Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy

When to reconsider moving Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy to Rush Limbaugh/ 6 Controversies/ 6.8 Sandra Fluke comments

As with all recent events pages, at some time, it becomes necessary to re-evaluate significance. At this point, a page narrowly devoted to RL-SF is losing its relevance by the day. Advertisers have bolted, ratings decline, then ratings go back up, advertisers come back. A one month dip (which it is looking like) in ad revenue will no longer look like a big story. As long as the focus is narrow, the relevance is low. Either there has to be some change that warrants a topic with broader implications (and NO, not the Sandra Fluke page) or the move will have to happen. Not necessarily NOW, but at some time. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be merged with Rush Limbaugh, based on WP:NOTDIARY. This article regards an event significant only as it applies to a radio commentator not a national issue or subject separated from said commentator.

Kckid (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There were a wholelatta mouths flappin in the wind, but no movement of any sailboats. The only real "content" of this article is entirely appropriately covered in the lead, and that is already in other appropriate articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is the TheRedPenOfDoom? You obviously don't have all the facts in this controversy. Stop acting like you do. The apostolica (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

He has lost a large amount of sponsors, media matters is running a media campaign, the President will have to respond to a petition concerning rather he stays on AFN, etc. Simply because you dislike the story doesn't mean it doesn't belong. The media coverage is persistent and consent on Fluke and this controversy several weeks after the event. A Google news search for just the last 24 hours still pulls up 5 pages of results. Casprings (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Give me just 1 real news outlet that has talked about Fluke in the last 24 hours, as anything other than a footnote in their article. I just did a week long search and it's virtually all blogs and/or agenda driven media. It's time to merge what never should have had its own page, imo. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here you go, one Google search away. http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_20241710 Casprings (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh... The Denver Post? I'm sure everyone in Denver considers it important, but not quite what I had in mind... - Xcal68 (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Denver Post mentions SF as woman in the RL flap. Period. May be how SF is referred to for a long time, if ever. So what? Still argues for merger to RL page209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Denver Post ranks in the top 15 as far as circulation and has 4.6 million web site hits a month. It has won a total of 7 Pulitzer Prizes. You asked for one link in the last 24 hours from a real news source. Next time, please define "real news outlet." I really don't know how that is supposed to be defined. The average person might think circulation, readership and professional recognition is a means of defining that. Clearly that is wrong. Casprings (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It might rank 15 for circulation, but all you have to do to get there is reach 255,452 people. 3/7 Pulitzers were for editorial cartoons. 2 more were for photos. The web hits were posted in a "Denver Post Media Press Kit" from... the Denver Post. You and I are not quite on the same page when it comes to things that impress. - Xcal68 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what...give me one solid source, non-blog, non-bias media, non-local (the Denver Post was only covering a local event), covering her Denver visit. You said "media coverage is persistent" to which I disagree. Get me a link to what I described and I'll totally concede the point to you. - Xcal68 (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what, find any source of anything that isn't biased and I'll nominate you for Tenure on the Philosophy Faculty of your choice. Everyone's biased.Kckid (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, everyone still considers calling her a slut a bad thing. flapflapflap. and all the events you mentioned in the first sentence easily and already thoroughly covered in the RL article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The story had along period of very high and persistent news coverage. While somewhat going down, that does not negate the coverage that already happened. As far as I can tell, persistent media coverage is the somewhat objective standard to measure this on. The level of coverage and longevity of coverage was enough to merit the article here. I would suggest that when compared to other articles, the level of coverage supports keeping the article. In fact, even one of his own scandals (which had less media coverage) remains as a separate article, Phony soldiers controversy.

That being said, there are still things happening with the event. For example, media matters is now running an ad campaign based on it. Moreover, there is an upcoming decision as to rather he will stay on AFN. Also, sponsors remain absent from the show. I think this separates it from other controversies in terms of the significance of the article. I still think alot of this argument involves a case of JDLI . Casprings (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters almost WAS the story from the beginning. Social media, WP edit campaigns, calls to remove RL from the airwaves, all begun by Media Matters, which is an Advocacy group. Now spending more on Advocacy (not news) since the issue is dying. Still argues to merge to RL209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

My view is unchanged from what I said before, above: "It's way too soon to delete this article or merge into Rush Limbaugh. In a few months, if Limbaugh's career is back to normal, we could look at it then. If the loss of advertisers leads to employment changes for Limbaugh, it's a permanent article."

209.6.69.227, I encourage you to register, so you can participate fully in Wikipedia. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not the way Wikipedia works. (Create an article, wait a couple months to see if there is actual impact. Nope there hasnt been. Delete it.) An article should NOT BE CREATED UNTIL the notability and impact has actually been demonstrated. The continued existance of this article is a FAIL on Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

More merge talk? You had your chance to merge into the RL article with the AfD; that failed. An attempt to merge now would be an attempt to subvert consensus. --JaGa^talk 02:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We see that the attitudes toward inclusionism or deletionism do not exist in a vacuum... The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point being made is that, while it may have seemed significant, 3 weeks ago, based on what the controversy MIGHT have produced; either the removal from the airways or a wide-ranging debate, the whole flap is dying out, therefore, is becoming just another Rush Limbaugh controversy. It is perhaps notable in that it became bigger that previous campaigns because of the coordinated use of social media and mass media, but otherwise, no. Use of bad words and shock at use of bad words is not in and of themselves historic. Admittedly leading indicators (allowing that something may happen) are i) that the major coordinators of this campaign, Media Matters, have stopped (1-2 weeks ago) posting daily reports of RL loss of advertisers. ii) the same org is now having to BUY time to attempt to keep this alive (essentially an admission that the campaign on the internet is failing) iii) reportedly RL ratings are back up to beyond what they were pre-flap; a leading indicator that whatever damage to be done has already been done, and advertisers inevitably follow. iv) media coverage of RL comments is now restricted to partisan blogs of both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

NO debate that it was a big, two week story, though mostly manufactured and stoked by partisans on both sides. In the middle of the two weeks, deletion was inappropriate, merger to RL was crystal balling. Two weeks later, not so much. It may or may not take another few weeks to be clear, but that is the discussion begun here. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Now is end of April. The controversy died a month and a half ago, contraceptive mandates and Free Exercise violations now mostly talked about w respect to imminent Supreme Court ruling. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In June the Supreme Court will rule. Democrats abandoning the War on Women, Fluke flap fading into obscurity.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thursday--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion makes no sense, given that their is now an article on Sandra Fluke. The event involved two notable people. It makes no sense to merge it to the Limbaugh page. The undetected page of Sandra Fluke makes this argument moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Why does the existence of Fluke's article end a discussion about moving a RL controversy to his article? Also, it didn't involve "two notable people." It involved 1 notable person. The other rode his coattails and some WP editors picked up the torch. Her article was deleted before, and it was restored with a virtually closed-door discussion. - Xcal68 (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thus far, Fluke article has added nothing new; though editors were invited to improve it to demonstrate some new notability, that has not happened. Fluke article is now up for Deletion. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose That is too much content to be wedged neutrally into either Limbaugh's main or breakout controversies article. That this issue still rages on months and months later, and that Fluke is now campaigning on national stages suggests this will come up several more times. That Limbaugh seems to put his foot in his mouth, either for ratings or because he's foolish, doesn't diminish this controversy as being less notable on it's own. Insomesia (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaand… ObamaCare is constitutional, prescription contraceptive coverage and the rest of the preventive health mandate is in effect, and with a GOP VP candidate that wants to outlaw IVF, the War on Women shows no signs of going away. This article could use a couple of fixes though: the debate was about health insurance that Georgetown students are required to purchase, so it had nothing to do with taxpayer funding; and I don't believe Ms. Fluke ever made any comment on her own personal need for or use of birth control medications, making Rush Limbaugh's bloviations technically defamation per se at common law (IANAL). Halfspin (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. Individual mandates are unconstitutional, unless considered as a tax, no definitive ruling on religious liberty (the main issue) has been made. The debate never really focused on any specifics of the Georgetown insurance plan (on of the criticisms of Fluke's speech was its lack of relation to what insurance guidelines GT actually has), and YES, Fluke did say something like "as a woman who uses birth control"; I'll have to look for the ref, but it isn't hard. I would suggest reading some of the Talk page Archives where many of these issues were dealt with.209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

War on Women see also link

My opinion is that having the link there is a WP:POV issue, especially since having the link could & will be construed as Wikipedia saying that this case is an example of the war on women. If you want to include a link to the article then there will need to be a discussion (here, then in the article) about the link and how the war on women relates to the subject with reliable sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree the wording should not state that this is part of the war on women. However, I would also state that the page is related to the war on women, as a large percentage of people see this as part of it. So wording that adknowledges that fact, but also does state that it in fact part of the war on women. Casprings (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources to support "a large percentage of people" seeing the connection? —ADavidB 05:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Pages of them. Google Search "Sandra Fluke" "War on Women" . Casprings (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the Sandra Fluke article. Specific reliable sources (not necessarily a general list of Google search results) need to support linkage of this article's controversy with what is known as the war on women. —ADavidB 07:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Casprings have a read through Wikipedia:Verifability it will give some more info on what User:Adavidb and I are looking for. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Taken awhile to get back to this. Looking for sources that show that some people see this as a war on women, right?

WP: Limbaugh, Fluke and the GOP’s 'war on women’

CBS: GOP Shows True Priorities With War On Women

I can show more, but I am not sure what you are looking for. I think it is clear that the some on the left see this as part of the "war on women" One should at least adknowledge that fact. Casprings (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You had written above that "a large percentage of people see this [Limbaugh–Fluke Controversy] as part of [a war on women]". Here, you're writing that "some people see this as a war on women". While some people have linked the issues, emphasizing political differences, I don't know that it warrants inclusion of a "See also" link. —ADavidB 17:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How about a sentence that acknowledges that some see it as part of the war on women? Casprings (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Come up with a neutral sentence/paragraph which has or more reliable sources and I'll take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really necessary; already have Democrats in the "Democratic" Response section using the catch phrase. If you selected Democrat responses arbitrarily, instead of picking and choosing, probably 80% would have said "Republican War on Women" at some point, or "leader of the Republican party". If we are condensing and summarizing the Response sections, I would emphatically endorse saying something along the lines of "Democrats responded by condemning Limbaugh as sexist or misogynistic, and trying to link his comments to the Republican Party and an alleged "War on Women", to replace the uninstructive random quote words.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Some" is considered a "weasel word" so specific attribution is needed. —ADavidB 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, with reference to the Article's edit history; the Democrat Response used to be a whole page(s) long, and almost every response had the phrase "war on women" in it AND (correcting the "or" above) "leader of the Republican party". Finding WP:RS for that is no problem, it is in the edit history. The apparent current variety in response is a result of massive trimming; redundant comments by Democrats were edited out, what little variety there was was left in. Probably better to summarize, which would be easy, and would involve those two phrases, plus maybe a list of Democrats.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Does This Work?

Many public figures and organizations rejected Limbaugh's comments as sexist. Some considered it part of the war on women. Georgetown University president John DeGioia said Limbaugh's description of Fluke was "misogynistic, vitriolic"; 130 members of the faculty signed a letter supporting Fluke. The National Organization for Women called Limbaugh a "bigoted bully" using "hate-filled speech" to "shame a young woman" for her views. They also called on Clear Channel to drop his show. Rachel Maddow said Limbaugh was trying to fan outrage, and his attacks seemed to be based on the idea that the cost of birth control pills is proportional to the amount of sexual activity.

Casprings (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not even close. Putting "War on Women" in the section lede represents that this was a non-partisan response. Yes, I know NOW and Maddow arguably should also be under "Democrat", but compromises are messy, and we have left it as is. The phrase was already in the selection of quotes, though the editing process has resulted in something of a misrepresentation on how universal the "war on women"'s use by Democrats was. Again, condensing the whole "Response" section by summarizing Democrat responses, summarizing Republican responses (both very easy), and perhaps cutting down the ones outside of those sections would be productive, not adding non-specifically-attributed talking points.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Casprings added the sentence to the article, and I expanded it to identify NARAL and Sally Quinn as holding a belief that this controversy was part of a 'war on woman'. 209.6.69.227 reverted my edit. On re-reading the references, I see why. While Quinn wrote that she understood why the Obama administration would say Limbaugh's action was part of a 'war on women', and later wrote that she's convinced conservatives are conducting a 'war on women', there's no direct statement that she believes Limbaugh's remarks were part of it. Similarly, while NARAL protests for an end to the 'war on women' and it's clear they don't like Limbaugh and want to 'bring him down', the reference does not provide a direct linkage between this controversy and the 'war'. —ADavidB 01:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary reference to "War on Women" added to the Democrat response section; have no objection, as it WAS an occasion to roll out the catch phrase. You would have a hard time finding a Democrat that week that DIDN'T use the phrase.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding info about what the exception actually does currently

THis is an edit request for the background information section of the article. The edit I am suggesting is in the blue box below. It has been the product of much discussion. Only one editor, disagrees. An RfC has produced one comment in favor of the edit and another editor suggests the edit is better, but two sentences should be shorter. Casprings (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly asked to support this edit on Talk and have repeatedly refused to do so, just repeating again and again that you WANT this edit. Please stop edit warring. You have been told by multiple editors that the sentences are out of place, and do not flow or fit into the narrative. You have ignored suggestions that if we want to revisit established (Talk Archive) consensus, this would require a COMPLETE explanation, particularly to bring it in narrative form to why the Hearing was constituted, not to explain the exceptions, but to examine PROBLEMS with the exceptions. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

BS. The rational is below. Distorting other arguments or what the consensus is is not working in good faith. Casprings (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Sorry, I can't see a consensus to add this text to the article right now. Maybe you could try starting (another?) RfC, or taking this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In this edit, I added information concerning what the exemption currently does. It is very relevant to the background, in my opinion. I would suggest that this remains.

Sandra Fluke, then a 30-year-old law student at Georgetown, was invited by Democrats to speak at a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the new Administration rules on Conscience Clause exceptions in health care. The exception applies to church organizations themselves, but not to affiliated nonprofit corporations, like hospitals, that do not rely primarily on members of the faith as employees. In addition, another exception was created for religious institutions in which an employee can seek birth control directly from the insurance company instead of the religious based nonprofit.Democrats requested the committee add Sandra Fluke to the first panel, which was composed of clergy and theologians. Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) refused, stating that Fluke lacked expertise, was not member of the clergy, and her name was not submitted in time. Democratic members criticized the decision not to include Fluke since it left that panel with only male members, when the hearing covered contraception coverage.

I would suggest that this edit remains in place. Thoughts? Casprings (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

NO.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Or, to put in in a more WP-compliant form, You have not made any argument for its inclusion. The BRD cycle requires you to, having made a Bold edit, having it (for reason) Reverted, now MUST Discuss on Talk page, which means having an actual argument. We already know you "want" or that this is your "opinion" by the fact you edited; that is unhelpful.

Democrats said HEARING had no women, which was false, and claimed the first panel not second panel discussed Institutional insurance isues, both false; we either expand to include mis-statements or leave it in its present semineutral. Although SOME (a minority) correctly said that a PANEL had no women, those Democrats who did, also implied that the Panel (one session of the hearing) WAS the Hearing.

There is an argument.

At no time did Fluke in her speech argue the First ammendment issues on the agenda, nor did Limbaugh call her a slut for critique of these details of the exception WP:COATRACK , WP:RELEVANCE.

is also an argument.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammar and Narrative A (POV) description of what you think the Administration did (there is no "currently" - the exceptions are not in effect, and the Administration in recent lawsuits has objected to them as premature, since the rules have not been applied and they have argued that they are still being revised and formulated) is not just not NPOV, but does not fit into the narrative. The Hearing was NOT constituted to EXPLAIN what the Administration meant to do, it was called to address PROBLEMS with the rules as they were being proposed. Your addition is not in the correct form; one would FIRST have to say what deleterious or Constitutional problems there were, and only THEN possibly add a rebuttal, though that never actually impacted on the Limbaugh-Fluke mess as stated. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The argument for the inclusion is simple. Issa's hearings clearly related to the Administrations policy. As such, two sentences on what the policy actually was is needed to provided the article with some context. Casprings (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Still not an argument, just a restatement that you want this. Please address the issues with the inclusion.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I falls under WP:OBVIOUS. The hearing was about the administrations policy. It makes perfect sense to tell the reader what the policy was in two sentences. Casprings (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I take it this is a way of saying you are not productively going to go to Talk pages and make actual arguments. Obviously, you edits are NOT obvious. As stated above, the Hearing was not an exposition on what the Admin. did, but on PROBLEMS. Nevertheless, First Amendment issues, as exhaustively discussed on Talk, were NOT the cause of the "slut" remarks, and consensus has excluded them. If you want to revisit consensus, the burden is on YOU to make the argument.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:OBVIOUS focuses on the first sentence or two of an article, and warns against verbosity within such a sentence. I don't see it as supporting the sentences under consideration here. The talk page's purpose is for explanation and settlement of disagreements, in the interest of improving the article. An editor's claiming simply that content is "relevant" or "POV" in the summary of an edit known to be contested, without providing explanation, is not helpful. —ADavidB 02:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

One can use the criteria used at WP:AUDIENCE

Here are some thought experiments to help you test whether you are setting enough context:

• Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? (Special:Random)
• Imagine yourself as a layperson in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about?
• Can people tell what the article is about if the first page is printed out and passed around?
• Would a reader want to follow some of the links?

So if a lay person comes to the article and wants to understand the hearings, will two sentences concerning what the Administration's policy is help him/her understand the article? This is simply providing some context to the article to make it understandable. How does one understand hearings on the policy, if one does not understand what the policy actually is? Casprings (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"So if a lay person comes to the article and wants to understand the hearings, will two sentences concerning what the Administration's policy is help him/her understand the article?" NO. The side-comment on policy that was not discussed by Fluke, and was NOT part of the Limbaugh comments in question, nor a reason for the "slut" remarks does not add to the sense or understanding of the article. That is what a WP:COATRACK is. The thought experiment is the above question, adding "without this sentence". 209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not WP:COATRACK. If you take a look at WP:WINAC it clearly states:

It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require. An article on the anatomical feature Adam's apple could explain the term arose from the biblical character Adam (a regurgitation of the Book of Genesis, or an outline of the full story of original sin would not be necessary).

If one has an article concerning this controversy, the controversy clearly has a background with the Issa hearings. Two sentences about the administration policy that triggered the Issa hearings are both needed and go along with Wikipedia's policies, even if you really don't want them to. This is a continued effort to add WP:POV. Casprings (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Issa hearings are the background. This is an article about the RUSH LIMBAUGH - SANDRA FLUKE controversy. Background to the background to the background could include the history of the Constitution, or the Architecture of the Capital building. Also WP:COATRACK, and you continue to fail to provide any argument that it isn't. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The common person coming to this article would not have to understand either the Constitution or the architecture of the capital building to understand the article. The issue behind Issa's hearings is another issue. Casprings (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nor the DETAILS of the evolution (Still happening; according to the Administration, rules are still not set) of the exclusion of Religious Educational and Charitable Institutions from the Religious exemption. You are simultaneously making your attitude, not an argument, (through edit warring, NOT by going to the Talk page) known that you wish to include your statement of what the Admin did but NOT then include the necessary info to actually link it to the Hearing, namely the PROBLEMS with not including Religious Educational and Charitable Institutions. Prior consensus was that all be excluded, since it is WP:COATRACK, and I (not you) are fine with that, but could see inclusion of both as well (which you also oppose). --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

The basic issue here is the bold two sentences in the below paragraph.

Sandra Fluke, then a 30-year-old law student at Georgetown, was invited by Democrats to speak at a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the new Administration rules on Conscience Clause exceptions in health care. The exception applies to church organizations themselves, but not to affiliated nonprofit corporations, like hospitals, that do not rely primarily on members of the faith as employees. In addition, another exception was created for religious institutions in which an employee can seek birth control directly from the insurance company instead of the religious based nonprofit.Democrats requested the committee add Sandra Fluke to the first panel, which was composed of clergy and theologians. Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) refused, stating that Fluke lacked expertise, was not member of the clergy, and her name was not submitted in time. Democratic members criticized the decision not to include Fluke since it left that panel with only male members, when the hearing covered contraception coverage.

I think that understanding why Issa held the hearings is important to understanding the article. Another editor thinks it is WP:COATRACK. Please provide your comments to help us resolve this. Casprings (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Before requesting comment If your RFC pertains to a Wikipedia user, see Request comment on users. For everything else, see Request comment through talk pages. But first: Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I did. See conversation above Rfc. Casprings (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

RfCs MUST be neutrally worded, The issue is your mass-reverting of multiple edits, including Issues of

1) Chronology, addressed on Talk, not answered by Casp; the Hearing was called, THEN Fluke invited

2) Mis-attribution in references, addressed by several editors, not Casp on Talk; the "War on Women" catch phrase was used extensively, and has for a long time been in the article, under the Democrat response. Placing it in multiple places, and either mis-attributing verification to a columnist who is discussing the rhetoric, or in an artcle which does not, or by using "weasel words" such as "some people" to justify its multiple inclusion is inappropriate.

3) WP:COATRACK, addressed on Talk, not by Casp; The issue is whether the DETAILS of exemptions resulted in Limbaugh's "slut" remark or not (answer, NO). Fluke similarly did NOT address issues of what the DETAILS of exemptions were or were not (and what the details will be is still uncertain anyway) in any of her speeches.

The Hearing was not "about" the Administration exemptions. Your wording makes it seem as if the purpose of the Hearing was to roll out an Admin initiative. The Hearing was called to address PROBLEMS with the lack of a standard religious exemptions for Religious Educational and Charitable Institutions. The details of that lack are a side issue, but the ONLY way you can include details of the exemption is to then link it to the Hearing by saying why it was inadequate. Casp is simultaneously putting in side details and edit warring to exclude what the problems with them are, which is the only way TO LINK them to the Hearing. Prior consensus (which Casp refuses to address) is to exclude the whole section due to WP:COATRACK.

4) Issue of NPOV description of hearing composition; including that Democrat members of the Hearing walked out and called the Hearing "all-male" is true, but to get to NPOV, you have to include that there were women witnesses, just not when they took their photo. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You have reedited the whole of the article to put POV into it. You keep doing that at every edit. Casprings (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You frequently claim that 227's edits introduce (a non-neutral?) POV, though rarely provide details as to what specifically you consider to be POV or why. For a discussion to be helpful, the details are needed. Please provide your detailed reasoning regarding the article text in question. (Neutrality requires the fair representation of all verifiable and significant points of view, not just one.) —ADavidB 07:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I provided an argument on this in a new section. Casprings (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep sentences The background provided in those sentence is absolutely vital to fully understand the issue. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits with questioned neutrality

In this section, I will argue that the IP editor is trying to place WP:POV into the article. I will only talk about the background section but I feel his edits on the war on women show the same intent. Most of my argument centers on WP:UNDUE . Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. The IP, continues to try to take the wording of the article to place undue weight on certain aspects. While I will use other WP policies to make the argument, I think in the end, it adds up to a strong effort to put WP:POV. These comments are made off a comparison of these the current version and this version.

First, this version

Sandra Fluke, then a 30-year-old law student at Georgetown, was invited by Democrats to speak at a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the new Administration rules on Conscience Clause exceptions in health care. The exception applies to church organizations themselves, but not to affiliated nonprofit corporations, like hospitals, that do not rely primarily on members of the faith as employees. In addition, another exception was created for religious institutions in which an employee can seek birth control directly from the insurance company instead of the religious based nonprofit. Democrats requested the committee add Sandra Fluke to the first panel, which was composed of clergy and theologians. Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) refused, stating that Fluke lacked expertise, was not member of the clergy, and her name was not submitted in time. Democratic members criticized the decision not to include Fluke since it left that panel with only male members, when the hearing covered contraception coverage.

Versus

On February 16, 2012, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee convened a hearing on objections to the new Administration rules on Conscience Clause exceptions in health care. Democrats requested the committee add Sandra Fluke, then a 30-year-old law student at Georgetown, to the first panel, which was composed of clergy and theologians. Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) refused, stating that Fluke lacked expertise, was not member of the clergy, and her name was not submitted in time. Democratic members criticized the decision not to include Fluke since it left that panel with only male members, though prominent women academics were witnesses on the second panel, when the hearing covered contraception coverage.

Reading the second edit by the IP editor, there is some clear examples of WP:UNDUE. The hearing received press coverage (as shown on the attached source and others) because it had no females and the hearing dealt with contraception and birth control. The above edit with the phrase, " clergy and theologians" highlights a Republican talking point, but provides WP:UNDUE to that fact. While it should be included, the wording is meant to highlight the fact and provide WP:UNDUE. The same can be said for the last sentence. Here again, the IP editor is constructing an argument. He/she is making a point and putting WP:UNDUE weight on a hearing that received little WP:Notability. The event received media coverage because of the first hearing. Bring up the later hearing and with the current wording is another means to provide WP:UNDUE Moreover, the exclusion of what the administrations policy actually is on the subject leaves out an important fact. Here the IP is again trying to remove WP:BALANCE from the article by removing a relavent fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

BOTH versions include the sentence, "Democrats requested the committee add Sandra Fluke [...] to the first panel, which was composed of clergy and theologians." The only wording difference is that one version includes Fluke's age and student status in the sentence, rather than in an opening sentence (also) about the Democrat's wanting her to speak. Except for the 'background sentences', both instances would be second sentences in the paragraph. I don't see how the background sentences change any "undue weight" that the panel included only clergy and theologians, unless you consider the later placement of the same information to do so. I'm more inclined to agree with you regarding the wording of the last sentence, though ABC News reported early on that the hearing "was supposed to be about religious freedom and a mandate that health insurers cover contraception in the United States", and that "[t]wo women were featured on the second panel". The details about the conscience clause exceptions seem awkwardly worded to me, and do not flow well with the rest of the paragraph. The first line in the paragraph refers to (multiple) "exceptions", then the first background sentence begins with "the exception" as if there's only one. The next sentence's referring to another exception doesn't fully make up for this. I think a shorter summary of the exceptions could still help explain the hearing's context and the Democrat's desire that Fluke be added. The BALANCE section of the NPOV policy has to do with equalizing weight of opposing viewpoints that are near in prominence; it seems you're applying it to inclusion or omission of background information. —ADavidB 11:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The first I agree with you. I don't know what I was thinking there. The last sentence was reported on, but that was not the main thrust of the coverage. The wording does place undue weight on the second hearing. And am all for creating a shorter sentence structure, as long as the the information is there. However, I think Balance can be used here. If you exclude relavent facts, that is the ultimate means to unbalance an article. Casprings (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Casp; your statement "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." seems to confuse the frequency of your Google hits (which you have often argued are determinative) or the opinion of whatever YOU read as determining what should be in a WP article. Please refer to WP:NOTANEWSPAPER . WP is an encyclopedia, and gives great weight to FACTS. If someone wrote a column claiming James Madison was a transexual Zombie, and had a good or aggressive publicist, I am sure it would be re-tweeted and generate lots of Google hits, and might even be noticed by the entertainment section of a few ordinarily WP:RS. That does NOT mean we re-edit the WP article, even though the gender of James Madison is only mentioned in Google hits with reference to the article.

What you fail to recognize is that you are removing FACTS and replacing them with OPINIONS, and they are not weighted equally. The example above has an OPINION, and would not be included in James Madison's Article. Similarly, that there were Women who were witnesses at the Issa Hearing is a FACT, the Democrat's false charge that the Hearing had no women is both wrong and an OPINION. You cannot put the Democrat charge out alone, that mis-represents it as factual in WP's voice. I have no idea what you are talking about there being two hearings; I am only talking about one, and your above comments seem to suggest that you have (although you are the most active Fluke editor by far, and declare some level of expertise) never actually read the sources you have edit warred over.

Similarly, as has been extensively discussed in Talk page discussions you participated in, you can't exclude the actual subject of the first panel (a panel is just who sits at the table at what time in a hearing), which was published in advance, which is a fact, nor the composition, also published in advance and also a fact, but only allow the OPINION of what the Hearing "should" have been and let it stand as fact in WP's voice. The question area for the first panel was the theological bases for the need for an exception, and that is why it was composed of clergy and theologians, and also why Fluke was rejected as an utterly inappropriate witness.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Facts can be worded to make an argument. No one is saying to remove facts. However, one has to ask; 1) Why is the story WP:N. The hearing and background got coverage because of the lack of females to talk about contraception. That is the important fact that makes the background section relavent to the story. One wonders what relevance the second hearing has on the controversy. If anything, the last two sentences are WP:COATRACK . Casprings (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the story should neutrally state the composition of the first panel. Casprings (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Casprings. For the 16th [?] time. You are EXPLICITLY replacing facts with opinions, the very essence of NOT NPOV. I have no idea what you are talking about when you speak of some "second hearing"; there is only ONE hearing, a hearing that had female witnesses, was convened by Issa in Feb, took all day, and was interrupted as people were being seated by the political theater of Fluke's handlers demanding she be allowed to speak, "NOW", and then storming out. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me. The afternoon session was not at issue for the background section of the article. Casprings (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The WHOLE issue the Democrats and Fluke wanted to make was an absence of women, where there WAS NO ABSENCE OF WOMEN. Secondarily, she wanted to give a speech, where speeches are only a secondary part of testimony, and she wanted to talk about contraception in general when the agenda topic was theology. The correct, SECOND version that you do not like is about as NPOV, or even kind to Democrats and Fluke, as you can get, since the topic is really the RL-SF flap, not the Democrat's political theater. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There was in the first pannel. There were no women. Stop changing talk section. This violates WP:TPO.

Does nothing of the sort. Please READ guidelines before you quote them. Section headings MUST be NPOV, thus you cannot pre-dispose an argument by making an ACCUSATION in the title.

Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc

--209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There should not be separate sections for Democrat and Republicans

Such divisions invite biased reporting. I think these should be merged into one cohesive section. Insomesia (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the division is useful in the sense that Fluke was essentially tagged to be a surrogate in a partisan political ploy, even though it was Limbaugh, and not Republicans that went over the top, and thus dividing into one partisan side and another fits. Admit it doesn't currently fit that WELL, since the sections really need SUMMARIES, rather than lists of quotes, but that can and should be fixed by editing (see section above). --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you distinguish between Limbaugh and other Republicans? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ummmmm... for the same reason Fluke's comments aren't under "Democrat". Participant.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Improvement to the article - items to be cut down and summarized, does prior Consensus need to be revisited, non-NPOV items that may need revisiting

First, there has been an ongoing discussion that has waxed and waned as to whether this article needs to simply be merged to Rush Limbaugh. At the recent (4th?) discussion of WP:N of Sandra Fluke (delete again), some complaints about failure to include recent events, not taking into account the larger issues, and the uninformative listing of names Limbaugh has been called were all brought up. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Thus far, merge discussions have focused on impact on Limbaugh, and impact on society in general. I think as far as impact on Limbaugh, that ship has sailed, there was some, but it's over. As to impact on society, there was too much political theater to let substantive issues come to the fore, so there was little, except to delay discussion of the First Amendment. On the AfD, several editors expressed the opinion that the Incident was going to have some effect on the upcoming election; I think it is crystal balling, but there are some minor, very recent, and very short-term indications. Perhaps it is becoming more important to elevate the article's standards above that of an attack entry, however justified some of the criticism was. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sections needing summaries, not quotelists

The quotes from Fluke and Limbaugh are too long, the Response sections need to be summarized, and the boycott (we can now objectively describe it as a summary because it is over) section needs to be cut WAY down as well. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. THis is the heart of the controvery. Rush and Fluke's comments need to be accurtaly shown without added POV.Casprings (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As has been brought up several times over the last few months, and especially more recently, we haven't included the rationale for arguments that eventually degenerated into "slut" comments. Also, the need for SUMMARIES of Democrat responses and Republican responses remains.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Boycott section

OK, have done the boycott section; more than happy to get input here. Probably needs some kind of note that THIS Controversy produced more effect on Limbaugh than any previous one, grappling to figure out how to get that to NPOV, and not use WP:OR--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Added a section, although trimming the Boycott section has been up on Talk elsewhere for a month. A few items may have seemed notable at the time or were put forth as things that WOULD be notable, but in hindsight, weren't. The Media Matters paid campaign probably got more attention on Wikipedia than in the real world. It was at the end of the boycott, was interesting at the time, as editors argued either that it was going to take the boycott to a new level, or that it was a sure sign the unpaid social media campaigns had run their course. In retrospect, it's pretty clear the latter, and therefore not notable, since it had no effect, and the rebuttal that it was "astroturf" is also therefore no longer needed. Blow-by-blow of how many and when; this DESPERATELY needs summary, as the individual daily updates no longer matter (actually, they didn't at the time, but we have hindsight). Needed in summary, how many (problem still with a hard number, since almost all primary sources were parties to the boycott in some way), how and by whom boycott organized (social media sources, mostly), and objective assessment of overall impact in contrast to other attempt (right now, none; very BAD reference about one radio network that carries Limbaugh on only a few stations, and is promoting a competitor show). --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary of Democrat responses

A Summary would have to include the "War on Women" catch-phrase; this was arguably a big roll-out for the Democratic Party. Also, subject for discussion; do we need to include that they (less successfully) tried to label the non-appearance a "War on Women", or not? Also probably have to include that a common theme of Democrats was the attempt to link Limbaugh to Republican electoral efforts. Some variety, such as "leader of the Republican party", etc. How many citations, and what variety do we need under each of the Summaries of the themes?--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary of Republican responses

In generalities, easy. Every Republican candidate and leader was asked to comment, and condemned the use of sexist language, but took pains to NOT condemn the underlying issue, that the administration mandates and/or compelling religious organizations were a bad idea. Some variation in specifics were there, but the lead is easy. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-Evaluation of established consensus - do the substantive issues need more weight

We do not have much of a discussion of substantive issues, such as the First Amendment violations that the staged Congressional Fluke drama sought to drown out. There was much criticism of the ugly tactics used, but we have (by consensus, which btw, I agreed with at the time) excluded these as the focus is on the RL-SF Controversy. If the RL-SF C is being used as a campaign touchstone (too early to tell), this needs to change.209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also excluded were the mostly substantive criticisms of the very bad speech Fluke gave, by many, including Limbaugh (before he went off on the infamous "blue" tangent). I have in the past said I didn't care how bad Fluke's speech was nor how good the criticisms were, their inclusion takes away from the main thrust, the "slut" comments. As the significance of those clearly wanes, this Article only survives if the ISSUES become of some importance in reference to the whole RL-SF Controversy. We should perhaps reconsider the deletion of the "Criticisms of Fluke" that I previously agreed could be deleted. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-NPOV sections allowed so as not to take focus away from "slut" comments

I especially refer to the Issa hearing. Democrats did not in fact claim the half-truth that the FIRST PANEL of the Hearing had no women, they claimed the factually FALSE, that the HEARING had no women. They similarly tried to interject Fluke at a point where theology was being discussed, and claimed that the subject was Contraception, again factually FALSE. We have allowed a background section that is trying not to take too much emphasis away from the "slut" comments, and in doing so, allow partial truths which are too favorable to the Congressional Democrats. If this is becoming an election issue (again, too soon to tell), then that probably needs to be revisited.209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't have concenus for any of these changes. I suggest we try Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.Casprings (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that wholesale edits that add POV throughout the article be left for later. Lets concentrate on the background section and get a clear consensus on that, first. Casprings (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your objections to working out edits and improving the article through productive discussion on Talk are duly noted. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have always been willing to work out disputes. That is difficult when another user misrepresents the facts to the degree that you do. Casprings (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with Casprings on this one; I think that it may be most productive if you two take this to Requests for Mediation or the like. Getting outside voices on an article for changes as contentious as these would be a good idea. Good luck improving the article, and Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Need to add a specific page for Sandra Fluke, not just Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy

According to the page for 2012 Democratic National Convention, Fluke is being given a speaking spot. I think that warrants a page for her in her own right. It would be pretty ironic if all people looking on Wikipedia visualize when they try to find information about her is Rush Limbaugh, pretty much the antithesis of her. 169.229.89.168 (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and such a page existed until it was deleted. I did not support the deletion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Limbaugh had notability before the controversy; Fluke was fairly unknown before, and is known primarily because of the controversy. —ADavidB 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The time for a split to a separate Sandra Fluke page in something that is probably only going to gather more merit over time as she continues to build notability beyond this event. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 20:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How does this section, the only WP contribution of an IP improve THIS article? Please post to the appropriate page instead.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)