Talk:Sandra Fluke/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nomination for Deletion?

Is Sandra Fluke even still notable for an article? There's already one about the controversy, I don't see why she still needs an article of this length (the important portions of which are already included elsewhere.)

I'm strongly considering nominating this article for deletion again. Any thoughts before I do so, or reasons why I shouldn't? Zaldax (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that you review the arguments in the deletion review . She has written articles for media outlets and has had continued coverage. THat was the basic argument to keep the article. Other then that, you are free to nominate the article. Casprings (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI; the deletion review did not notify any interested/involved editors, and took place when the only discussions on the pages where she was named were discussing cutting and merging, since the whole flap had died. This page has been given some time in case any pro-Fluke editor actually has anything new or novel to add. Thus far, the answer is no. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder which "flap" this would have been, IP. Would it be the Limbaugh flap? That's so dead that it appears here in today's HuffPo. (Incidentally, does pointing this out render me a "pro-Fluke editor"?) -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A liberal website is trying to keep it alive? I'm shocked. Got any sources with a semblance of neutrality talking about it? - Xcal68 (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=13781

http://www.policymic.com/articles/11954/dancing-with-the-stars-welcomes-back-bristol-palin-after-latest-show-epic-fail

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/congressman-darrell-issas-call-to-the-internets-right-side/260132/

http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2012/07/gops_contraception_fight_fizzl.html Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn, yes, I forgot: HuffPo is liberal. Would this (twitchy.com) be from just another liberal website? There's no WP article on "twitchy.com" (of which I hadn't previously heard), but here, to give the flavor, is the start of its current top story: Last time Rick Santorum tweeted about eating at Chick-fil-A, vile progressives suggested he had a gay, incestuous relationship with his own children. All because Santorum and Chick-fil-A promote traditional values. / Today Santorum thumbed his nose at the hateful Left by stopping at Chick-fil-A on his way to a rally for Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz. Finger-licking liberal? (Alleged liberalism aside, I have to say that I'm underwhelmed by almost any tweet-related story.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Link 1 is Ms. Magazine. Note I said "semblance of neutrality." Link 2 is an article about Bristol, which mentions Bristol saying something. Link 3 doesn't mention the controversy. Link 4 is about "contraception fight" who mentions it. None are about the controversy. Were you thinking no one would check the links? Oh, and forgot to mention: Twitchy? Hahah ok... - Xcal68 (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's no point following the links if you're just going to ignore what's there. The last one, for example, fulfills all of our criteria, yet you ignore it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no point in joining the discussion if you're going to fail to understand it. Which neutrally sourced link was about the controversy? - Xcal68 (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, Still-24-45-42-125. That last link is to a page within a website called nj.com. I fear that this named itself after New Jersey, a notoriously liberal state. (We learn that the most conservative state is Mississippi. Remarkably, ms.com belongs to Morgan Stanley -- manfully defending "MS" against Ms magazine, perhaps.) More incriminatingly, the page suggests that conservatives have in some way been unsuccessful. Is such a suggestion not decisive proof of a liberal bias? -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree, you are welcome to take it to WP:afd. added in this edit of 02:26, 28 July 2012 by Casprings

• "reasons why I shouldn't?" because life is too short and there just was an AfD/DrV, so you will be rightfully berated for wasting time on a new AfD so soon.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'm awestruck by your "learning curve": first edit to contemplation of AfD nomination inside 48 hours. -- Hoary (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a lot of free time lately. :P I've also been an ip-editor for quite some time. Anyway, I merely mentioned it because I looked at the last afd, and it wasn't really debated or discussed. In any case, the article itself does repeat a great deal of what is discussed in the controversy article, and adds rather little, in my opinion. It seems contentious enough to nominate for AFD, but I'm still not so sure that I want to be the one to take flak over it, since it looks like I'm already because I'm new yet somewhat know what I'm doing... Zaldax (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

After considering my options, I have nominated this article for deletion. The discussion is here. Zaldax (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support deletion, on the basis of clear lack of independent notability. It'd be an exercise in futility to try and scare up instances of Ms Fluke's notability independently of the Rush Limbaugh episode. I tried - and it was futile. Please, let us set aside the politics of this and proceed according to Wiki rules on both notability and BLPs. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a recent New York Times story about Obama's campaign in Colorado. It focuses on his appeal to women and notes Sandra Fluke's past history concerning women's contraceptive rights, and also mentions that she will be introducing Obama at his speech in Denver. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/obama-hits-colorado-with-appeal-to-women/69.228.95.210 (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would support anybody who cares to nominate this article for Redirection. Here's why; she was a non-notable person before the OneEvent. After the OneEvent, she has been doing the circuit because of the OneEvent. Speciate (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, when the "circuit" includes the Democratic National Convention then that probably makes her at least as much a public figure as Joe the wannabe plumbing contractor. 66.81.247.30 (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article may need protection --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It certainly attracts birdbrains, yes. I was thinking that it would benefit from semi-protection, but I don't think that the vandalism and stupidity are overwhelming, particularly given the number of non-stupid people who have it on their watchlists. Recent eruptions of stupidity have only lasted a couple of minutes before reversion. Of course, reverting wastes the time of people whose time is better employed doing other things, and if the frequency of stupidity increases I for one would happily s-protect it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well it is continuing - I wish I could share your view of people who vandalise this page, but she has become a lightning conductor for vicious attacks and extremist views. Since the vandals are generally single purpose accounts it would benefit. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

requested --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

added (2 months) semiprotection --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion

I am curious as to why it is necessary to categorise her as a "Protestant". Did she say that she was and that that motivated her to take the position she did? I note that this was recently removed from Category - with this note "Religious and LGBT categories are not to be used in biographies of living people unless they publicly self-identify with the label(s) and it is relevant to their public lives". The same could be said for the infobox. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No definitive source on this, just ref that her parents are Methodist. Not very relevant, although there has been commentary that before Georgetown, she was a member of a group that claimed to represent Catholics. The text label is non-controversial, but there is a higher standard for linking to a Category (wikilinks at bottom).--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

She did say she was a Protestant, Here you go.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/campus-overload/post/sandra-fluke-religious-colleges-and-unexpected-rules/2012/03/06/gIQARCa0wR_blog.html . The source is citing an interview she gave. It was originally cited in earlier versions of the article. I will see if I can't dig it up. Casprings (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Found the original WP article. Linked it in the article. You have to look about halfway down the story. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/sandra-fluke-says-she-expected-criticism-not-personal-attacks-over-contraception-issue/2012/03/03/gIQAJq1UpR_print.html Casprings (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that adequately answers my point - a Protestant student at a Catholic institution. Thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So tell me again why should we pay for Sandra Floozy's sex pill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sndfloozy (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? Why? Because the Roman Catholic Church is not entitled to assert civil authority over anyone, and is not entitled to assert any sort of authority over people who are not Roman Catholics. That's why. Paul (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletions - Support for Obama section

This needs more discussion - I fail to see why referring to continuing controversies and media attention is labelled 'propaganda' - a little while ago it was alleged this page should be deleted - and it was - for lack of notability. Continuing media attention and commentaries by politicians constitute notability and add to the overall understanding of her position - which is just as much symbolic as instrumental. People have a right to know what is being said whether they agree with it or not. I am trying to be as objective as possible here with a topic that seems to create more heat than light. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits to the Support for Obama section, I think we've reached a pretty good compromise. But, overall, I think the article suffers from a little too much detail and over-citation (six refs for one sentence?!). Let's imagine what would be important to know about Fluke ten years from now. My guess is 1) the Limbaugh controversy and 2) her role in Obama's reelection campaign. So I think the article should focus on that and be concise elsewhere. Even in articles on U.S. presidents don't have this degree of detail on the person's positions on various issues, extensive analysis of speeches, minor biographical details, etc. MaxVeers (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The "symbolism" paragraph in no way meets WP standards. It is WP:SYNTH of the WP editor, and reports as FACT, an obscure COMMENTARY in a questionable WP:RS, then, in pure WP:OR, categorizes an ACTUAL WP:RS (for commentary only; it is clearly labeled as an opinion piece). The only way you could knit the various refs together is in their characterization of Fluke as representing the "entitlement mentality", the only common (to those and many other commentaries) thread. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that there is often too much concrete thinking around here. The interesting thing about Sandra Fluke, whether you agree with her or not is what she has come to represent - one of the most talked about differences in policy in this election which contributes to a major gender gap in support. The controversy continues with David Frum's piece in CNN yesterday - and how people have reacted to it. Your contributions on this particular page might be considered a case in point. While reactions to her speech - and it was not one of the most important at the DNC - continue to reflect this symbolism. Let's try this one again. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

To develop that a little further: WP:SYNTH is of course what we all do every day, WP policy is not dismissive of WP:SYNTH but synthesis to advance a particular cause. As far as WP:RS goes, that can be subjective, but in this case it is not the reliability of any particular source but the totality of commentary that has reignited an older controversy that is significant. It is is no coincidence that the article and this talk page have at times seemed like a battleground. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael; don't really understand what you are talking about. While it is easy to list rather unflattering things that Fluke has "come to represent", which I won't list here, I don't think that is what you mean. Mostly the connections or political narrative that Democrats are trying to make with her are along the lines of "Rush was mean to me, so Republicans are bad", not exactly a theme for the ages. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Really?

How is it that this article has returned, when she is even less notable than before? The 15 minutes of controversy that made her slightly recognizable has long since faded. It's truly mind boggling. - Xcal68 (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Please review the delete review discussion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_June_21 You are welcome to challenge it and see if one can get consensus to delete it again. Casprings (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you direct link me to the actual discussion. I can't find it. Thanks. - Xcal68 (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You have to click the "show" link and you will see the discussion. It is on the right by her name. Casprings (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't seeing it on mobile, for some reason. How did anyone know about this, by the way? It seems like the decision to restore this largely took place in a bubble. I only found out because the article suddenly appeared on my watch list again. - Xcal68 (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That is more of a question of Wikipedia, not myself. I simply followed their rules to bring a challenge to the deletion of the article. Casprings (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Xcal; agree, the deletion review, months after Fluke had slid into obscurity and editors had moved on, without notifying interested parties appears to be trying to slip ?!?#?#? under the radar into WP, but let's see if there actually IS anything new (I don't think so), or if it is just the same old hackneyed talking points, and THEN, if necessary, go to AfD. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Xcal68, how should I interpret "15 minutes" in your comment? The period as measured by my wristwatch seems unrelated to it as used by you, given that Google News (for example) gives plenty of evidence that Fluke continues to have a certain prominence.

A bit of googling, however, takes me to this at "Unitedliberty.org". Posted just three days ago, it starts: Apparently a reporter at the New York Times Magazine didn’t get the memo that left-wing feminist hack Sandra Fluke’s 15 minutes were long past up.

Does Fluke merit an article or doesn't she? Those who think she does are welcome to improve this one. Those who think she doesn't are welcome either to ignore it or to take it to AfD. This is how to take it to AFD. Notes:

• Stage I: The template you'll need to add at the top is {{afdx|3rd}}.
• Stage II: The category is B (biography).

Everything else should be straightforward.

Anyway, this is not the place to argue that Fluke doesn't merit an article; AFD is. -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The primary problem with Wikipedia is embodied in the fact that its article on Sandra Fluke is longer than its article on the Flemish painter James Ensor. Simply put, the people are not intellectually fit to decide what is worth knowing and what isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:25C4:92E9:193A:2BA2:C452:97A3 (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There are many users who are interested in knowing more about Sandra Fluke, and this is not a problem. If you think James Ensor merits a longer article, one of the primary benefits of Wikipedia is that you can contribute to that article! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What Anomalocaris said. Additionally: Ensor certainly does merit a fuller article. More about him would be worth knowing. This is what I know. However, I am a person, and thus perhaps not intellectually fit to decide what is worth knowing. (If people aren't intellectually fit to decide such things, I wonder what is intellectually fit to do so.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion (division) - What the Issa Hearing and debate was actually, factually about

Both the above comments are unproductive. The issue is not why "we" should pay, but why a Catholic institution should be "forced" to both pay and provide services that are contrary to their moral beliefs. No Catholic Church has "asserted civil authority" over anyone. Fluke CHOSE to go to a Catholic University, and from the moment she entered demanded that the Catholic University cease to be Catholic, since she did not agree with the Catholic principles the school upholds. Which begs the obvious question; why did you choose Georgetown if you hate every policy that it holds?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect, all of the above comments are unproductive because we are not here to debate whether we agree or disagree with Sandra Fluke's position — rather, we are here to determine the relevant facts (as verified by reliable sources) and include said facts in the article as appropriate. See WP:NOTAFORUM. — Richwales 19:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Could not disagree with you more. An article which includes a Biography of a person mostly known for a controversy MUST actually state what that controversy was. In the case of the Limbaugh comments, it was the bad words. In the case of the Congressional Hearing, it must say what the Hearing was about, and (since she did not ever testify, since she was not submitted as a witness) if she addressed those issues (which she did not). The issue before the Issa hearing was what OBJECTIONS religions and religious institutions had to the Obama rules. A Reader cannot understand what the controversy was if the Article does not say what it was. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable sources which discuss this issue? If reliable sources have brought up the question of whether the decision by Fluke or others to voluntarily attend Georgetown negated her or others' right to complain about the school's position on paying for contraception, then by all means report such comments in the article. However, we (Wikipedians) cannot bring it up on our own — which is why I fail to see any valid purpose in debating the issue here on the article's talk page. — Richwales 20:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Rich; please clarify your "this issue?"; we seem to be talking past each other. On the right to complain; everyone has a right to complain, (no reliable sources say she can't) but with regards religion, no right to ask government to change the religion; that is the essence of the Free Exercise clause. I was talking about the First Amendment issues that were essential to this article; the subject of the Issa hearing (not contraception as stated), and subject to discussion and reporting by WP:RS.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I was reacting to what appeared (to me) to be a debate amongst editors as to whether Fluke, or others in her same situation, had any right to force Georgetown to accommodate her demand to receive special treatment that would violate the institution's own principles. As I see it, such an argument is unproductive here (per WP:NOTAFORUM) unless it can somehow lead to finding reliable secondary source material which can be legitimately incorporated into the Fluke article. This discussion might possibly be helpful as a means to refine our understanding of what sorts of points to find source material for — but even then, there is a high risk of violating WP:NOR by incorporating our own analysis of Fluke's views and statements into the article, as opposed to sticking to what the reliable sources say. Apologies if I misunderstood what was going on here, but that's what it looked like to me. — Richwales 15:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Hearing scheduled for February 16, 2012, titled "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" was not "a discussion on whether insurance should have a contraception mandate", but strictly about the First Amendment issues of compelling Religious Institutions , and the lede or a description of the Hearing should say what it was about. As phrased now, several parts of the article, including the lede are simply non-factual.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder why I ever brought the subject up. But better discussing it here than warring on the page. If you believe that would you spell out here exactly what is 'non-factual' and why, and if you are correct then we can agree to their removal. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that; it isn't the same topic any more, and was looking for a convenient place to sector it with a new heading. Obviously, as I stated above, the debate on the general institution of mandates occurred several years ago, and was not a subject of the Issa hearing. The new rules issued strictly concerned exceptions in the whole health care bill that would apply to religions and religious institutions, and the Issa hearing was about the novel exclusion of the standard for religious institutions from those exceptions. So the lede phrase describing the Issa Hearing as "a discussion on whether insurance should have a contraception mandate" is wrong. The Hearing, of course, had several excellent women witnesses, and insurance issues WERE discussed, but the agenda put that discussion in the afternoon, or second panel of the Hearing. The first panel was religious leaders or theologians who could speak authoritatively about what their faiths believe in general and how they morally intersect with health care (remember, religious exemptions don's JUST affect contraception). The panel was widely reported in religion news sections, but ignored in favor of the Congressional protest that started the Hearing by the general press. The part that says the first panel was "when the hearing covered contraception coverage." is also factually wrong. Of course, half the CV is also untrue, but that has nothing to do with religion. Just FYI (also unrelated; relates to your previous "symbol" discussion), during the brawl, but before Limbaugh, (also never made it to WP:RS, so not arguing for inclusion) there was some adoption of the term "Fluking", among Conservative discussion boards, meaning more or less; to decide you don't have an argument on an issue (in this case religious liberty), and to instead (figuratively) to pound your fist on the table and claim vicitmhood, thus changing the subject. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of that sounds like material for a totally different page than this one on Sandra Fluke herself --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Of course, some of the background explaining WHY the sentences in the Fluke article are wrong are just that, explanations, and wouldn't be included, but a correct description of the Hearings is absolutely necessary to this article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that I would prefer to include most of that in a page on the Issa hearing and not debate the hearings on this page--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree; and this IS on the Issa hearing page; the argument here is to correct two short non-factual sentences, and replace them with two short factual sentences, nothing more. (PS; your wording was, in fact, better on the description of criticism)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A screenful or so above, there's a question from somebody with a throwaway account, viz: So tell me again why should we pay for Sandra Floozy's sex pill? This is blatant trolling. Next time (and there's sure to be a next time), please don't respond. -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Dubious tags

I think the utility of dubious tags is somewhat, well "dubious" to say the least. The reader is likely to be confused - what does it mean? Here they follow citations - so is the citation a dubious source, or is the information in the citation dubious? Is there conflicting information elsewhere - in which case stating that there is controversy would be more constructive. Does this page really warrant the ink poured out on it to date? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, taking your suggestion as good faith, the dubious tag is applied to statements that are not properly sourced or for which there is evidence that they are untrue, and both the "member of" and "co-founded" phrases/sentences amply fit the bill, as extensively discussed on this and the Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke controversy page. There are only two sources for BOTH those phrases, a self-submitted student profile page (which is no longer up, since she is no longer a student), and websites that have cut and pasted from that page w/o editorial checking; neither are WP:RS. The correct course of action is, of course, to delete, with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and/or WP:SELFSOURCE tags, and this has been done. Dozens of times. Tendentious problem editor keeps adding them back. Tagging puts them on a page for independent input, so has the potential to avoid edit-warring, except that an editor is edit-warring to take them down (even though WP guidelines require that they stay up until discussed and resolved on Talk). If you have a suggestion for how the tags could better illustrate the problem, by placement or text addition, I would be happy to accomodate.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no self sourcing. She wrote none of the sources. Please provide evidence that this is self sourced. Casprings (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As shown in pervious talk pages, this is not a self sourced student bio. It was a statement put out by Georgetown law. Again, you continue to make ______ up and keep repeating it. It doesn't become true.Casprings (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"Shown" like your proof that she is an "attorney"? The only argument put forward that it should be included or is a WP:RS is Casprings declaration that he/she "considers it reliable". Extensive citation, reference, and empirical proof of inaccuracy provided in talk pages, nothing but editor's opinion and "want" for inclusion. The student profile is NOT an academic or official statement of Georgetown, it is part of the publicity/alumni relations website domain and students are required to submit copy for it as PILS scholars. The only original source (student-generated website) is not up, and only have other also not WP:RS that cut and paste from original. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The argument put forward is that there are multiple RS that backup the bio. You keep repeating something that isn't true, in that ONE of sources is a"student profile." It was what the LAW SCHOOL wrote concerning one of their students who won an award. BTW, didn't you already take this the the RS noticeboard here. What was the result of that? As far as she being an attorney, I brought up evidence and someone (Not you, BTW) wrote strong evidence that she had not gotten her results back. At that point I (Not someone else) removed the material.Casprings (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not getting into a back and forth of personal attacks There are NO WP:RS that support the two tagged statements. ALL references are not themselves WP:RS, and ALL merely cut and paste the now dead Student Profile page. Ample evidence already provided that affirmatively indicate the two tagged statements are not just unreferenced, but untrue, as well. No argument has been advanced that these statements ARE true, or ARE WP:RS. Neither the self-submitted student profile nor the websites that re-post stuff they find on the web have editorial oversight, a condition which MUST affimatively be evidenced in order to be considered a WP:RS--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't the RS notice board agree with you? Casprings (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Continuing criticism

I reverted the deleted paragraph - which could be amplified, and clarified it a little. Discussions of critical attacks tend to focus on Limbaugh, but as the article in Media Matters points out, that is now being continued by others on that side like O'Reilly, because she is seen to embody the "Entitlement Generation" - which is what I meant when I said she had become a symbol in an earlier edit. It is the relentless attacks that is a story in itself. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No doubt that the exposure of Fluke has attracted much criticism; she is almost entirely known for her involvement and participation in controversies, and agree that the Limbaugh use of bad words is the least substantial. Would not agree that this is recent, her speech to Congressional Democrats was much mocked at the time for its dubious statements. The protest by Congressional Democrats to disrupt the Issa hearing was much condemned as well (though most directed to the Democrats whose protest it was). The cries of "victimhood" from Fluke, when she clearly was seeking controversy, were also met with howls by many pundits. Not recent at all, but agree as section is needed.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I restores the citation you deleted but kept yours. 1. i did not see the point of deleting a current article and replacing it with an old one. 2. The new citation did not address the text - so I moved it. The point is - (a) There is more than Rush Limbaugh involved here, and it is continuing (b) it is just as much pertinent that there is continuing attacks, not just that there are attacks. That's the news story here --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Move is fine, but your point, while perhaps worthwhile, needs expansion and MUCH better references. MMfA, just FYI isn't a news site; not exactly correct to call the post a "news" story, though OK as opinion. Also, can't really have a section on the criticism of Fluke without including the criticism, though I agree the argument ABOUT Fluke both pro and con is more important than anything she has actually said. I'd be happy to add other criticisms, and what the Fluke flaps represent (don't know if symbolism is the best word) to her critics; a little less clear about what she or the criticism represents to Fluke partisans. Have never heard a criticism say she represents the "Entitlement Generation", but many that she represents an "entitlement mentality". Only heard the former on Kos. Open to suggestions.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Etiquette

Can we make this page a little less adversarial? I am all for accuracy. But one would think that this was the most important topic facing the world today in terms of the effort put into continually changing it and arguing every detail.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is out of control. I think the article would be better served if both myself and Anonymous209.6 agreed to leave it alone and let others handle it. Casprings (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Other criticism ; what to include

Absolutely no objection to expanding the criticism of Fluke's speech to include those other than Limbaugh. It was widely panned, and has few cogent arguments. Limbaugh's insult is only notable because of the backlash, otherwise, simple insults are the LEAST notable criticisms. In no particular order

• 1) the $3000 Contraceptive bill - widely panned, both because of the mis-representation of the cost of contraception and the dismissal of Title X free contraception, readily available for all needy Georgetown students
• 2) Medically wrong description of the effects and uses of contraceptives in PcOS - it has no effect controlling or preventing the overgrowth of Ovarian Cysts, is used in the treatment of facial hair, to re-establish fertility, or for convenience.
• 3) Questionable descriptions and mixing of conditions covered by Georgetown insurance

Could go on, but good to start discussion here first, know it will be controversial.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any legit news sources that show any of this?Casprings (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Casprings; You do remember who you are talking to? We both know from the previous pages and pages of debate on RL-SF that there are extensive references and sources. It is more productive to set parameters of what should be included, and sketch out the article FIRST, rather than have people write pages, be reverted, unreverted, deleted, added, ad nauseum. Hoping you want to constructively and collaboratively edit. If not, fine, we will all deal with that, but the latter wastes LOTS of effort and time.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Casprings could hardly be blamed if Casprings didn't know who Casprings was talking to: "209.6.69.227" is not a particularly memorable name. Anyway, if you have extensive references and sources, just start by providing one or two good sources for each assertion. Quantity is unimpressive; quality is impressive. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

C and I have discussed at length all these issues at the RL-SF page, that is why C knows the issues and arguments already. Just asking that we not repeat the pattern. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The $3,000 Contraceptive bill may have been widely panned, but it is within the range that some women pay for oral contraceptives over three years, which calculates to $83 per month. Planned Parenthood ought to be regarded as a reliable source, and it reports that birth control pills typically "Cost about $15–$50 each month." [1] $83 is not that far outside this range. Center for American Prospect Progress reports a range of $15 to $80 per month, plus an annual doctor's visit of $35 to $250, for a total of up to $1,210 per year. [2] New York Daily News reports "$90 a month for some of the newest brands" [3], which would be $3,240 over three years. For all the bloviating and bellyaching, $3,000 for three years is within the range that some women are paying. Unregistered user 209.6.69.227, not only are you wrong about the reality of $3,000 three-year contraceptive expenses, you are also wrong about their being readily available free for all needy Georgetown students. You are also presumably not a doctor and not qualified to comment on the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome with oral contraceptives. As the article states, Fluke cited a friend with polycystic ovary syndrome and explained: "this friend needed contraceptive hormones costing over $100 per month to treat this disease, and that while PcOS was "covered by Georgetown insurance", the insurance company repeatedly denied contraceptives, because they suspected the purpose of the medication was contraception." If there is a controversy here, it is because people who lack medical training and have never medically examined the women in question are making political noise about something they are not qualified to comment on. There is no medical controversy here, only a political controversy whipped up by the usual unreliable sources. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Utter failure to critically read even your own sources. PP has been cited, and the $15-$50 range and average of $22 has been accepted widely, and Fluke criticized for giving a figure that is TWO TIMES the UPPER range of what is medically necessary as the cost of contraception, AS STATED. CAP is a hyperbolic partisan site, and both generally unreliable, and gives figures that (when you search, something they do NOT make easy, for obvious reasons) their alleged sources do not support. They scream about how expensive contraception CAN be, then scream that (modest) co-pays represent over 50% of the usual cost of contraceptives (which is correct, but because contraceptives are so cheap). Your NY Daily News points out that for needy women, contraception is FREE, through Title X, AS STATED, which you then claim is untrue. Although you CAN buy contraceptives that are 2 or 3 or 4 times as expensive as needed, that has as much relation to the cost of essential health care as the $500,000 cost of a Ferrari has to the transportation figures used to calculate the cost of living. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Center for American Progress provides a reference for the cost of contraceptives: the New York State Department of Health and its web page, "Prescription Drug Prices in New York State". [4] At random I searched for prices for the oral contraceptive Yaz, and it shows up as costing $69.99 at most Manhattan pharmacies. This is already 84% of the $83.33 monthly cost that equals Sandra Fluke's stated $3,000 over three years. Yaz was only my first try and I have little doubt that some other drug would cost at least $83.33. Even if the contraceptives are supposed to be free, Sandra Fluke reported that such supposed-to-be-free coverage is frequently denied. You and I are not doctors and we have not examined the patients in question and we are not qualified to comment on why a doctor prescribed a more expensive medication for one patient or another. We must defer to the physician, who has the training and experience to consider the particular issues for each patient and determine the right prescription. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. Had to do a spit-take when I read your "At random" comment. Congrats; you successfully identified the irrelevant Ferrari on the website (see previous comment); I did the exact same search for the most outlandishly priced (and medically unnecessary, hence denied by most insurance on medical grounds) non-essential designer drug (Yaz) in the most expensive location in the US (Manhattan), when I confirmed above that the C.A.P. did not report correctly. Little to do with cost.

Fluke's rationale for dismissing the ready availability of free Title X contraceptives to every needy student was actually the "ordeal" of a 15 minute bus ride. This was in a student speech she gave the week before the Issa hearing, but was wisely scrubbed from the version given two weeks later.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Medical impossibility of Fluke's statements. As I understand, your entire comment is to "guess" that, in spite of detailed and factual expositions (her and on the RL-SF page) on the medical bases of PcOS, because you do not "like" the conclusion, anyone doing so must not have a medical background. Nice fantasy, but wrong again. Fluke makes claims that the "cysts" produced by the friend's PcOS "grew" to huge size (which they don't), and the growth on her ovary would have been "cured" by ordinary contraceptives (which, even assuming as we must that the friend's growth was something else, they do not do). Ordinary oral contraceptives are often prescribed for patients with PcOS, but only as a part of some treatment protocols. No doubt co-pays for extreme cases of PcOS could approach $100 per month, but contraceptives are a minor part of that.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You are not a physician, you have not examined the patient, so your comments are without foundation. Since you persist in making comments you are not qualified to make, I will not continue to debate you. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You aren't really debating to begin with; how would I know if you stopped?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we REALLY have to rehash the "no women" demagoguery? The FIRST panel of the hearing JUST covered the various theological objections that different religions had and the connections between the various religions and their charitable institutions. The SECOND panel of the Congressional Hearing (which met in the afternoon) had representatives of institutions affected by the new Administration rules. The SECOND panel dealt with contraception and insurance issues, and had several women witnesses. The Democrats demanded only the first panel and nothing else, not the second panel, for Fluke.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So it makes sense to exclude women from the discussion if theology is involved? Not seeing how that makes sense. The controversy was that a discussion of women's health did not invite women to the table. That's not "demagoguery" -- it actually happened, even if a few women were allowed to participate in some other panel that didn't involve religion. 76.174.24.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, put aside the hyperbolic demagoguery, and that statement makes no sense. No-one excluded women, unless you agree that the Democrats in inviting Fluke to a meeting the next week "excluded" blacks, Hispanics, the elderly, children, mothers, the disabled, gay men, ranchers, southerners, Ohio residents, and cosmetologists. And that they are therefore racist, ageist, anti-motherhood, anti-gay, anti-Southern, and anti-Ohio. Where are the "War on ...." articles "exposing" this Democrat bigotry? Oh yes, no-one bothered to create them, as they would be silly. In the Issa hearing, which was ALL about religion and the 1st amendment, there was a discussion (the second panel) which discussed women's health care and had several eminent women witnesses, and a panel on theology that included only clergy/theologians(1st panel). --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well you've certainly done a good job of demonstrating "hyperbolic demagoguery" that "makes no sense." The point was never that you should have a representative from every minority group (Blacks, Hispanics, disabled, cosmetologists, etc.) on every discussion panel for every issue. The point was that a panel on denying women's health coverage based on supposedly religious principles should maybe have included a representative from the group actually affected by that.76.174.24.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It would have made perfect sense for a panel discussing the comparative theological bases for religious exemptions to have representatives from various religions, which it did, and from persons with differing opposing theological views (which it did not). Democrats were asked to come up with witnesses that might have expertise on theology that might also be friendly to their view that religious institutions should not be exempted, and they did not. Fluke has never addressed the topic of the panel, nor does she have expertise, has never exhibited any interest or views on theology, nor was she submitted as a witness. Had she been submitted as a witness to the hearing, and wished to speak on insurance issues (the topic of the SECOND panel), she might have been admitted as a witness to THAT panel, which had multiple eminent female witnesses.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

New ref

[5].   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sandra Fluke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 05:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Quick fail. Article is not stable, it has, in the past year been deleted, recreated, nominated for deletion (procedural speedy keep), redirected, and recreated. Content disputes on the talk page have been fairly continuous, with the last ending just over 1-1/2 months ago (attorney or not), and numerous others ending just over 3 months ago. BLP content issues according to the page history have been continuous, with the last BLP removal occurring this week. The article page history also shows constant content disputes and IP vandalism.

This article should not have been nominated at this time, and should not be renominated until it is stable. GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fluke pronunciation

Fluke rhymes with "Luke" not "look" Not that it matters.Chryslerfan (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Attorney" questionable as occupation and in lede

Both Attorney and Lawyer are defined as people licensed to practice law. She has JUST taken the bar, and has not been admitted yet. The reference cited does NOT say she is an Attorney. As occupation, she is not employed as an Attorney as yet; her present employment is as a Campaign worker.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

She would have taken right after she graduated and would have results now. Several sources cite her as an Attorney.Casprings (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Caller was referring to her as a "newly minted lawyer" a month ago. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 19:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The results would not be out yet. The D.C. Bar has not released the results yet, which is where she went to school. New York, another likely jurisdiction for Georgetown grads says it typically does not release July bar exam results until November. If she called herself an attorney she would be subject to discipline, so we shouldn't do it either, regardless of how other people refer to her. 24.20.219.148 (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

She took the bar in California. There are RS sources that call her an attorney. You provide pure speculation. Casprings (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

24.20.219.148 is obviously more cognizant of the process, and absolutely correct. The CA bar just admitted the class of examinees that took the MPRE in FEBRUARY. Timeline for admission to the Bar, and therefore licensing would be December or January. Until Licensed, she is NOT an Attorney, nor is she referred to by ACTUAL WP:RS. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

1. [[6]] for requirements of Bar--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

With regards to WP:RS, which still does not trump factual information, which does not refer to an errant photo caption, or careless website from a small college PR department, as you cite, they refer to her as "Georgetown Law School graduate". Sources need to be both Reliable, and actual sources, such as

1. [[7]] DNC calls her "Georgetown Law School graduate"
2. [[8]]New York Times calls her same
3. [[9]] ABC refers to her as same.
4. [[10]] Washington Post, the same--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And they contradict the muliple RSes I have provided, how? Most law school grads go on to become attronies. Once done, they are normally called an attroney not a graduate from whatever. She is a lawyer by multiple RS. Casprings (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Being X usually results in being Y, therefore being X means being Y"? Uh, no. When there is reliable evidence that Fluke has become an attorney, WP can call her an attorney. And not before. (It's even possible that she won't become an attorney -- a non-negligible percentage of law grads (some very well known) choose to devote their lives to other pursuits.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

multiple RSes calling her an attorney is not good enough?Casprings (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You again confuse a Google hit with a WP:RS. WP:RS refer to her as many things, some not flattering, but "Georgetown Law School graduate" is one of many that could be used, whereas, as explained above, "Attorney" is factually incorrect (and thus barred on WP:BLP grounds regardless) and NOT used by sources that are WP:RS. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think its probably true that she does not have bar results yet, based on some research. I think lede should refer to her as a recent law school graduate, its factual, accurate, and more informative than simply saying "attorney." Furthermore, since her notability is very tied into the fact that she was pilloried while a young female law student, this information should be made clear.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Sandra Fluke is not an attorney. This article is inaccurate. News sources said she returned to California to take her Bar exam. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/08/news/la-pn-sandra-fluke-hits-the-campaign-trail-with-obama-20120808 Attorneys must pass the bar to practice law in California. http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Public/Pamphlets/BecomingALawyer.aspx#2 Sandra Fluke is not an attorney in the state of California. Go search for yourself: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch . Due to the divisive / disputable nature of this article, I will not make the changes myself. I will allow other editors time to comment on this issue, allow feedback. I have provided the facts, from known reputable sources, and I hope others comment on them as well. Allowing a distinguished title to be attached to a person, which they have no right to use, is not something Wikipeida should get into the habit of doing. Providing this information is misleading, and false. The fact that other sources fail to do this simple research, which I completed in a matter of ... about 3-5 minutes ... does not make these sources trustworthy or reliable in my opinion. It is also possible that these sources calling her an attorney may have QUOTED THE INACCURATE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE. I certainly hope that is not the case. --Kyanwan (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the material. Casprings (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

More sources call her an attorney. How many more until we can add this in? http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-sandra-fluke-gop-20120905,0,7008930.story Casprings (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

When you ask a question like this, a mere handful of lines below Kyanwan's comment, I start to wonder if you read comments whose gist you don't happen to like. ¶ For Wikipedia to call somebody an activist (let's say) would depend on whether "reliable sources" have called her an activist. For Wikipedia to call somebody an attorney would depend on whether sources that are reliable for this kind of information provide evidence that intelligent thought has been given to checking an assertion that she is, in fact, an attorney. Because this itself is not a matter of opinion but instead one of fact. ¶ If you want to help this article, please do so in other ways than seizing and acting on feeble evidence that Fluke is what she is not. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

One gets bar results and sworn in to be an attorney. How quickly a website is updated is another question. Casprings (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

...Isn't it a bit ironic that you still didn't read Hoary's comment? Until reliable sources say she's an attorney, we can't put it in the encyclopedia. Sorry, that's just our policy. This article was JUST restored (in my opinion prematurely, but consensus disagreed.) Don't make the community regret that decision by turning it into a battleground for a third time. Seriously, when Hoary and I agree on something... Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Both Zaldax and you are right. First Zaldax: Not only do I agree with him, I even agree with Anonymous209.6. (Extraordinary!) Now you: Yes, she'll get the bar results and will then probably be sworn in (or given the secret handshake, or don the magic pants, or undergo whatever else is the locally appropriate mumbo jumbo) to become an attorney. When there is clear, persuasive, intelligently-informed evidence of this, it should go into this article. And not before. ¶ You seem curiously credulous regarding newspapers. Newspaper articles are written to tight deadlines by overworked people, and then go through editing by other overworked people. Phones are going off, video monitors are playing, and various other distractions are playing away. Plus writers unthinkingly regurgitate formulas. Want a Fluke-irrelevant (and indeed apolitical) example? Today's Guardian brings the article "Amazon introduces updated Kindle Fire tablets in bid to rival iPad". It merely parrots what Bezos says about his new toys, and gives a few specs and prices. It's thus no more than second-hand PR -- it lacks even a word from an "industry analyst" or some such putatively independent if shadowy figure. Anyway, the article tells its readers (i) Bezos unveiled two new versions of its bestselling Kindle Fire tablets he intends to use to drive use of Amazon's expanding online video library (my emphasis), and (ii) the sales [of the Kindle Fire] leave Amazon trailing far behind Apple's far more powerful iPad devices which accounted for 68% of global tablet shipments in the second quarter, compared with Amazon's 5%, according to research firm IDC. Huh? Either nobody checked this properly, or the meaning of "bestselling" is now debased to the point of "having a more than negligible market share". ¶ Of course, this in turn raises the possibility that the meaning of "attorney" may have been similarly debased, to include "expected to qualify to become what 'attorney' used to mean". But if so, then this is still not how WP should use the word. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have read all post. I had no problem removing the information, when it became clear it was in question. However, if a source reports that she passed the bar or if a source reports that she is sworn in, I think it goes in the article. Even if it doesn't show up on the CA Bar page yet. It was a simply question. Casprings (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Fluke is now listed on the July 2012 California Bar Examination Pass List. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 20:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

* Thus this should be added.Casprings (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

since September?

What has Ms. Fluke done since speaking at the DNC? Is she in a law firm, public law, activist work? Any sources? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)