Talk:War on women/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Scope

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)

REALLY REALLY REALLY needs to be more definition of what this article actually IS. "War on Women", as I understand it, is a political slogan or meme come up with for the 2012 election cycle. It is NOT a real war; if both sets of alleged combatants say there is no war, and they do, there is no war, and this article is automatically deleted. If it is a campaign meme, which it is, it is notable by its extensive use, which it has.
Need to give background on WHO came up with it (admittedly hard to source), where it was first rolled out as a theme, and where the political slogan was used and how. Can't just take an issue and say "maybe" this could be included; need a citation of how the slogan/meme was used to try to reframe the issue, counter-argument, and effectiveness. Just a friendly suggestion for an outline.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The article already addresses some of those concerns, insofar as they can be addressed. The term "War on Women" has been used before in other contexts. Of course, this is no more a war than the "war on Christmas", but it is what it has been called in the media. The contemporary use of the phrase might have started with Jerrold Nadler, who in 2011 said that legislation redefining rape "represents an entirely new front in the war on women and their families." However, this is not just a political slogan or a meme - it describes a nationwide legislative policy initiative. Gobōnobo + c 06:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The Nadler quote is a good one, should be in, as is an early in this election cycle. Agree that the article for practical reasons has to be organized around events or issues where it is used, since citing examples of the meme's use would quickly degenerate into a quotefarm list, since EVERY Democrat has adopted the meme this election cycle, and it is being used pretty indiscriminately. Problem is that the sections all seem to be organized to advocate for the idea that there IS a War on Women (which would make it an opinion piece, and WP:OR), rather than citing HOW the political meme/catch phrase was used, and if it was used effectively, or countered. If there is to be a description of actual issues, it needs to be quick and NPOV, and quickly move to how the application of the meme/catch phrase either changed the debate or changed the subject. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 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 article and the phrase "War on Women" (as it is used in this context) wouldn't exist were it not for a tangible policy initiative that has been effected since the 2010 elections. The over 2000 provisions introduced in state legislatures affecting women are not fictitious. The legislation alone warrants an article. It has been deemed a "war" and that has been disputed. This article addresses the policy push/legislative initiatives. The characterization as a war and the denial as such came afterwards. There is room for discussion of both the legislation and how it has been characterized in this article. Gobōnobo + c 03:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested speedy deletion

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)

CSD decline comments

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)

Glad to see reason ruling the day! CarolMooreDC 05:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Republican attack article = WP:SYNTHESIS + WP:COATRACK + WP:NEOLOGISM

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)

Of course it's an attack. What else do politicians do but attack one another's ideas and agendas? (In the U.S., anyway).
The WoW consists of a number of policies and proposals which seem, to those who oppose them (especially Democrats and Liberals), to be as detrimental to the interests of women as an actual war. The article should therefore be a catalog of these noxious themes, summarizing the effects detractors feel would result if put into place. If possible, we could explain why certain of them seem akin to political violence, or whether it's just a metaphor.
Even more interesting would be to here from the other side, about why they want such things and whether they agree (or more likely, disagree) that these things would hurt women.
It really is possible to write neutrally about U.S. politics. All it takes is two or three of us to be willing to make an article which neither condemns nor endorses the ideas we're describing. Any takers? (I'm the guy who started the article before it got AfD'ed to death.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This neologism is a contrivance of the left. Protecting the unborn, e.g., has been an issue for conservatives for decades. It's one thing for the lefties to package this with a bunch of other issues and call it "War on Women" just in time for the election. It's not like they can run on Obama's record... But it is quite another thing for us to write an article based on Media Matters talking points. I mean, this isn't MSNBC, or is it? – Lionel (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Just because this is a charged issue doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about it. Stopping abortion and rolling back Roe v Wade has long been a goal of conservatives; but an incredible amount of legislation to that effect has been passed since the 2010 elections. This and other legislation along with some poorly timed comments have been observed to be a "War on Women" (if that's synthesis, it's the politicians' and not ours). While we can disagree about whether or not an actual "war" exists (and I too am tired of everything being called a "war"), it is a matter of public debate (marches are being organized against it, nary a news cycle goes by without a mention of it) and it is something that readers will come to Wikipedia to read about. I left a message for the closing admin of the previous AfD to see if this should be brought to DRV. If, though, you feel strongly that this article should not exist, you're welcome to bring this to AfD again. Gobōnobo + c 06:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Just because supporters of democrats allege a republican farted does not mean we need an article on the War Against Decent Smells. --Nouniquenames 04:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I am unaware of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources discussing the War Against Decent Smells by gasbags from any portion of the political spectrum. This article, OTOH, shows such coverage discussing the War on Women. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"War on Women" started with Sarah Palin

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)

Women of all political colors have been attacked at one time or another, but that is neither here nor there. This article is about the legislation that has been enacted by politicians in the US since 2010 that largely has to do with restricting women's reproductive rights. Gobōnobo + c 06:28, 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)

Scope of the article

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)

I think there's room for both the term and the policies to be discussed in this article. You can't really talk about one without talking about the other. If we had an article just about the term, it would need to address what the term describes. If there was an article just about the policies, it would have to mention the term used to describe them.
There could be a better job of describing the term "war on women" itself and how its being used here. Perhaps a section could be devoted to that? I agree that the article should address what pundits/politicians/observers think the effect of the legislation will be, especially to flesh out what exactly makes the proponents of the term consider it a "war".
As far as "harm" goes, much of the backlash against the defunding of health services has criticized that state governments are giving up federal funding[1] and that the actions will have a disproportionate effect on low-income women.[2] Gobōnobo + c 00:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Neologism

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)

The phrase has been around for a long time. This books google search will you one idea of many uses over time with 1992 being earliest on first page. This book uses the phrase in 1977 saying No one has depicted the sorrows and cruelties of war on women, children, and ordinary people as Kollwitz did in her art. This 1983 article about interview with Betty Friedan uses the phrase. Those are just a few easily found references searching specific feminist groups and individuals. One could go on and one. NOT a neologism at all. When get a chance can put such references in background, unless someone else wants to. CarolMooreDC 05:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree in general, except about the "accepted" part. The term is promoted heavily by one group of partisans, and is rejected by another set (i.e., those who are its target). Democrats claim Republicans are waging a "war" on women with current policy initiatives. Republicans and the occasional (lone?) Democrat regard the term as unacceptable.
The term is about as well accepted as "homophobic" as a synonym for "opposed to regarding homosexuality as normal or worthy of support". The term homophobia implies that all oppostion to homosexuality is as crazy as a phobia; it couldn't possibly be principled, or motivated by a deep abiding concern for homosexual or bisexual people. The term War on Women likewise implies that the policies in question are as hurtful toward women as political violence literally is.
Now I'm not saying that either article should be deleted; far from it: I argued against the WoW AfD, and I tried to save the article and its article history in my userspace. What I am saying is that the article should delineate completely what the chief users of the term mean to convey by their use of it, and that those who oppose this use of the term should also have their side told. Neither side, of course, should be judged the "correct" one. We should not decide, but merely describe.
By the way, we have a separate articles like Palestinian and Definitions of Palestine precisely because there are people - yes, really! - out there in the non-Wikipedian world who aren't interested in NPOV but are biased from the tips of their toes up to their eybrows. (No one on this page, I'm sure :-) But we have to deal with bias by describing each viewpoint as fairly as possible; so fairly that both sides on each question will agree that their side has been summarized correctly and adequately. It's difficult, but we can do it! --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Carol that the term War on Women has been used many times in the past and I support including related instances in the background. Gobōnobo + c 04:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with Ed here about describing each viewpoint in an unbiased fashion. There's already a section detailing Republican responses, but I think the section on responses from women's organizations could be expanded as well. Gobōnobo + c 00:05, 8 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)

Issues listed

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)

Hear hear! Speaking as someone about as far from a Tory as a person can be, Moreschi's assertions are spot on. The POV of this article isn't even subtle and is offensive even to a lefty such as myself. I would propose an alternative lede, along the lines of...:
The "War on Women" is a politically-charged and pejorative term used to collectively refer to a set of Republican-led policy initiatives in the United States. Legislation at both the federal and state levels is cast by opponents as harmful to women since the measures place restrictions on women's reproductive rights and defund services primarily used by women."
I'd also suggest a similar line-by-line rewrite of every single sentence in this article. While I agree wholeheartedly (I am a liberal after all) that the War on Women is real, NO ONE'S opinions (not even my absolutely and eternally correct ones) belong in Wikipedia. This article is precisely the type of polemical and POV-pushing example that many groups use as evidence of Wikipedia's unreliability. Cheers & Thanks, Kevin/Last1in (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
To address Moreschi's concerns:
  • The paragraph of background has been nuked.
  • The abortion legislation at state level, defunding Planned Parenthood at federal level is, in part, what has been described as a war on women. Each individual case cited in the article has been identified as a part of the "war" and is not original research, though I agree that the article could do a better job of saying who has claimed that such and such legislation is part of the war on women.
  • I note some ambivalence on your part in regards to changing the title of the article (and its scope) and wonder whether we could explore a media controversy article without delving into the legislation itself.
  • Last1in has reframed the article and I wonder if that has been to your liking.
Gobōnobo + c 04:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012-05-03 to American conservatism and women

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposed move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Oppose The proposed title is hopelessly vague and could refer to a number of unrelated concepts, such as the number of women in the political party itself. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support some sort of rename there are lots of "War on Women" wars that have used that moniker. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This term is widely used in the media and the target is far too vague. WP:NDESC doesn't apply since it's not a descriptive name, but rather what it's actually referred to as. We could use something like War on Women (United States), but there are no other War on Women articles to distinguish it from. Gobōnobo + c 04:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - As horrifically POV as the article currently is (see above), the title is valid and a likely search term for readers. The War on Women has a defined scope (something that the proposed title does not), is a term in extremely wide use across the political spectrum (the Left trumpets it and the Right derides it), has a deep well of reliable and neutral sources and an article about the subject can be written in a neutral voice. The article is a complete swamp of POV and [WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|polemic]] and coat-racking right now, but it is a valid topic and the current title is really the only one that fits. I would also oppose (not strongly) a name change to War on Women (United States) as I don't think there is likely to be articles in the near future without other parentheticals. It's also an ambiguous and possibly-misleading change that could imply that the US is waging a war on women. Why don't we just work together to fix the problems? Cheers, Kevin/Last1in (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Do NOT mean that there aren't huge problems with the page. Any POV allegation that there ACUTALLY IS a War on Women should be removed. Unfortunately, that seems to be almost the whole page. There SHOULD be a page titled "War on Women", as I indicated above, but to explore how the focus-tested political meme is being used in the 2012 election cycle to try to politic and reframe debates. The Democrats have wholeheartedly committed to this made up meme, so it isn't crystal balling to say it is and will be a major talking point. Many substantive arguments will be framed that way, and an article on how Democrats USE this catch-phrase is of obvious notability.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:00, 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)

Comment: Adding a parenthetical to an article name is usually reserved for ambiguous terms like Golden Years (album) and Golden Years (TV series). Right now, the only use of the term, War on Women, seems to be a political label (I might quibble with 'meme' for technical reasons) used to frame a specific political debate. Examples might be the War on Terror or the War against Islam, each a phrase used by one or more groups to frame a set of policies in a positive or negative way. I still recommend that we come together to fix the article and leave the name for now. The article is in abysmal shape. Speaking of which, I should stop typing here and start fixing things. Cheers, Kevin/Last1in (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the War on Terror was an actual war with boots on the ground, and the term was used by all parties, Republicans and the left alike. The article War against Islam is littered with tags, suffers from the same titling problem we have here, and should also be renamed.– Lionel (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I'd just like to see it expanded to all the uses, don't feel like doing the work at the moment. So sufficient for now. CarolMooreDC 23:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey Carol, I've seen you around but don't think we've ever worked together. Just saying hi. – Lionel (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello! CarolMooreDC 22:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support renaming but Oppose this suggestion: need to clarify that this so-called war is not an actual war, but a slogan coined by liberals during an election year. – Lionel (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. But what IS it? Like a neologism, but phrase has been used before in different contexts, so not new. Not exactly a slogan, since it isn't a positive, or self-generated. Catch-phrase, maybe, meme, OK. Which is best? need to qualify to make clear, not a REAL War.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
How about a short "war on women" article that lists more former uses, like the one's I've alluded or linked to. And a separate "War on women (2012 political slogan)" article. CarolMooreDC 22:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Prior uses are all over the place as to meaning, and do not really rise to WP:NOTABILITY partly because of that. As background to HOW the Democrats came up with the meme, they may. I do agree that the article needs to be made more definitive, such as "War on women (2012 political slogan)" or "War on women (Political meme)".--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I too think that the name is dreadful, and POV to the hilt – as it has been alleged (in a strange and vehemently POV way) that much that was valuable at Men's rights was POV. Let's get this RM out of the way and then look at a more measured and detached way of dealing with the present topic, yes? ☺♫♪? NoeticaTea? 04:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The five criteria outlined at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA are recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. In my view, "War on Women" does well with recognizability, naturalness, and conciseness, does poorly at precision, and I don't see a pattern for which consistency could be applied. The proposed replacement is less recognizable, less natural, less concise, and is, in my view, no more precise. The current term is, in fact, less neutral, but in my experience, with very few exceptions, the community has typically valued naturalness and recognizability over neutrality in titles. I am somewhat sympathetic to the possibility of a rename, but this isn't it. --joe deckertalk to me 04:09, 6 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Really?

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)

Perhaps this is a good point to turn those suggestions into Article entries, to improve the encyclopedia. Yes, there is no REAL War on Women, it is just a meme, but the countering of a meme by critics of the meme is absolutely worthy of entry. The Hilary Rosen (who is alleged to have come up with the meme) "War on Mothers", a counter used to characterize her contempt for stay-at-home mothers is an appropriate entry.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Then if it's just a "meme", then the article title should reflect this, like all the other (XXX "meme") articles on WP. The whole premise of this article is laughable as all the alleged "enemies" of women in this "war" are conservative males (married to the very women they are allegedly at war with)!75.204.52.93 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Referenced material from WP:RS using that phrase always can be added to the article. CarolMooreDC 23:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

New Lede, New Discussion

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)

Note: I have heard "...laws to protect employees vastly overstep by limiting or eliminating many of the employer's rights" more times than I can count, but I cannot for the life of me find a source. Also, I am using less-than-ideal sources throughout. They meet WP:RS but just barely, and that's true on both the left and the right. Politically extreme news outlets (HuffPost and FoxNews) are problematic sources, but I can't find any scholarly, peer-reviewed articles. Help on this would be immensely appreciated. Cheer & Thanks, Last1in (talk) 20:18, 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)

Actually, I've been working on this version for several days while closely following (and occasionally participating) in the discussion, and reading each new, increasing POV version published. No, I really don't think I did miss the point. Some editors are bent on writing a lede (like the one you reverted to) that dismisses the very notion of validity. Others are bent on using this as a coatrack to prove that the War on Women is some horrific plot.
There is one point that is very clear to me that has, perhaps, escaped others: If active editors sincerely believe that what I wrote is more POV that what you replaced it with, there is no hope for this article. Other editors, please read the version I posted from history, compare it to the one that remains, and tell me if I'm wrong. If I am, I will cheerfully add this to the list of article that I consider irretrievably lost and invoke Luke 10:11. Cheers & Thanks, Last1in (talk) 00:49, 6 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)

To make this absolutely clear, let's take an old political meme (though they didn't call it that then), "Where's the Beef?". That it exists(existed) as a political meme is true and NPOV, just like "War on Women". It isn't as pejorative as "War on Women", but like WoW, was, once introduced, repeated endlessly to change the frame of the debate. To say that simply identifying it as a meme dismisses it or is cynically POV is just ridiculous. "Where's the Beef" changed the whole tenor and perspective of the debate. It reframed issues, and was devastatingly effective, since it fit the criticisms of Hart beautifully, and resonated with the general public as being appropriate. It forced Hart to stop being vague and platitudinous about policy initiatives, and when forced to argue nuts and bolts, his policies didn't sound as attractive, and neither did he. Meme and strategy worked.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The term, meme, has taken on significant connotations in the last few years that are markedly different from the definition that evolved from Dawkin's work. He coined meme to reference an idea, custom, belief or behaviour that evolves over time through something akin to cultural evolution. In large part due to the brilliant work of Gibson, Stephenson and Vinge, the Internet meme (an idea that rapidly spreads from mind to mind, much like a virus spreads from body to body) took root. Many have conflated the two very different concepts into the single word, meme. It has recently come into common usage to imply something of momentary interest, quick-catching and quick-vanishing, like "I Can Has Cheezburger?" or "Don't Tase Me, Bro!". The sense in which you use the word, both here and in the article, strongly implies the latter. The depth to which "War on Women" has penetrated and polarized, both politically and popularly, is more akin to "Voodoo Economics" or "Where's the Beef?" As such, terms like catchphrase, slogan or pejorative are more appropriate than meme. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I've gotta disagree with your description of what Dawkins means by "meme". In The Selfish Gene, he says: "Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation."

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:

The "War on Women" is a Political meme or slogan, borrowed from feminist literature, that has been adopted by the Democratic Party for the 2010-2012 election cycle, to change the focus of the election towards social issues.[1] It has been used to group issues as disparate as abortion and student loan interest,[4] and as a pejorative, to characterize conflicts with individual women or politicians. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus called it a "fiction" and compared it to a war on caterpillars.[2] Variations have included "The Republican War on Women", or "The Republican War on Contraceptives", and the counter-meme "The Democrat War on Mothers".

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)

Just to be clear, the short lede which begins, "The "War on Women" is a Political meme or slogan, borrowed from feminist literature..." was there before and after I posted my alternative. I did not at the time think it would be reverted so quickly, so I did not think to provide a link to my sandbox (the lede work is at the bottom). QuizzicalBee, after watching the POV in the lede (and the article) swing from one end of the spectrum to the other, I really am not certain that there IS a "lede that is existing and has been worked on for awhile by many editors." I was hoping to create a starting point for just that. Cheers & Thanks, Last1in (talk) 09:51, 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)

  • Thank you, 209. I feel that answers my question on whether the article could ever seem NPOV to me, or whether my edits or research could improve this article. The only folks commenting contend that there is no possible way that the phrase has any merit and dispute the notion that ANYONE could believe, in good faith, that the Left has a point. The tone, content and summaries of edits and talk-page posts suggests that WP:AGF can only be applied to folks who agree, and the near-instant revert of (without attempt to edit or improve) my edits and the edits of others seems to me to raise an issue of ownership. That simply doesn't fit my editing style, so I will move to other topics. Since I won't be following this page, please leave any comments or requests on my Talk Page. Luke 10:11, live long and prosper, and (most appropriately) good night and good luck. Cheers & Good Day, Last1in (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
please see the "Where's the Beef" entry above (put there as it is a reply to a previous entry). The merit of the political meme is an appropriate subject for the body of an appropriate article. A debate about the history of a War that Wikipedia is certifying exists is not, since, as has already been decided in the concluded AfD debate, Wikipedia cannot assert that there is a War on Women with battles and victories.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
209, if battles and victories are required for an article with a title like this one, can you help me understand the legitimacy of War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Cancer, War on Gangs, War on Terror and War against Islam? The idea that Wikipedia certifies ideas is also new to me, and seems surprising since Wikipedia has thereby certified cold fusion, Metoposcopy, biorhythms, ghosts, Baraminology, melanin theory, witchcraft and polywater.
With all due deference to WP:AGF and WP:NICE, your arguments seem circular to me. The War on Women is nothing more than a political meme because it's nothing more than a political meme. Any quotes where commentators discuss the War on Women as if it were a valid concept are simply proof that it's nothing more than a political meme. Any sourced info from folks who contend that a War on Women (or "against" their rights or whatever) is actually occurring is rhetoric and therefore it's nothing more than a political meme. It's a tautology that seems to me to border on infallibilism.Last1in (talk) 21:43, 13 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)

You seem to be saying that an article can exist only after the validity of the War on Women is denied. The article must begin from the POV that the term is indefensible and ridiculous and, once there, we can write an NPOV article on how people are using this indefensible term to manipulate the electorate. To me, that seems an extreme outlier on the Wiki norm especially in light of articles that explain concepts so offensive and repugnant as Holocaust denial. Last1in (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed for Deletion

The article War on Women has been proposed for deletion{{#if: | because of the following concern:

Opinion piece, as defined, article by its existence asserts that Republican are waging a War on Women

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)

  • Delete. Previously Deleted with cause. Re-posted as an opinion piece, with all previous problems except WP:QUOTEFARM. Tagged for speedy deletion, removed with expectation that AfD tag would be placed immediately, solely based on the fact that re-posted article was different, not that it did not have almost all the same problems. Is not an encyclopedia entry, title by its existence states, in Wikipedia's voice, that there exists a Republican War on Women, a highly contentious assertion that due to its POV nature, precludes the article ever approaching NPOV. Helpful suggestions that the article be limited to discussion of War on Women only as a Political Meme, bringing it potentially to NPOV rejected--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)

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

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Women (2nd nomination)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OR

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)

Definitely the "War on Women" phrase used be a secondary source should be in every ref, unless it's a primary source that backs up a secondary one already doing that. CarolMooreDC 20:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Every piece of legislation listed in this article was mentioned in sources that referred to it as a part of a "war on women". The references actually placed in the article tended to be those that had the most detail about the specific legislation rather than references that explicitly mentioned the "war on women" though. I can provide additional references for each though and will start collecting references. I think there's also some boilerplate legislation that has been more or less copied from state to state that has been broadly referred to as part of the war on women, so maybe we can include that as well. Gobōnobo + c 13:03, 9 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)

Template:Did you know nominations/War on Women

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)

A possible title

"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)

This artical does not contain opinion

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)

This article is a load of manure

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)

Cool down. There is a central truth the the phrase, which is of course politically loaded, made to attack the Republican Party. This article is certainly correct in telling the reader the basis of the claims, that women have not gained in political power by the actions of Republicans. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know that Democrats repeat that tired line in order to win over women, but it is simply not true. Presentation of biased opinion as fact is what is wrong with this article. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Luckily, we go with reliable sources rather than cranky Wikipedia editors. Many of our reliable sources say that women do indeed get short shrift in Republican initiatives. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
How many of these reliable sources are democratic politicians, activists, or reporters and analysts who already bias themselves for democrats or for certain points? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
For example, gender-selective abortion almost exclusively targets females for death, and the U.S. House of Representatives (controlled by Republicans) was unable to ban the practice [5]. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Attack"/"Used by democrats" in lead

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)

  • WP:RS: The Atlantic Wire, April 5, 2012—"Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said the GOP's perceived "war on women" was as fictional as a war on caterpillars. ...The Obama campaign took the opportunity of Priebus's comments to attack Republicans in general, but especially Mitt Romney, saying in a statement that the caterpillar comparison "reinforce[s] why women simply cannot trust Mitt Romney or other leading Republicans to stand up for them." [bold added] --→gab 24dot grab← 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't currently include any reference to Melinda Gates using this slogan. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The "National Organization for Women" has never shied from describing itself as politically left (that is, liberal), operates a political action committee, and explicitly endorsed Barack Obama (a Democrat). --→gab 24dot grab← 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The "attack" in the Atlantic Wire article was regarding the attack on the phrase "war on caterpillars" not "war on women" as an attack. And where by what source does NOW have a PAC? CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This thread is a waste of time. NOW endorses only liberal/Democratic candidates; learn about its PAC (political action committee) at NOWPACS.org, or check out the one-sentence lede at 'Terry O'Neill (feminist)' and the relevant section at the current NOW article ('National Organization for Women#Additional Issues'). --→gab 24dot grab← 13:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The Hill, July 2, 2012—"The [Nancy Pelosi] memo is just the latest part of the Democrats' long-running attack on what they consider the Republicans' "war on women.""
  • National Journal, July 10, 2012—"When it comes to waging the "war on women" attack on Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the Obama campaign is pushing the envelope."
Plainly, the term "attack" is used by reliable sources to describe the use of this slogan by Democrats against Republicans. --→gab 24dot grab← 13:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
No what you found is a conservative opinion source claiming it's an attack, there is nothing in terms of RS to substantiate your claim. And secondly you've provided no evidence for NOW's supposed politicization, something not even mentioned in the NOW article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
No. Neither news-report quote was an opinion editorial, and both publications are quite well established as reliable sources. Neither The Hill (newspaper) nor National Journal needs me to justify its neutral bona fides. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with 24dot, your (CartoonDiablo) edit makes the lede biased, as it removes the (extremely important) context of the phrase. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
CartoonDiablo, choosing one example where a non-Democrat uses the phrase is no justification for removal. It's WP:UNDUE weight of a tiny minority. The vast majority of those using the phrase are Democrats, or if you prefer, the left. The term is obviously a pejorative and used to attack Republican policies. Morphh (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all, the National Organization for Women is not a Democratic organization nor is it explicitly "the left," and secondly, the undue weight is in citing conservative opinions that say its solely a "left-wing" phrase, I don't happen to think "the left" consider it an exclusively left-wing phrase nor is there evidence of that in any way.
Actually after looking at it, it's been used by GOP women, the idea that it's exclusively a left phrase is ridiculous.
To 24dot, let me rephrase that, the Hill article was talking about an "attack" on the war on women as a program, not the phrase as an "attack" itself and the National Review article you cited is obviously an opinion piece. Now there's nothing wrong with including that source (given proper weight) within the article but there is something wrong with using an opinion for the lead. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
To me, that source indicates to me it is in fact a leftist phrase- the reason reporting exists on the outliers who also use it is because they are outliers. Also, ThinkProgress appears to be an opinion site. Why is that site acceptable for the lede but not National Journal? OSborn arfcontribs. 23:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
A preponderence of the sources describe it as an attack promulgated by Democrats. Cartoon's position is only held by a fraction of sources. We can cover Cartoon's position in the body, but not in the lede.– Lionel (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Using Cartoon's logic, it's not an attack on Republicans policies, because a small percentage of Democrats also vote for such policies. Morphh (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I also have a huge issue with the first sentence the defines the term using this phrasing "initiatives in federal and state legislatures to restrict women, especially with regard to reproductive rights." which is completely defined by one side as a statement of fact. As if the purpose of the legislation is to restrict women. An opposite and equally ridiculous rewording would phrase it as "initiatives in federal and state legislatures to promote life, especially with regard to taxpayer funded infanticide." Morphh (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
As it stands there is not a single RS that defines it as an "attack," there have been sources that have said there is an "attack" against the War on Women as a policy.
To Morph, the issue of GOP women using the phrase is about who is using it (the answer being everyone, not just the left) what you are describing is who is participating in it and no evidence points to it being bipartisan. As well, the majority of the sources say it is done as a restriction on women, (NOW, Melinda Gates, UniteWomen etc.) other definitions of it would fall under WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course those using the term will define it, while those opposed reject it (i.e. fictitious war on caterpillars). Opponents are not going define the term as something else, they reject it altogether. The intent and affect of the policy is not a statement of fact - it is an opinion, and opinions must be qualified to who holds those opinions, which is hardly "everyone" (31% according to a recent poll[6]). So it might be fine to say that those using the term claim the initiatives are to restrict women, but it is not acceptable to say the initiatives are to restrict women. That's not fringe, that's WP:NPOV policy. Morphh (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I have never heard this term used by anyone to describe their own positions, only to disparage their opponents'. The article should be clear about this usage. Unless you can find someone saying something like, "As a proud supporter of the Republican War on Women, I will vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Act", I recommend returning "attack phrase" or similar to the lede. Kilopi (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all that Kaiser poll explicitly says it's a restriction, the difference is in the scale of it:
  • "(31 percent) overall believe that there is currently a "wide-scale effort to limit women's reproductive health choices and services, such as abortion, family planning, and contraception""
  • "(45 percent) say there are some groups that would like to limit women's reproductive health choices and services but it is not a wide-scale effort"
And yes that's exactly how phrasing works, take the War on Drugs or War on Poverty, people literally say whether or not they support it or oppose them. The fact that a phrase becomes popular is a separate issue.
Again defining it any other way would amount to Undue weight or WP:Fringe.CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It's an opinion (and a minority one as you show above), thus it must be qualified - period. WP:NPOV Morphh (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The lede already says that it is a "political" phrase. It is essential that we identify which political side uses and embraces the term. Agree with Osborn, Kilopi and the other editors that some language regarding "attack" be included. Any reasonable reading of this thread indicates that inclusion of "attack" is supported by multiple policy-based arguments from multiple editors. – Lionel (talk) 11:20, 16 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)

Let me put this again, not a single reliable source calls it an "attack" or "pejorative" phrase anymore then the War on Drugs or War on Poverty. It doesn't matter how many editors may disagree or see it that way but without an RS we are not calling it as such. CartoonDiablo (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you consider Politifact reliable? Democrats and labor leaders are giving this a high profile, mirroring the left’s "War on Women" attacks against Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. How about FactCheck? It's not exclusively used by the lefties, but even when Romney used it, FactCheck labeled it an "atttack." It was Romney who first attacked the president’s economic policies as a “war on women,” citing specifically the fact that 92 percent of the jobs lost under Obama were lost by women. Maybe we could use these sources instead of the HuffPo piece that doesn't even mention the phrase except in tags. Kilopi (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This whole article is written against Republicans. The lead specifically targets republicans as supposedly having a "war on women" to claim that this article is not written as an attack on republicans is disingenious at best. Hell this has been a Democratic theme for the past year. Arzel (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
CartoonDiablo, while the terminology is similar, the War on Drugs and War on Poverty are not like comparisons. Those terms were not created in an effort to charge a political party with wrongdoing. The consensus here by an overwhelming majority is that it is an attack phrase. Please abide by the consensus on the article until such a time where discussion leads us to a new consensus. Morphh (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are in the context of using the phrase to "attack" someone but the phrase itself is not such. By that reasoning ANY political phrase is an "attack" phrase. Unless a source can be found that explicitly calls it an "attack" phrase and not used as an action to attack someone then it's clearly WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The current working does exactly that by stating the phrase is "used to attack". You made our argument for us.. Thanks. I'll revert your revert. Morphh (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Any phrase can be "used to attack" but its intention is to describe. The people that came up with it didn't think to themselves that its only use is as a way to gain political points, its to describe policies. Again, unless an RS says explicitly that its only use is to attack people then it's WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't justify WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The fact is, no RS claims that's used solely to attack people or that it's even a pejorative. Inferring from sources that it does is obviously a violation of the two.
Unless someone can find an RS that does claim as such this will go to dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that "reproductive rights" is the descriptive phrase. It need not be solely or only used this way. It is primarily used this way. I haven't seen where it wasn't used this way. The term, by its nature, levels the charge that the policies are an attack to woman. Charging a policy or a policy maker of waging war is an attack, which the term does by its very nature regardless of the intended use. Morphh (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No that would be Morphh's interpenetration of what a phrase "by its nature" is, which would be considered WP:OR as well as POV, no RS claims that it's used as an attack or that it's pejorative. And reproductive rights is irrelevant to the issue since it's a phrase and not a definition. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rv

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 arfcontribs. 22:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No because adding those sources would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH since neither claims that the phrase is solely used as an attack or that its pejorative but inferring such would amount to a violation of the two. And consensus doesn't allow to violate Wikipedia policies especially policies as important as WP:OR.
Also as a footnote no one is claiming Republicans are "sexist" anymore then the Southern strategy is claiming the GOP is racist. Inferring as much would obviously be problematic in terms of NPOV as well as others. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The lede says it is "... used to attack [Republican initiatives] ..." and the Politifact source mentions "... the left’s "War on Women" attacks against Republican [Romney]". I do not view this as stretching the source. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I do because (a) nothing claims it's pejorative but more importantly (b) any phrase can be used to "attack" anyone so unless exclusively done as such, it's done to describe the policies (the Politifact source makes no such claim it's exclusively an "attack" phrase). Even phrases like Feminazi don't make that claim in the lead. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Feminazi does make that claim in the lead, third sentence "The term is used pejoratively by some U.S. conservatives to criticize feminists that they perceive as extreme." Morphh (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I meant in terms of whether it's exclusively used as an "attack" and notice it has four citations calling it a pejorative, this term has none.
Unless someone can find an RS claiming either this will go to dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Where do you get this claim that the term must be "exclusively", "solely", "only" be used as an attack term to call it an attack term? Could not Feminizi be used as a non-pejorative term? Of course, but it's usually not. Also, only one of those sources use the term pejorative. The pejorative nature of the term is easily implied. Morphh (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Again that is YOUR interpretation of what is implied, not one of a reliable source. Unless a source says that it's either a pejorative or used to attack then we can say so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Another source, "When it comes to waging the "war on women" attack on Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the Obama campaign is pushing the envelope."[7] Morphh (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a reliable source (its an opinion piece) and was already discussed. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
What about something like this, which describes it as a charge. It's more accurate than "describe", but less aggressive than "attack". This would seem to cover the aspect of description, the opinion involved, and the aggressive nature.
"The "War on Women" is a political phrase often used to charge Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures with being restrictive to women, especially with regard to reproductive rights." Morphh (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that would be proper because it's almost universally accepted that they are policies that restrict women, not just "charged" with doing it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No that's a ridiculous notion. Half the country thinks it's made up. So it is obviously not universality accepted. It's an opinion. I think it would even be better to remove the charge against Republicans from the first sentence as it sets up this aggressive nature, instead of trying to define it first. Morphh (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#War_on_Women. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cartoon's Hail Mary at DRN has backfired. The uninvolved editors at DRN support "Democrat" and "attack" in the lede. That is in addition to the consensus here on talk. Let's make it so.– Lionel (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been part of the discussion, but I do not support "attack" and "pejorative". Gandydancer (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the obvious assuming good faith as opposed to accusing me of trying to do a "Hail Mary," the only non-involved editor in the discussion was Noleander and he asked for reliable source evidence that it is pejorative, of which none exists. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:27, 22 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)

Newsbusters is not a reliable source under any definition. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Semiuninvolved opinion

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)

Republican Party's 'War on Women'

Here are some sources regarding the Republican Party's 'War on Women', starting with one from FoxNews itself:

"...it convinces people that there sure as the world is a Republican war on women, and that he [ Rush Limbaugh ] is one of those leading it."

It should be possible to find good quotes in them and use them as sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources for... what? Is there some specific deficiency in this article you are trying to address? Belchfire-TALK 03:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
We use talk pages to provide possible sourcing, among other things. Editors can go through these RS and they may well find content that can be used. One obvious thing is the clarity with which both FoxNews (did they slip up here by allowing some truth?!) and mainstream media describe it as a GOP/Republican 'war on women'. That's what this article is about, and that must remain clear. I know, considering your WP:SPA focus, that this might make you nervous, as the very existence of this article no doubt does, but this is Wikipedia. We cover all sides of subjects, and whitewashing isn't allowed here, so I hope you will curb your evident zeal. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
You threw out some random-looking information, and I merely asked a question to see what you were driving at. It seems clear enough now, thanks. And I'm not saying the article can't be improved, but I also don't see where it's especially vague about the politics of the WoW, either.
By the way, the suggestion that I am SPA is risible. I humbly suggest you review the criteria more carefully before throwing down that sort of uncivil accusation again. Belchfire-TALK 03:59, 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)

"Redefining" Rape

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)

OK, I looked this over carefully and I have made edits that reflect my findings. The phrase redefine rape is mentioned in the lead alongside 4 different sources that do not so much as mention the subject of rape. Further down, there is discussion of the controversial Medicaid changes, and the phrase redefine rape is erroneously used to characterized the proposal. This is, to be charitable about it, nothing but partisan cruft. There is no credible evidence that anybody tried to "redefine rape", either the legal meaning or the word itself. Yes, yes... I know Mother Jones said that, but it is clearly an editorial comment that has no basis in the news story being told. Therefore, I changed to new wording that reflects the reality of the House proposal, which is that certain categories of rape would have no longer qualified for Medicaid abortion funding. That's all it was, and that's all the sources say it was. Belchfire-TALK 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for stating your reason for removing "redefine rape". Unfortunately, I checked your claims and found them to be false. In particular, the Mother Jones article is not an editorial and it explicitly speaks of redefining rape. This is why I'm going to change the article now to restore these words, although I may well tighten them up a bit. If you do come up with a sound argument for removal, please share it here and build consensus first, so that we can avoid even the appearance of edit-warring. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't try straw man tactics. Note, I did not say the Mother Jones piece is an editorial; I said it contains an editorial comment. Note also that the Mother Jones citation remains in the article - it supports the facts it is attached to. It does not support the proposition that anybody besides Mother Jones thinks the Republicans tried to redefine rape. If you want to insist that is the case, I will simply come up with a dozen or so more neutral sources that don't repeat the same bogus allegation. Belchfire-TALK 02:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, your stated reason is that you object to the sole use of the MJ citation. Not a problem.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0203/Did-bill-try-to-redefine-rape-GOP-backs-down-after-public-outcry.
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/05/04/newsflash-house-passes-no-taxpayer-funding-for-abortion-act/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020306901.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105755.html
http://nolimits.org/issues/human_rights/reproductive_rights/
http://www.salon.com/2011/02/01/hr3_abortion_rape/
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/dem-rep-opens-up-on-rape-redefining-bill.php
Pick a few to add and we'll call it a day. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


OK, I think I've made it pretty clear that "redefining rape" is a political, editorial construct with only limited support in sources. And I'm also pretty sure that any reasonable, neutral reading of the sources will show that any "redefining" that was actually attempted - real or imaginary - was a matter of application, limited in scope to specific, circumstances, which is clearly born out by what is in the body of the article (for those who read that far).
Unfortunately, some editors have trouble reconciling their preference for POV wording in a LEAD with what is actually in the body or the sources, seeking instead to impose their POV in the most visible area possible and overlooking any requirement to make sense. Therefore, we must ask for outside assistance. Belchfire-TALK 01:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Interested editors should be advised that there is a discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard regarding this article. Belchfire-TALK 02:32, 1 August 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)

Link to the noticeboard since the one above doesn't work: NPOV Noticeboard - War on Women Morphh (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I strongly object to the use of the term forcible rape without an extensive explanation of exactly what it is as defined by the legislators that came up with the term since rape, by definition, is forced sexual activity. Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Gandydancer, you've actually pointed out, unintentionally I think, the primary non sequitur surrounding the entire "redefining rape" meme. The controversy involves Medicaid law, but rape is defined in the criminal statutes, which were never approached in this matter. No rapist would have escaped prosecution under H.R. 3. Anyway, saying "forced sexual activity," as you have, isn't quite right. The actual definition is "non-consensual sexual activity". Many perfectly legitimate rape prosecutions involve instances where no force is involved, but consent is lacking (or unavailable, as in statutory rape). None of this was affected, nor even contemplated, in the Republicans' putative "War on Women". The charge is hyperbolic (if we are being charitable towards those who say it). Belchfire-TALK 15:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution was pre-maturely closed

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)

I strongly agree. I also support your recent edit[8]. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems self-evident that if you initiate a DRN, you should be prepared to let the chips fall where they may and live with the result. It follows that if you think the DRN was prematurely closed, you should ask to have it re-opened and probably re-notify the original parties as well. As I see it, the correct solution is NOT to come back to the article and revert against a process-driven consensus reached elsewhere. Belchfire-TALK 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, that's what CartoonDiablo is doing. We're on it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mention it but I found Collect's proposal acceptable as well. Your position is still in the small minority (so you do not get to claim consensus Cartoon) - can't we just move past this stupid issue. The major concerns listed in the dispute were addressed - attack is not used, nor is pejorative. The lead should describe how the term is used, so Cartoon's language would need an accompanying sentence. Morphh (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I've updated the lead using the sentence that CartoonDiablo's and Still-24-45-42-125 were inserting. However, I added the sentence proposed in the DRN by Noleander, which helps balance out the way the term is often used in discourse. Hopefully this can be compromise we can all work with. Morphh (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you've made a good effort, and while it's not precisely what I'd prefer, it's still a fair compromise. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe that it is now a good choice of wording. Gandydancer (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Republican Senate Nominee: Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant

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)

You'll need a better source. Belchfire-TALK 23:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Does FOX work for you, Belchfire? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, wait. This guy's just a nominee? (And that isn't Fox News, that's just an affiliate.) OK, well, the guy isn't even in office yet. If this doesn't get some legs under it, there's no notability. Belchfire-TALK 00:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
We seem to be talking about this:
St. Louis, Mo.–McCaskill for Missouri 2012 released the following statement from Sen. Claire McCaskill after Todd Akin said women who are victims of “legitimate rape” don’t get pregnant because their bodies have a way to “shut that whole thing down.” As a former prosecutor, Claire McCaskill has worked closely with hundreds of rape victims and intimately understands their trauma and pain. It is that experience that makes Akin’s statements so outrageous.
“It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape,” said McCaskill. “The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive.”
Now, Belchfire, what exactly is your argument here? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:09, 20 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)

It's even worse than that: Belchfire's stated reason for discounting Todd Akin is false; he's not a "nominee". StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether this incident should go into the "war on women" article should ideally by driven by when/if a legitimate news source makes the link between Akin and the "war on women". Certainly Congressman Akin's egregious misunderstanding of science and the human body might be addressed in his own article.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's the scope of the article:
"The War on Women is a political catchphrase used in United States politics to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures..."
Until somebody can tell us what specific legislation Akin was trying to get passed when he was speaking, this is a non-starter even with sufficient notability. Belchfire-TALK 00:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
For those playing the home version of our game, Belchfire's reason for not including this is we need a better source than talkingpointsmemo.com[9], he's just a nominee and that's just a FOX affiliate and this doesn't have legs[10], he wasn't trying to pass legislation, just talking.[11] Other thoughts from other editors on this? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm still waiting to hear a rationale in favor that doesn't amount to "LOOK! Another douchbag Republican!" Got one? Remember, you've got an article here with a clearly defined scope. If this item doesn't fit within that scope, it doesn't belong in the article. It really isn't too complicated. Instead of whining that I threw cold water on your "gotcha!" moment, why don't you try to actually, you know, refute the argument? Belchfire-TALK 01:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Life is too short to defend douchebags, you know. But I did note he made the comment in the context of discussing whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape, which is a legislative issue, as there have been Republican initiatives to ban abortion in cases of rape.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If he wasn't talking about a specific bill or proposal, then it's just his opinion and has nothing to do with actual legislation. What's your next argument? Belchfire-TALK 01:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not arguing, I'm watching you self-destruct over defending this guy. I said above what my criteria would be for inclusion.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
And, lol. [12] ("a federal bill co-sponsored by Akin in 2011 that would have redefined the conditions under which federal funds may be used to pay for abortion. .... It would have changed the word “rape” to “forcible rape")--Milowent • hasspoken 01:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Checking off Belchfire's arguments, then, it's not just talkingpointsmemo or a FOX affiliate, it has legs, he's not "just a nominee" and he's tried to pass legislation. Next argument? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:32, 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)

CNN reports on it too:
Brangifer (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Another, in which the title itself makes it relevant for this article. No synthesis necessary:
Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
And an even more reliable source which makes the connection for us:
  • Quote: "The short-term consequences of such an incendiary remark are predictable: Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill will trumpet the remark to her own political advantage; donations will spike to her campaign; and the party committees will offer the remark as one more proof point of the GOP's war on women. But the impact of Akin's effort to redefine the terms of this debate reaches beyond this one race. In the multi-dimensional chess that shapes public opinion, the game is less about individual elections and more about a sustained effort to mainstream radical ideas. In the case of denying women control over their lives, there's evidence that the bad guys may be winning the long-game." (Bold emphasis added.)
Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
More:
  • Quote: "Much has been made so far this year about the "war on women"—from Rush Limbaugh's horrendous attacks on Sandra Fluke to many Republicans supporting all sorts of anti-women regulation including outlawing in vitro and birth-control pills." (Bold emphasis added.)
Brangifer (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Obama did a press conference today that connected Akin's statements directly to the "war on women." [13]. This is no holds-barred stuff.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This is all good work in the research department. It belongs in the article. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring

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)

Good! Organizing by subject is going to be better than purely chronological. The latter would ping pong from topic to topic and boggle the reader. Within each subject section a chronological story could be told. Regarding venue, I think chron trumps that concern. The timing of various assertions will lead the reader to more of a story easily followed, with perhaps comments from one venue leading to comments from another. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Your last point is very relevant - looking at Akin again, he is a Representative, but the comments are affecting his race for Senate and may affect the presidential race. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC - Scope of Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I think it is fair to say that there is a consensus against this topic being defined by the opening sentence, and this is backed up by WP:LEAD which states that the lead should summarise the article, not vice versa. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 16 November 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)

What is this, a trick question? If the RfC is about some specific content that you believe is outside the scope of the article, I insist that you specify it right now. Otherwise, this RfC is invalid. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Seconded, the question doesn't make sense since RfC is about whether something falls within the scope, not whether the scope is correct or what the scope is. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand this RfC. What do you mean by "successfully define the scope"? Are you asking if the content and the lead match up? Are you asking if the scope is too broad or too narrow? Are you suggesting that the lead is too vague? too specific? Are you suggesting that the scope of the article should be completely different? Please provide some context so people know what you're asking about. Kaldari (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No It should also include controversies, such a Sandra Fluke and Todd Akin. These flare ups are part of the political discourse and "war on women" is used by democrats every time these happen. Casprings (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure "especially with regard to reproductive rights" is entirely true, as economics and violence issues aren't any less important, and they don't seem to have been given less attention in the recent rape and tax/Medicare/Medicaid plan controversies. —Cupco 22:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Cupco, that's a very good point and I can't disagree. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No. Most of the sentence is suitable but not the final "especially with regard to reproductive rights" which should be lopped off. Cupco makes a good point. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This article should really be phrased. "The Democratic Talking Points for attacking Republicans during the 2012 Presidential Election." Arzel (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Good point! WP:GOP rules that we cannot include any facts that might have been mentioned by Democrats. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Include all topics related to the slogan And Still24 -- your aside above does not belong on any Wikipedia talk page at all. It adds nothing whatsoever except as an indication of a possible WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for singling me out for the false accusations, but I am by no means the only person to find this RfC ill-formed and vague. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No --The sentence can easily be fixed by removing the reproductive rights portion, and adding more details later on. There are definitely other issues than reproductive rights. It's undue WP:weight. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) Futuretrillionaire 00:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It should include all attempts by the Republican party to destroy women and their dignity not just legislative bills, but positions and statements. I applaud belchfire for his advocacy in this regard, though he should avoid being biased in this endeavour.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely terrible opening sentence. It says it is a "catchphrase" or "meme"(which would be better), which it is. Memes are promoted or used BY some group, and they define the group USING the meme, in an attempt to characterize (not describe) another group. Weasel words like "that are seen", with no specificity, have no place anywhere in Wikipedia, and are egregious in a lede. Sheesh.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Question Would the fact that the Obama White House pays its women staffers less than the men fit in the scope? Or this? [14]William Jockusch (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Without a reliable source for your allegation specifically calling it part of the "War on Women", there is nothing to discuss. The second item is not a reliable source, nor does it refer to it as part of the "War on Women". - SummerPhD (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Party or not?

  • Yes, with edits. This is accurately described as a political catchphrase as that is exactly what it is. However, the lede neglected to mention that is it a Democratic Party catchphrase. I've taken it upon myself to clarify this. Not mentioning this fact only adds to the bias political campaign. If we're going to have an article on political propaganda -- which is appropriate if it meets notability guidelines -- mentioning all of the political players is necessary to maintain a WP:NPOV. --NINTENDUDE64 21:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide a reliable source that mentions this point? If so, revert the article and add it. Otherwise, it is orginal research. --Malerooster (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
If it's original research to say it's a Democrat political catchphrase against Republicans, then it's original research to say that it's Republicans who are enacting these policies -- it's just people that we'll choose not to group in any way whatsoever enacting these policies. Now if that sounds absurd, it's because it is. What's original research is to frame this as if it's a catchphrase that everyone uses against Republicans which just isn't true. In addition, numerous sources -- probably the majority of the sources -- are from identifying Democrats and the remainder from groups aligned with Democrats. And that was the crux of my edit and is self-evident. My !vote was justification for a neutral point of view and was not a comment on the sources.
That being said, I can and will cite this as citations claiming this are abundant -- several of those citations are Democratic party websites. But I completely reject identify this as original research and I reiterate my charge that not mentioning this does not present a neutral point of view. Original research is generating your own conclusions from bits and pieces of sources. It's just common sense to provide contexts for citations and their sources. When articles contain "scientists have found that...", do we make them cite an article saying that when the sources are from scientists? Of course not. --NINTENDUDE64 02:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The phrase was coined by leftists, liberals and feminists of every stripe, including third party feminists (Green Party, Peace and Freedom Party, Libertarians, etc.) and also Republican feminists who were critical of their own party. The fact that Democrats are using the phrase is not surprising, but not defining.
Here's an eye-opener: if you search for affirmation of a narrow point of view you will likely find it somewhere. However, if you search for full breadth of view you will find a much wider collection of responses, facts and opinions, blurring the lines and graying out the black and white polarity you first imagined. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It has been almost exclusively used by the Left and Democrats to attack Republicans, let us not be obtuse about this. Arzel (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree. While the term isn't exclusivly used towards the GOP by the "Left", it is usually the case as demonstrated by a preponderance of the sources. A simple search will yield dozens of links like [15].  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Obtuse? How about let's not be blind in this? Green Party committee member Chris Robinson says, "An attack on women is an attack on all of us. Men cannot stand on the sidelines as bystanders. We need to aggressively take a stand because we are outraged by this war on women." (Emphasis added by me, previous and following.) American Communist Party usage: "This war on women is provoking a big fightback and a commitment to mobilize a massive vote in defense of women's rights in November." "The War on Women and the Fightback". "Republican spin doctors have frequently attempted to dismiss the notion that GOP policies constitute a 'war on women.'" Peace and Freedom Party: "All this is to say: End the financial and discriminatory wars on women..." "Today, the struggle for equality continues against a stepped-up war on women." Freedom Socialist Party: "End the war on women". "Reproductive Rights: Report from the trenches in the ongoing war on women's autonomy". "The past year has seen nationwide (and global) SlutWalks to end the blaming and shaming of sexual assault victims, feminist general assemblies where women are challenging sexism within the Occupy Wall Street movement, and marches to Unite Against the War on Women protesting ongoing legislative and political attacks. Feminism is in the air!" Libertarian columnist Meghan Kellison: "The Real War on Women: A Libertarian Perspective". Party for Socialism and Liberation: "The war on women continues – Victory for women’s rights in Massachusetts". "Words and the war on women – International Women's Day commentary". This shows that the Democrats do not have a monopoly on the concept. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Not, per Binksternet. While the D party does use the phrase, they are not the only ones, and to single them out is inaccurate. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
And to single the GOP as the sole practitioner of said war on women is also innacruate. This article has 99 problems but a coatrackbitch aint one.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It is a polemic talking point, or label, about the Republican party platform and bills regarding women. If you have a single reliable source which states the War on Women is something else, please do post it here. But it is an accusatory phrase which is leveled specifically at the Republican party. It is somewhat similar to the phrase Democrat Party (epithet) which is leveled exclusively at the Democratic party, except in that instance, almost exclusively Republicans are recorded as having used the phrase. But they haven't used it to describe anyone else. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The phrase has been lobbed at the Obama administratrion recently with respect to the gender pay gap for White House employees. A simple google search yields several RSy sources [16]. Its on the tip of my tongue, but I also recall another case of "hey, that prhase is great. lets steal it".  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
A google search is not a reliable source. Which of the results did you feel met our RS criteria, and supports your proposed edit? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Who said a GS was a RS? Look at the sources within the search. I'd pick one now, but lunchtime is over.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Then you'll have to find time later. The onus is on the person desiring to make the edit to adequately source it, as I would have thought you'd know by now. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I was assuming that you would look at the list and not insist on attribution because it appears all over the place. But if you insist....18:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Another lunctime. Edit, but for clarity I'll address this in a new section.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The opening sentence should reflect what is actually contained in the rest of the intro. If we stand back for a moment, I think the following are fair statements:
The biggest use has been from Democrats
It has also seen some conservative use. However, said conservative use is not reflected in the version of the lede pre-this-revision. My point is that if the lede is not going to say it's a Democratic meme, then for consistency, the lede should reflect the significant non-Democratic use.William Jockusch (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
No, the lead is supposed to be a brief summary of the article. Where is the section in the article about any conservative use, let alone "significant" conservative use? You're putting the cart before the horse. We write the article, then we ensure the lead summarizes it correctly. And we know very well there has been lots of non democratic use; what has yet to be sourced is that there has been significant use of the phrase by conservatives. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I've restructured the lede to try to reflect the article, including uses relating to the Taliban and to attacks on conservative women. I've tried not to characterize the sources at all. One can hope that this could be a step towards ending the edit war, though that may be overly optimistic.William Jockusch (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm mostly happy with your edit, although not with the "Other sources..." verbiage, as that runs a bit afoul of WP:WEASEL. I suggest we attribute the two other uses which you've added to the lead. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
No objections to specifying the sources, except that's what started the edit war. I'm not going to try for now.William Jockusch (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Links to attack pages

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)

As the editor who asked me to take this to talk has not responded, I assume there is no objection to removing these and will do so. William Jockusch (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, this is curious, an editor asked me to take this to talk, so I did. Yet no one other than me has anything to say in talk. So we are at 1-0 in favor of the removal. However, both of my removals were reverted within 10 minutes. I'm going to AGF and assume that the reverters had enough time to revert, but were then called away on urgent business before they had a chance to come to talk.William Jockusch (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
1. The Murdock page isn't an attack page and relates to the article.
2. If it relates to the subject, it should be linked.

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. Sædontalk 06:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

How does consensus work? I'm sure the rule is not that conservative-leaning additions are left out until there is consensus to include them, while left-wing additions are put in until there is consensus to take them out. I will assume in good faith that there is another explanation. William Jockusch (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What links are you talking about, please? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Balance in the Lede

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)

My justification is not on it being a blog but because it was by Malkin, who is not considered an RS. Powers on the other hand is an RS but her opinion alone does not warrant time in the lead. It'd probably be a good idea to add Powers elsewhere in the article though. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
But the lead does warrant a mention the phrase isn't solely used for critiscm of the GOP.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:LEDE: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." If it's not in the body then it shouldn't be in the lede. I pointed this out to WJ but he hasn't responded yet - am I just missing it? I am not seeing anything about this in the body. Sædontalk 02:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Not yet, but I foresee no problem with inclusion in both sections if the content were to be added.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll work on it. I'm confused about Malkin -- is she not an RS for statements like "Malkin said X."? Cos that's what we are dealing with here.William Jockusch (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Malkin is a reliable source for the claim that Malkin said... whatever she said. However, she is not a reliable source for pretty much anything else. In terms of whether or not to include her statements, though, we have nothing. Otherwise, every article that mentions Obama would be wall-to-wall Malkin quotes. She says lots of things. The overwhelming majority of those things do not belong in Wikipedia. If, OTOH, independent reliable sources discuss what she said, it might belong in Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
You are right about the Body Saedon. I'll put something together. But I'm still not convinced that Michelle Malkin would not be an RS for this type of use.William Jockusch (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem is WP:UNDUE... if nobody in reliable sources has commented on Malkin's blog then it is like a tree that falls in the forest: nobody heard it. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 26 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)

I had put some such material into the article, but it was taken out. I'm sure this does not represent an attempt to minimize the hate speech to which conservative women are routinely subjected. William Jockusch (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents in the WoW

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)

Strongly agree 140.177.205.223 (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
No, this article should be about the legislative moves made primarily by US Republican Party politicians to limit women's rights. If the article needs to be moved to a new unambiguous title to make room for other articles about other "wars on women", so be it. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
What is your rationale for this preference? Your suggestion would (IMO) would make the proposed new article an even larger WP:COATRACK.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is about "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." It is not about "a phrase used at various points in history to describe various things. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is not intended to cover the current or past abuses that women world-wide have suffered. Just because a commentator uses the phrase "war on women" in their reporting of abuse outside of the U.S. does not mean that it should be included in this particular article. Actually I would have thought that this is obvious, and I am surprised that it's been brought up.Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Is not intended -- by whom? Does this article belong to someone? The sources I cited in the Taliban section directly link to the "war on women", stating that this is the real "war on women." I'm finding it just about impossible to assume good faith here. If the subject of the article is "war on women", a Taliban threat that "We Taliban warn you to stop working for the government otherwise we will take your life away. We will kill you in such a harsh way that no woman has so far been killed in that manner. This will be a good lesson for those women like you who are working" is directly relevant. How can anyone possibly argue that such does not amount to a war on women? The mind boggles.William Jockusch (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The intention of the original creator of this article is clear. Gobonobo started it with "In the United States, the "War on Women" is a term used to describe Republican-led policy initiatives enacted by the United States House of Representatives and state legislatures, primarily in 2011 and 2012." The general topic is modern GOP policies which limit women's rights in the USA. Anything else is a separate article. Should we move this article to War on Women (United States politics)? Maybe. Should there be information on Wikipedia about limits on women's rights that have been proposed or instituted in other countries? Absolutely. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
SummerPhD's comment seems to me to be a good way of phrasing the problem. When the article becomes simply a list of every time the phrase "war on women" has been used, it ceases to have any value as an encyclopedia article. If the sources can support an article on the Taliban "war on women" that is separate from Women's rights in Afghanistan, go for it! But don't make an article on a phenomenon into an article on a phrase - because this article is really about particular policy initiatives that restrict women's rights, not about the words used to describe them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
In that case, the article's title should relate to that in a neutral way. If the argument is that the article is really about the debate over certain legislative initiatives, but the title should be somebody's pejorative talking point, I don't see how I can AGF at all. William Jockusch (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
That's the way the large and varied collection of initiatives is grouped. We follow WP:COMMONNAME such that "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" is our article title. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't disagree that the War on Women (United States politics) would be a good idea to think about. Regardless, it seems that we should keep the focus as it was stated -- this will keep everything more manageable and really help avoid coatracking, which could become rampant if we greatly loosen up the focus. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I like Binksternet's proposed title as well. Any objections?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it seems the new title is being chosen specifically to make the article even more unbalanced than it already is. Other than my recent additions, the opening paragraph reads like an assault on conservative positions, while leaving out the conservative side of the story. Look at what happened here. After a bit of the conservative side of the story is added to what was a horribly one-sided article, the response is that the topic of the article is redefined in a way that pushes out that portion of the conservative side of the story. My response to that is, if you want to change the title in a way that makes the article tilt more towards the Left than it already does, the first thing that needs to happen is drastic rewriting to restore some semblance of balance to the article as a whole. At that point, refinement of the topic may be appropriate. But if the title is changed without first bringing balance to the article as a whole, you are making the balance worse, not better. Now, if the article were first to be revised to include things like the low pay of women in the Obama White House [which I did add at one point, but it was reverted], a stronger treatment of the endless slurs against Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingarham, Stacey Dash, and Michelle Bachmann, the attack on Ann Romney for being a stay-at-home mother, a recognition that drastically reducing public funding for women's health organizations would put them on equal footing with men's health organizations, the fact that "unequal pay" largely represents unequal number of hours worked, and so forth, then I would have no objection. But as it is, it looks like whenever a bit of the conservative side is added to the article, someone finds an excuse to take it out. And changing the title now, without first restoring balance to the article, would be a continuation of that trend.William Jockusch (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference fiction was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference caterpillars was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_on_women/Archive_1&oldid=1147996897"