close to one of the most abhorrent views I've heard. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with improving the article, but I cannot let such an obnoxiously ignorant comment slide without any kind of repudiation. Peace. Psychonavigation ( talk) 05:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Problems this has:
Firstly, the "background" section is entirely classic original synthesis. No source justifies the overall concept that the section is pushing; it's just a collection of individual factoids pieced together.
Secondly, the bias of the overall article reeks. The argument being pushed is that the Republican Party is waging a war on women, and has been doing so for a long time now. This is done through a long recantation of fights over abortion legislation at state level, defunding Planned Parenthood at federal level, etc. Again we have original synthesis, because in the majority of the cases cited of the "war on women" it is completely unclear as to whether anyone else has linked them to the "war on women" besides the authors of this article.
Really the focus of this article ought not to be on the "war on women" but on the "war on women media controversy", about which I admit that a decent neutral article could be written, although it would be an entirely disgusting article of recentism, preserving on Wikipedia for immortality a two-month political back-and-forth that will be completely forgotten about elsewhere in two months. Really this would all belong better at 2012 Contraceptive mandate controversy or some such similar title.
The correct way to frame this is at User:Ed Poor/War on Women: "U.S. Democrats say Republican policy amounts to, particularly in regards to women's health.". Framing this as "X says Y", be this X Democrats or the media, or Democrats and the media, can be inherently neutral. Saying "The "War on Women" is a set of U.S. Republican-led policy initiatives" is simply not. For comparison, see how Weigel frames the "war on women" here [3] in terms of a media controversy.
For disclosure I am a British One Nation Tory, and couldn't care less about the ins and outs of US politics. Wikipedia's neutrality, however, is a different matter. Moreschi ( talk) 22:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The proposal was withdrawn
As the nominating editor, I've withdrawn per
WP:RMCI ("[Regarding] a proposal about which no one has yet commented, or which is unanimously opposed...the nominator may close the discussion as "withdrawn"."). Some of the opposition was only regarding the particular name I suggested, meaning other names may be suggested. --
→gab
24dot
grab← 14:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
War on Women → American conservatism and women – The title "War on Women" is grossly POV (or, per WP:NDESC, needlessly "judgmental"); the phrase itself ("War on Women") is actually a subset of what the article discusses and might only be a section (a section not titled "War on Women"). Besides the current name's overt prejudice, the name "War on Women" is USA- wonkish and impractically imprecise ( WP:PRECISE); is it a historical skirmish against ancient Amazons? Full disclosure: I believe the article body also needs serious work. →gab 24dot grab← 00:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Forgot to add the obvious; because it is JUST a political meme, you really can't call it anything else BUT what the meme is. A catch-phrase has to be a direct quote, by definition.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 18:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Would STRONG SUPPORT a rename to War on Women (Political Meme), a MUCH more appropriate title. Would welcom a discussion of whether any better suggestions are out there before tagging this with another separate Rename/Move tag.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 19:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Nominator note: I continue to feel that the current campaign label "War on Women" is a grossly disingenuous marketing effort intended by the political-left far more as a distraction than as a serious discussion. It seems to me that the propaganda slogan itself could be discussed in one article, and a separate article could discuss the alleged persecution campaign against half the human race. I had suggested a title to discuss the more substantive of the two topics (the latter), but my title suggestion has been roundly opposed and thus is withdrawn. IMHO, this current article exposes and combines two of the worst aspects of Wikipedia: 1) propagandist doublespeak, and 2) issue advocacy masquerading as unbiased encyclopedia. Where do we go from here? I suggest editors of all political persuasions take a look at the article " Death panel" (a name similarly chosen as intentionally provocative), and imitate some of it's approach. -- →gab 24dot grab← 14:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
What about the *real* War on Woman in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? Why not even a peep about these injustices?
Why is it that liberals oppose the use of the term "war" in reference to drugs or terrorism, but not a peep when this term is used against woman?
Why is pro-life legislation an attack on women and not an attack on the unborn who die from abortions? 69.60.103.171 ( talk) 04:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The lede has bounced from one extreme POV to another repeatedly. It's more like watching a tennis match than collaboration on a Wikipedia article. I tried to synthesize both extremes into a single, footnoted whole that strips as much of the rhetoric away as possible. No, my lede does NOT dismiss the term as a cynical meme created by Feminazis without a shred of merit. No, it does NOT decry some Hitleresque assault on the lives and freedoms of the daughters of America. In gathering sources (admittedly, not enough and not as strong as I'd like), both sides have points and we can describe them in an encyclopaedic way. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to judge the MERIT of a term. It's supposed to inform readers ABOUT the term and its use across the political spectrum.
I think that I created a starting point that describes both sides of the debate without trying to judge either so we can collaborate and reach consensus. I do not expect it to survive as is because nothing from a single editor will ever be perfect, but I hope I created something on which we can collaborate. I may not have succeeded but PLEASE discuss it here when (preferably before) making changes. Cheer & Thanks, Last1in ( talk) 20:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Lastin; noticed you had been composing ledes on your sandbox for a few days, before the reworking (after much discussion) began today (and I also notice that it is still there, so parts can be easily re-inserted). I think you are either missing the conversations taking place under "Scope" or have missed the point. You can't start an article with the title "Lastin is a pervert", and then insist that we discuss the issue, pro and con, and call it NPOV. The title, like "War on Women" is meant to be a pejorative, and like a meme or catch phrase always does, it reframes an issue in a way a partisan side wants. That IS what a meme in politics is used for. The only way there can POSSIBLY be an article with this title is if we ARE strictly speaking of the meme, cynical or otherwise, as a political tool in this current campaign. -- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 21:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
A Political meme or slogan can be used well and substantively, or as political theater, but they are all mostly the latter; memes aren't really proposed to enlighten, but to either demonize or change the focus of a debate. They aren't the debate itself. -- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 02:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
So a catchphrase is an example of a meme, and the idea that a meme is an idea that spreads rapidly from mind to mind, like a virus spreads from body to body, is straight from Dawkins, and not something added later by Vinge, Stephenson, or Gibson. A meme is the basic unit of idea transmission, just as Dawkins describes a gene as the basic unit of evolution in the rest of The Selfish Gene. Sometimes they're fleeting, sometimes long-lasting due to propagation, in the same way mutations and other genetic changes may have success and transmission, or quickly die off. Small point, but I do think meme, as used in this article, is fine as is. QuizzicalBee ( talk) 22:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This new lede is completely unacceptable:
It violates NPOV and is riddled with errors and unsubstantiated opinions. The new lede is basically reiterating the view put forth by the Republican party that the "War on Women" has no basis in reality and is just a political ploy by democrats, and the lede proposes a particular motive for those who use the term: "to change the focus of the election towards social issues". None of those things are proven. It quotes only Reince Priebus's opinion, as if quoting an opinion of the leader of the Republican party somehow either makes that position legitimate, or is NPOV. It presents only examples of the War on Women that initially sound a bit iffy as evidence of a war on women, since student loan interest doesn't have any obvious linkage just by itself. One could easily instead use the examples of passing laws forcing women to have doctors shove medical instruments into their vagina for no medical purpose if they want to have a different medical procedure, laws allowing employers to refuse to pay for certain medicine for women, laws outlawing abortion, laws making it nearly impossible to sue when women are discriminated against in the workplace, laws decriminalizing spousal abuse, laws making it legal for doctors to lie to women about the health of their fetus, laws forcing women to carry non-viable fetuses to term, laws that are already causing women to be imprisoned for having a miscarriage, and efforts to remove funds that help pay for poor women's mammograms and pap smears as well as basic medical services, as examples of the war on women. Basically, virtually every sentence of the new lede has a NPOV violation or is unsubstantiated. It also strikes me as bad form to unilaterally delete the lede that is existing and has been worked on for awhile by many editors. QuizzicalBee ( talk) 04:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That it is a catch phrase or meme extensively adopted by Democrats for the 2012 elections is without a doubt, and objectively factual. That it exists as such is completely NPOV. It is being used in just about every electoral race, and in every circumstance, some which seem to resonate, and some which are ridiculous. The idea that there IS an actual War on Women is NOT NPOV, but advocacy, and rejected by many. When an article is begun, the title essentially puts Wikipedia in the position of asserting that the title (or subject of the title) actually exists. You can't HAVE an article on a War on Women as an actual war, but you CAN have an article on a meme.-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 01:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
To put it more succinctly, I am arguing FOR an article, and making the case that there IS a possible article with this title, as long as it is (as with all other WP articles) something which it is NPOV to say exists, namely the meme and its use. Other arguments are basically that they want to make this article something that has 1) Already appropriately been deleted 2) an opinion piece or attack site, which should be deleted 3) makes by its existence a POV statement that could not be supported in the body of an edited article. -- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 14:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The article
War on Women has been
proposed for deletion{{#if: | because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the
{{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.--
209.6.69.227 (
talk) 17:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
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) 18:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Women (2nd nomination)-- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 20:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
A lot of this page is WP:OR and should be removed. I started work on it yesterday but was reverted, some more sources have been added (which is great), but a lot more are needed--unless you can cite a source that describes something as part of a "War on Women", it shouldn't be here. Here's a perfect example of what's wrong with this page, this sentence: "Iowa politicians proposed the "Women's Right to Know" bill in January 2012, which would require that a woman undergo an ultrasound and be asked if she would like to see an image of the fetus and listen to its heartbeat prior to receiving an abortion." is cited to a primary source. Now, you and I may believe that this is part of a "War on Women", but we can't add things to the page based on our opinions, we need reliable third party sources. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This statement "Use accelerated rapidly in 2012 as both liberal and conservative news outlets began to discuss the term." appears to be WP:OR and WP:SYN. I haven't read into many of the sources though, but from what I've seen, we do have a lot of this in the article. Morphh (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Interested editors may want to comment in this DYK nomination. Please note that subpage is place to discuss what would make for the most interesting and neutral hook; don't try to restart a "this article should be deleted" discussion there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
"War on women" might be more appropriate, as this is a political term that is more figurative and/or imaginary (depending upon one's point of view). Jesanj ( talk) 18:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The artical is apporate it needs to stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.64.35 ( talk) 20:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
What a load of crap. An obvious attempt to attack Republicans based off Democratic talking points. What is the point of this article other than to attack republicans and list out Democratic talking points. It is severely POVish in it's presentation and presents several aspects as if they are factual. Arzel ( talk) 16:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless someone can find neutral reliable sources saying it's an "attack" phrase that will be removed. Nor is it only used by Democrats or "the left" as Melinda Gates, and the National Organization for Women are not Democrats nor any one political ideology. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 20:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It is simply absurd to claim it is not an attack phrase. Pretty much this entire article is an attack on Republicans and talks about how Republicans have a "War on Women". This has to be pretty much the most blatently partisan article I have ever seen on WP. Arzel ( talk) 15:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
My edit summary was cut off: I meant to say in it that adding the {{ fact}} tags was a round about way of contravening the consensus. If you (CartoonDiablo) feel a source is needed, it would appear the Politifact and FactCheck sources above could be added. OSborn arf contribs. 22:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#War_on_Women. OSborn arf contribs. 02:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a primary source which we would use, but another example of the left using the phrase to attack the GOP. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/07/23/cbss-nancy-giles-insists-there-gop-war-women Arzel ( talk) 15:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'm involved now I've edited the article, but I can't really see any glaring NPOV issues with the article. For one, we can't justify "Democrat" or "leftist" at all with people such as Murkowski now joining the criticism against anti-abortion; if any person had a reason to not caucus with the Republicans, it's Murkowski. To claim it is is to devolve further into no true Republican mindset that isn't in sync with this article and makes most of the POV criticism look like the Conservapedia-esque "liberal bias" claim more than anything based in fact. I think the weight does lean more to the "exists" side; for example, even though only 31% of women believe the War on Women is wide scale, only 7% believe it doesn't exist at all. I can't see any glaring synthesis either, seeing as most anti-reproductive rights bills are now being described as part of this war against women. Sceptre ( talk) 19:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Here are some sources regarding the Republican Party's ' War on Women', starting with one from FoxNews itself:
It should be possible to find good quotes in them and use them as sources. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Please, let's keep this about the topic, not the editors. Accusations of incivility are counterproductive when they are themselves of questionable civility. This editor is just being helpful by sharing some sources. We should be thankful. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 04:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The article repeatedly claims Republicans tried to redefine rape. This is inaccurate; the bill in question simply narrowed the exceptions for the ban on public funding of abortion. "Rape" still meant rape and "forcible rape" still meant forceable rape. 75.118.51.238 ( talk) 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This deserves a look, thanks. Belchfire- TALK 22:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the closest application of the sources would lead to the sentence "restricting the availability of Medicaid-funded abortions to victims of "forcible rape" or child rape". On a personal note, I do agree that the purpose of H.R. 3 was to change the legal definition by stealth (much like a lot of these laws are stealth efforts), but I don't see adequate sources to support, at this time, the "redifining rape" argument (but probably enough to support the an argument about making some rapes not "serious enough") Sceptre ( talk) 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how Lionelt was able to convince the Dispute resolution assistant that there was a consensus reached but when there clearly wasn't. If anything the consensus was for mine, Sceptre's,Still-24-45-42-125's and Gandydancer's interpretation which matched with the actual sources. As it stands the issue is clearly not resolved. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 06:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The context of this matter makes it clear that it's relevant here, but exactly how should it be worded and framed?
After a firestorm erupted, he claimed he mispoke, which seems obvious. He chose poor wording, but his misunderstanding of biology was clear.
"Legitimate rape" was no doubt meant to mean "forcible rape", which is part of the "redefining rape" issue discussed in our article. The journalist comments: "His claim about “legitimate” types of rape is not completely foreign to the current Republican Congress, however. In 2011, the House GOP was forced to drop language from a bill that would have limited federal help to pay for an abortion to only victims of “forcible rape.” Akin was a co-sponsor on the bill." -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of RS discussing this. It's gotten "legs under it"...:
BTW, notability is only a requirement for article creation, not for article content.
Todd Akin: William Todd Akin (born July 5, 1947) is the U.S. Representative for Missouri's 2nd congressional district, serving since 2001. He is a member of the Republican Party.
Brangifer ( talk) 00:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9486582/Republican-congressman-says-legitimate-rape-does-not-cause-pregnancy.html talks about Akin in the context of... the war on women. No synthesis needed. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey y'all - I'm in the middle of a re-organization of the article. Minimal changes to content, but right now it seems like we have a mix of venue - House of Reps, state legislatures - and topic - PP, abortion. I'm organizing by subject, but if you think venue or chronology is better, let's talk - it just doesn't seem right for it to be mixed. Eg. I wanted to see if Todd Akin was mentioned in the article, and looked under "violence against women" to start. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes or No, is the scope of the War on Women successfully defined by this article's opening sentence? "The War on Women is a political catchphrase used in United States politics to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are seen as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights." Belchfire- TALK 06:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Two issues:
1) Is it appropriate to link to attack pages such as the Mourdock comments attack page? 2) While the discussion is going on, should the links be in the article or not? 140.177.205.223 William Jockusch ( talk) 16:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Casprings ( talk) 05:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
That these pages are attack pages is your opinion and not a consensus. Until such time as a consensus determines they are attack pages it is not a valid argument. Since they are in AFD right now, I imagine that consensus will be determined shortly. Sædon talk 06:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
What links are you talking about, please? KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Two different editors have seen fit to revert the following, which I had added to bring balance to the lede.
Female commentators have also used it to describe statements made by liberal commentators such as Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher.[url= http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html] [17] [18]
The stated justifications are both incorrect. One reverter claimed that Michelle Malkin is not RS. False -- blogs are RS for statements made by their author. The other implied that my addition was giving undue weight to statements by a single person. However, Michelle Malkin and Kirsten Powers are in fact two different people. William Jockusch ( talk) 01:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm missing where that content is in the article. The lead summarizes the article. We don't add stuff to the lead which is not already in the body, and we don't add less significant bits from the body to the lead, even in abbreviated summary form. You don't even have support to include this in the article, which is a prerequisite for adding it to the lead. Start by finding better sourcing, and then suggest a place for the content in the article. But I'm afraid if there is not considerably more coverage, then UNDUE would apply. KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This RS discusses the WoW as a practiced by the Obama White House
[19].
User:William Jockusch has made an addition
[20] (subsequently removed) which describes a WoW by the
Taliban. While I'll be the first to acknowledge the WoW is primarily used to describe actions by the GOP and conservatives, one can not be intellectualy honest and saying that this phrase is soley used in that manner. Like many other catchphrases, it has been co-opted for other uses. The way this article currently stands, it is not an article about the phrase "War on Women", bur rather a "GOP War on Women" and thus a
WP:COATRACK. I see no reason not to include sources that mention the White House, Taliban, etc. as long as the appropriate weight is given. My suggestion is to discuss the WoW and its history as the GOP being the primary belligerents (as demonstrated by the sources) but to also include the secondary belligerents.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)