Talk:War on women/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Republican women's policy controversy

In the rather forlorn hope that it could possibly work, I suggest the above title while providing a redirect from the current "War on Women." "War on Christmas," incidentally, redirects to our "Christmas controversy" article and, according to Google, "War on Christmas" is a much more prolific topic than "War on Women." Badmintonhist (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - It obfuscates the actual subject of the article. Thanks for trying though. - MrX 19:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I oppose this too, but so does simply "war on women," which implies some sort of military action against female members of the population. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a good comparative case. It seems that both articles should reflect the same title preference. If War on Women is appropriate here, then the other article should likewise be renamed to War on Christmas. It seems all the same scope disputes, POV issues would apply. Maybe they've been down this same road and we should ask. Morphh ^(talk) 20:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic, but I agree that the other article should be named 'War on Christmas' for the same reasons.- MrX 20:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the "Christmas controversy" article started out as basically a War on Christmas article but WITHOUT the title "War on Christmas," perhaps because of the same kinds of concerns that have been expressed here. The article gradually expanded into more of an historical look at various Christmas controversies. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that after I posted my comment above. I imagine there would be significant resistance to changing the title now.- MrX 21:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It helps to pick examples which are parallel. For example, we have War on Drugs and War on Poverty, neither of which are literally wars. MilesMoney (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Except they are not parallel as they pertain to the objections to "War on Women" whereas "War on Christmas" is. Getting rid of poverty and getting rid of illegal drugs are goals that most people tend to support. We sympathize with the effort. The same cannot be said for attacking women and Christmas. That's why accusing folks of attacking women or attacking Christmas is used as a propaganda tool. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You aren't showing the ability to understand different POV's. To those who strongly oppose feminism, a War on Women to roll back their rights is a good thing. To those who oppose Christmas (and likely Christianity), a War on Christmas is a good thing. To those who oppose economic redistribution, a War on Poverty is a bad thing. To those who oppose restrictions on victimless crimes, a War on Drugs is a bad thing. Flex your mind a bit and imagine someone who's not you looking at the same things. MilesMoney (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And you're not showing me much intellectual acumen. All of these slogans are (or were) made to appeal to the average American. That's how you win popular support which is what "good" propaganda is all about. Most Americans, I didn't say all, tend to think that attacking Christmas and women are bad things. Most think that attacking poverty and illegal drugs are good things, or at least they did when those slogans were originally cooked up. But we're getting rather far afield here and it's a good thing to let go at the right time. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Tracy Weitz on trans-vaginal ultrasound

The peripatetic Binksternet recently deleted an edit I made to the "Mandatory ultrasounds" subsection of our article with the comment "The RH Reality story was being misrepresented in tone; it sharply criticized the assumptions behind any ultrasound required by law. Don't make the source appear to be something it's not. War on Women is not discussed in source."

Here is how Tracy Weitz (a sociologist specializing in women's reproductive issues) prefaced the source article in question:

    Everyone please step away from the ledge. The public discourse about mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds is completely out of control -- among both abortion
    rights opponents and abortion rights supporters. The facts are slim and distorted on all sides. It is time for a more thoughtful discussion on the issue.

Here is my edit:

    However, in an article critical of the assumptions of those on both sides of the mandatory  ultrasound issue, sociologist Tracy Weitz notes that "the use of 
    trans-vaginal ultrasounds is routine among abortion providers."

So Professor Weitz tells her readers to get ready for an article that criticizes the assumptions of those on both sides of the mandatory ultrasound issue, and I tell our readers that her article criticizes the assumptions of those on both sides of the issue. I have thus "misrepresented" Weitz's "tone" how exactly? It is true, of course, that Weitz is on the "pro-choice" side of the abortion issue, writing for an organization that is militantly "pro-choice," and that she opposes mandatory ultra-sound laws. So what? All the more reasons that her criticism of those on her side of the issue should be taken seriously. Opinionated, but knowledgeable and honest, when she sees the procedure itself demonized by folks on her side of the issue, she corrects the record.

As for Binksternet's assertion that "War on Women is not discussed in the source," a couple of points. While the phrase itself is not mentioned, the article most certainly does make reference to the ongoing political battles that our article calls the "War on Women." Moreover, of course, our article already uses many sources that don't specifically contain the phrase "War on Women." For example, [1] [2] [3]. So, now, the information from the Weitz article that was deleted by Binksternet should be excluded from the article for what precise reasons? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

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

No consensus to move. bd2412 T 20:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

War on Women → ? – This article and its talk page and subpages need to be renamed because the article's scope is substantially narrower than the title permits and content within the scope of the present title has been added but deleted or proposed but rejected essentially mainly on the ground of not being within the narrower scope. The present situation has led to complaints that the article fails to be neutral of a POV (see the sections Problem with Scope of Article, POV Tag, and Tag Edit War), complaints that have some validity but only (in my view) because of the difference between the present scope and the present title. The narrower scope is itself not settled by consensus, because it is disputed whether the subject of the article is the phrase itself, as the lead's first sentence says, or a conflict that underlies the phrase, the latter view allowing inclusion of content that has no sourced connection to the phrase (see the sections Development of the Term - Subsections and Potentially Book-Length), and that content would not be allowed if the subject of the article is only the phrase itself and the contexts in which it appears in sourcing. An RfC on the scope a little over a year ago appears not to have resolved the issue for today. A proposal to add a section for other uses has been rejected. A move would be controversial (see the subsection Possible Diversion and the sections Title Change and Republican Women's Policy Controversy), so a move cannot be boldly done by one editor alone. An archived Request for Comments led to keeping it at the present title, but there is no consensus to permit the scope to reflect the resulting title by including content that is within that scope. I do not know what title it should be moved to, although some editors including myself have proposed titles, but consensus has not arrived at a new title. A significant number of editors have repeatedly posted in efforts to persuade each other on these and closely related issues but, in my opinion, progress is not being made (see e.g., all of the talk archives (1, 2, 3, and 4) and two archived NPOV noticeboard discussions (NPOV/N arcs 34 and 40)). I believe that a decision about the proper title will necessarily determine the proper scope of the article, so that it can be required that editing conform to the scope implied by the title, including that the lead must summarize the body. After either a move or a decision to retain the present title, editing conforming to the move or the retention decision can be performed, including possibly on the lead, with, presumably, less objection. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Move to Republican war on women. The best of a bad scenario, it keeps the scope in one place and allows the article to organically grow from that as opposed to becoming a coat rack for any and all uses of the term. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this isn't the US Wikipedia, so "Republican" should be qualified, as it isn't about the various measures against women in various republican movements across the globe. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Unless there is another Republican War or Women that you plan to create an article for soon I don't see that as necessary. In other words, while there may be other Republican Wars on Women we don't need to worry about them for the time being since they are not being covered. If that changes we can rename the article again if need be.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am in favor of keeping the current name per WP:COMMONNAME, even though the article scope is under near-continuous debate on the talk page. As a second choice, I would not mind very much if the article was renamed Republican War on Women, because that name is also found in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The clear proper title is War on women (political campaign usage). As far as I can tell, the article as such is primarily about use of a term for political purposes, and is not reflective of any actual physical attacks on anyone. Collect (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this isn't the US Wikipedia, and there have been various political usages on campaigns from around the world that have been labeled "war on women", so this needs further qualification -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • While I don't think this is the right title I disagree with this reason for the same reasons I mentioned regarding the issues raised with the Republican War of Women suggestion. Unless the other campaigns are going to be covered any qualification is unnecessary.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is an awful suggestion. What would happen with the base title War on Women? Redirect to War on women (political camapaign usage)? That's unnecessary disambiguation. Also, per WP:D, disambiguators should be precise and non-unique. Not surprisingly, no other article is disambiguated with (political campaign usage). --BDD (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Move to Republican War on Women per Thargor Orlando and Binksternet. (Thargor Orlando, please check your capitalization.) That's what it's about, whether it's in a campaign context or non-campaign situation. This article is about the usage by opponents of Republican policies and legislation seen as infringing on women's rights. Since these opponents include Republican politicians, non-Democrats, and others, I simply say "opponents". Their target is specifically against GOP policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• My capitalization was purposeful in this scenario, but I'm not going to quibble too much in either direction. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Okay. The intent is the same. I was just thinking that since we have deliberately chosen capitalization for this article for good reasons, and those reasons don't change with a move, we should keep the capitalized form. By harmonizing our suggestions, we stand stronger. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment If it remains a stand-alone article the title should be something like Collect's suggestion above. I'd actually prefer making it "War on Women (political slogan)" or "Republican War on women (political slogan)" and modifying the text as well to reflect an article that is primarily about the slogan rather than about policies. I think that what we have now clearly violates WP:NPOV, as it clearly buys into a propagandistic "trendy moniker." Badmintonhist (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, it just "documents" the use of the slogan, without buying into it. The policies must be mentioned as they provide context, and context is required content. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well here we go again. Brangifer saying that the article is primarily about the slogan; Binksternet saying it's primarily about the policies; then the two saying that they are in utter concurrence with each other. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hold on a moment, please: The two are stating their views. We already appear to be working out differences. Let's continue in that spirit. We recognize that editors have had differences but movement is happening, evident in these posts, and we should try to arrive at a local consensus that will hold. Please contribute what you feel would be a good idea and/or concur or dissent regarding those proposed and try to offer some explanation that might persuade others of us toward an agreement. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's really very simple: they are both necessary, and the content we have serves the purpose just fine. No content change is suggested, only a better title to bring it up to speed regarding the actual content we already have, and to keep it on topic. Here's an illustration with an exact parallel: A dictionary lists words, and the definitions must be included. Listing the words without their definitions would be rather pointless. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think War on women (political campaign usage) would work since there is only one article for this title meaning there is not a disambiguation issue. For that reason I don't think the article should be using ( ). The only non-dab page I can recall using them are albums in which a term in brackets is part of the title but that is not case here. I am not saying that the article has to stay where it is but that I don't think the the proposed title will work.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Correct. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Close this RM now. We're never going to suss out the consensus with this complete mess of a nomination. I suggest that a different user (I can do this, if the rest of you would like) open a new RM listing the various options with support/oppose column beneath each option and no TLDR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, we're actually having a very constructive dialogue and making progress. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The notion that Republican policies affecting women are commonly known as either a "War on Women" or a "Republican War on Women" is silly. This is simply the partisan brand that liberal polemicists and politicians have chosen for those policies. It's much like Christmas traditionalists using the term "War against Christmas" to describe practices that make our public seasonal holiday rituals less pointedly Christian. Both are "wars" that most people pretty much ignore. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• You're getting into your own real world political opinions. We all have them, but this is about a term used by reliable sources, and we are documenting the use of that term, so our personal opinions really don't count. Some think the concept is nonsensical and wrong, while others see it as accurate. So be it. Our job as editors is to stick to the sources and faithfully present the opinions in them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - For reasons that I've already stated. The title does not have to describe the scope of the article. The lede does so adequately.- MrX 13:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, the title should reflect the limited scope of the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• That contradiction doesn't go very far toward convincing me that adding "Republican" is necessary, or an improvement.- MrX 16:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Contradiction"???? Why should your failure to understand impede our progress? The lede sums up the article and thus its scope, and the title must accurately describe the subject and scope. There must be harmony between them. There should not be left any wiggle room for coatracking or sabotage of the kind we have seen. The topic is clearly about Republican efforts which the RS describe as a "War on Women". It is their war on women, not anyone's war on women. That's the limited scope of the article. We simply describe what the sources say, whether we agree with them or not. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reasonable people can disagree, without either of them being wrong. There's no cause to suggest that I don't understand--I understand perfectly. I've also edited several thousand different articles and I can tell you that there is no shortage of titles that fail to define the scope of the articles. I understand the issue that your !vote addresses, I simple don't think it is necessary per WP:COMMONNAME.- MrX 01:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Then what did you mean by "contradiction", and why did you write it? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• On the scope and the title being allowed to differ much because the lead states the scope: no. The title defines the scope of what goes into the body or must leave the body. The lead summarizes the body. So one distinction between the title and the lead is that the title is much shorter (another is that the title usually does not describe criticisms of the subject but the pertinent distinction is that of brevity or concision). While a reliable source may offer a title as a teaser just to whet an appetite without saying what the scope of the reliable source is and without affecting its reliability and citability for Wikipedia, Wikipedia doesn't allow teaser-type titles but, in effect, does require that the lead, especially the lead's first sentence, and the title be closely related. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm partial to @Roscelese:'s suggestion. My preference would probably be War on Women (United States politics). A parenthetical is the best option for disambiguation (reducing scope) with the lead term being based on WP:COMMONNAME "War on Women". Sources don't need to refer to it as "War on Women (United States politics)", they just need to refer to it as "War on Women" and we can disambiguate it neutrally within parenthesis based on the clear topic. Absent a parenthetical disambig, I'd fall to just "War on Women". I have problems with "Republican War on Women" for WP:NDESC (accusatory) and COMMONNAME is less supportable - and it just sounds bias using the titles inherent wikivoice. Morphh ^(talk) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Brangifer. The sources for our present article are mostly VERY opinionated ones; either emanating from organizations opposed to social conservatism or from op-ed type pieces in straight news sources. "Real world political opinions," indeed. When we combine partisan sources negatively describing Republican social policies in substantial detail and then give it the title "(Republican) War on Women" we are violating WP:NPOV, WP:POVTITLE, WP:NDESC. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What would happen with the base title War on Women? Redirect to War on Women (United States politics)? That's unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would redirect there. As for unnecessary, there has been a lot a debate on scope, which is mentioned in the RFC. Aspects that help narrow that debate were location and specification of politics (then further debate regarding political phrase or policy). So at least to several editors, disambiguation is necessary. Morphh ^(talk) 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not disambiguation, though. That's throwing more words into a title to communicate information that is best conveyed in the lede, IMO and per WP:CONCISE. Foo should never redirect to Foo (disambiguator). --BDD (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. If we get other articles that cover a different scope with regard to War on Women, we could put an "Other" tag at the top of this article to note the disambiguation, with this topic still being COMMONNAME. Morphh ^(talk) 21:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Question to BDD: "War on Women" is the common name for what exactly? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The "expression in United States politics used to describe certain Republican Party initiatives as a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights." Is that really in dispute? --BDD (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually our article says that "War on Women" is "an expression used to describe certain Republican initiatives as a wide scale effort to . . . " Who generally use it? People who deeply dislike this effort. It is not COMMONLY used, except facetiously, by the many men and women who support the effort, many of whom might describe this as an effort to "protect innocent human life" or some such noble sounding cause, rather than to "restrict women's rights." In other words we are talking about a trendy propagandistic moniker. A real and detailed article on Republican policies that affect women especially should therefore have a different vastly more neutral title. On the other hand "War on Women," or perhaps better "Republican War on Women," is fine if the reader is clearly alerted that the subject of the article is a highly partisan and by no means neutral political phrase, and the focus of the article is the phrase itself and only the policies that inspire it for context Badmintonhist (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the article is essentially about a partisan argument, and that's where COMMONNAME comes into play. "A real and detailed article on Republican policies that affect women" would, simply put, be a different article. If you'd like to write that article, go ahead, but trying to change this one into that doesn't seem constructive. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you using the article's current wording to argue a point? The wording can change. I would not tell the reader that the "War on Women" is an expression; I would say it is a group of US Republican initiatives identified by political opponents as limiting women's freedom. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure whether you're addressing BDD or BAD, Binksternet, but in either case we're back to this problem of scope. I have no doubt that there are editors here, you, perhaps, Bink, and our ol' pal Roscelese I'm quite sure, who intend this article to be Wikipedia's definitive article on recent Republican social policies affecting women. Calling it "War on Women" and providing more detail on the Republican policies than on the phrase was something of a POV preemptive stroke. Sure someone else could start an overlapping, more neutrally grounded article with a less flamboyant title, but the chances of that happening weren't too good after "War on Women" was established. I think your description of the present scope of the article is right on the money, Bink. The problem with that scope, however, is that it is inherently biased. It's rather if some son of the South, or a group of them, wrote an article on "The Great War of Northern Aggression" and, rather than focusing on the phrase, instead wrote an article focusing on Union aggression against the Confederacy during the Civil War. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, your confusion about NPOV is still evident, even though it's been explained to you. Content does not have to be neutral. It can be extremely biased, and from biased sources. We document the real world and it's biases, as they are expressed in RS. We don't have to agree with those sources, but we must use them and present them, including and accurately preserving their biases.

NPOV refers to editorial actions. We must not put OUR unsourced biases into articles, and we must not allow our biases to keep reliably sourced biased content out of articles just because we don't like them. That is very unwikipedian, and sometimes a blockable offense. Whitewashing and/or misrepresenting sources is not allowed. This article is about a notable opinion and we document it. That opinion is obviously mostly expressed by feminists, Democrats, etc., but also by some female Republican politicians who have objected to their own party's actions.

Now, since you seem to keep repeating your obstructionist objections, and thus obstructing progress, please move out of the way, unless you have a truly new, legitimate, and strictly policy based argument which will enable you to WP:Write for the enemy, because that is the situation you are in. You don't like the subject of this article, and it offends your personal political POV. Therefore you need to stay neutral and think as a wikipedian, not as one who is defending the GOP. If you can't do that, you are not worthy of being called a wikipedian and should leave this place, because your stance is actually what's violating NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmh. The above sounds something like MilesMoney but without Miles's charm. No. I'm afraid that it's you, Kraven the Hunter, that doesn't get it. Editorial neutrality doesn't mean picking inherently biased "story lines" with inherently biased titles then seeing what folks with a proclivity for using those story lines and those titles have to say about them. RESIGN. You have no business befouling our noble project. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I had to look that one up! I wasn't familiar with cartoon characters. Personal attack aside, I didn't pick the real world bias inherent in the very notable description of certain Republican policies as a War on Women. The RS in the real world did it, and Wikipedia's job is to document the sum total of human knowledge. This is just part of it, and it's our job to document it. We don't pick just any sources, but only those sources which use the expression about those GOP policies. That's our job. For you it's not a pleasant job. I can understand and respect that. Nobody is making you do it. If you can't do it neutrally, then you should reconsider if this is an article you should spend time on.

If you can learn to WP:Write for the enemy, then you will gain valuable experience in what is a decisive test of whether you are truly a wikipedian at heart, or just a partisan editor who allows his politics to dictate his editing behavior. You're not a total newbie and should know this. I have spent lots of time editing controversial articles and had to learn this early on when Wikipedia was a lot simpler. (BTW, on another topic, you must know who Morten Frost is. My wife is a Dane and I have lived in Denmark for most of my adult life. The happiest country in the world, again. ) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Widen scope. Regardless of the title, it doesn't make a whit of sense for this article to be about the phrase instead of the concept. This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. We describe concepts, not words and phrases. Kaldari (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• • On Wiktionary being more apropos if this article is to be about the phrase: It would be if it were strictly so, but if it would include politically related phrases Wiktionary would probably break them all out into separate articles and require three sources for each variant, losing part of the context about the phrase, and Wiktionary would also exclude contextualizing responses, such as if Democrats said X is part of a War on Women but Republicans said X is what women want and didn't use the phrase. So this Wikipedia article shouldn't be written, scoped, or titled to be only about the phrase (that would be for Wiktionary) but it may be about the phrase and its variants and context and it may be about larger issues regardless of the phrase; either approach is legitimate for Wikipedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose after reviewing the debate and discussing my own thoughts, I'm going to oppose per BDD & MrX. Morphh ^(talk) 17:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose with a narrow scope as per BDD. Red Slash 06:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I agree it's sad for several reasons that we even have such an article, we don't take sides on this. The current name is what policy indicates, and it's a good policy. Reporting this lamentable slogan in a non-POV way is not a moral dilemma for me, and if it is for you, then perhaps Wikipedia is not your thing. Andrewa (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Title supported by references. However, this is a POV-ridden COATRACK WP:NOR-uncomfortable article. The number of references in the lede is a very bad sign. the lede needs cleaning, even if there is a war on women by mostly those evil... A thorough review of the subject in a reputable reference, is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment this does seem very US-centric, which isn't a Neutral perspective. There are cultural wars on women in other cultures too regardless of there being a specific issue within this culture. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Uh, the article is US-specific because it's about actions by a US political party. Some articles can't be globalized, it doesn't work that way. Or am I misunderstanding? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I wonder if we should just go ahead and make another article and hatnote it here. I'm not sure if we have enough for WP:NOTE, but perhaps it would reduce the regular comments about scope. Barney, do you have sources that could be used to start an article regarding the cultural War on Women? Morphh ^(talk) 13:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Biased introduction

The original introduction to this article makes accusations against the Republican Party, and cites anti Republican opinion pieces rather than the Republican Party Platform. It should describe what the term means to both sides in politics, explaining why some perceive it to exist and why others don't. One side should not be propagated in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.72.205 (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the rest of the talk page. The article is about the political rhetorical term. The lead is adequately cited. No need for false balance. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I do think it would be appropriate to insert a statement regarding the Republican view as the third or forth sentence. We define it in the first sentence as something to describe Republican policies. In the second sentence, we describe why Democrats criticize the legislation. The third sentence describes the scope of the legislation. I think it would add balance if we added a forth sentence (or inserted as a third sentence) a statement of why Republicans (in their view) support / propose such policies. "Republicans argue that such policies protect the right to life for the unborn, ... religious freedom, ... taxation." Not sure what the best wording would be, but it seems we should include something like that. Morphh ^(talk) 15:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bad article by any name

By any title this is a poor excuse for an encyclopedia article. Suppose the slogan "Democrat War on Life" was so commonly used by anti-abortion sympathizers that a number of Wikipedians decided to write an article about it. They then detailed Democratic initiatives to facilitate abortion to the point that Democrat War on Life became Wikipedia's "go to" article to find out what Democrats across the country were doing on "reproductive issues." I can well imagine that some of the same folks who have no problem with our "War on Women" article would be howling that such an article was a blatant POV violation and that any article daring to carry such a title should only be about the phrase and not in any substantial way on Democratic policies. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is yet again bordering on WP:NOTFORUM. The article is about the political rhetorical device, its meaning, and its use. That's it. There is no political rhetorical device Democrat War on Life in mainstream media. Suggest how to improve the article specifically or move on. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If Badmintonhist cannot encompass Wikipedia having an article about a widely reported political issue, then Badmintonhist should take this article off the watchlist and focus on other issues. Further disruption here will indicate an RFC/U is the next step. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Badmintonist, you have made a valiant effort to sway consensus, but repeating the same complaints over and over is disruptive. Please consider moving on to greener pastures.- MrX 03:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, maybe if Republicans and mainstream media managed to get "Democrat War on Life" into common parlance as a way of talking about Dem reproductive rights initiatives, we might have that article. We might also have an article on flying spotted green mice if they existed and were documented in reliable sources, but that's a similarly pointless hypothetical. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, if there really were flying spotted green mice I don't think an article on them would cause much of a stir with you, Ros. No controversial political content in it. On the other hand if there were a phrase such as "Democrat War on Life" in political spindom, you would undoubtedly be either trying to delete, or redirect into oblivion, any article on it. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not assuming good faith and personal attacks. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As a result of community consensus at this discussion at ANI, Badmintonhist has been banned from interacting with Roscelese on any level. Badmintonhist has been warned on the thread, and on their talk page, that the next stage will likely be a topic ban. And for the record, aside from !voting in the ANI thread, I am an uninvolved editor here: I have never edited this article or had any direct dealings with Badmintonhist. Jusdafax 04:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A better example is the War on Christmas, which redirects to Christmas controversy. So apparently in that case the War on Christmas is thought of as a biased term, but War on Women is not. --153.1.14.128 (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Intro

I changed the lead from "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe certain Republican Party policies as a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights." to "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe certain Republican Party policies that have been perceived as a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights." It was reverted because "the additional wording is against WP:NPOV as it makes the content appear speculative." However, I think that it should sound speculative because it is. Some people think that the Republican party is trying to restrict women's rights, but they deny it, and it's not really possible to proof either side right. I think that the current wording implies that the idea of the Republican party trying to restrict the rights of women is a fact, rather than just an opinion. Since I don't want an edit war over this, I want to get other opinion's on the matter. JDDJS (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. For your bold edit to stand, you would need to show that most of the sources describe the War on Women as a perceived "effort to restrict women's rights". - MrX 03:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I'm fine with either wording. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The lede isn't saying that these policies act like that. It says that the War on Women is an expression used to describe certain policies as such. There's no need to make it look overtly speculative --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason for change. The named Republican policies certainly limit women's rights, and they are collectively called "War on Women" by the political enemies of the Republicans, despite the fact that hard proof does not exist to show a party-wide intent to limit women's rights. The "War" is not a fact, but the policies are. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, whatever the policies do or don't do, the lede does not state that the policies themselves are definitive War of Women, it says that they are described as such by the party. This is clear to anyone with decent reading comprehension and doesn't need changing. It would also be editing against the sources --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The expression "War on Women" doesn't characterize these policies as mere restrictions; it characterizes them as a war or as an assault. I changed the opening sentence to reflect this. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Biased wording

I have an issue with this paragraph:

"While used in other contexts, and prior to 2010,[17][18] it became a common message in American political discourse after the 2010 congressional elections.[19][20] The term is often used to describe policies that reduce or eliminate taxpayer funding for women's health organizations such as Planned Parenthood, in attempts to restrict abortion subsidies. Other areas in dispute include public funding and/or mandatory employer insurance coverage of such matters as contraception and sterilization."

This doesn't adequately cover the "War on Women." The issue isn't just getting rid of subsidies/public funding/mandates (i.e. "freebies.") The issue is also increased regulation by states over access to abortion (subsidized or not.) For example, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Texas_Senate_Bill_5.

I think this language should be updated to be more accurate of what the term "War on Women" actually describes. 67.84.64.118 (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Trans involvement in War on Women

User was blocked for edits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There needs to be a section on this in the article. The recent case of Barnett v. City and County of Philadelphia is a perfect example of institutionalized support for trans aggression against real women. [4] 143.231.249.138 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC) I disagree. Tenthrow (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC) I disagree on the basis that "trans agression against real women" isn't relevant to the War on Women and is in fact an extremely transphobic notion. 173.26.60.174 (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Complete disagreement. The article cited seems to be about a very particular case involving prison inmates and an accused pimp. The lawsuit was brought about because "the inmates – Yazmin Gonzales, Katiria Chamorro, Maria Cachola, and recently released Jabrina T. Barnett – claim Saldana touched or groped them, subjected them to daily sexual harassment, and leered at them as they bathed or used the toilet." In what way does this case represent the entire transgender community going against women? Use of language "recent case" inaccurately implies fact-finding and/or court decision. Reviewed ECF docket on case - dismissed prior to trial, and without any summary judgment rulings, etc.- minimal docket of 22 entries; stipulated dismissal is without fees/costs, no reference to settlement. Erifod (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC) This case does not does represent the entire transgender community, 143.231.249.138 is a troll that has been on a Transgender edit war and was recently banned for their edits. Seems they may be banned again if they keep thinking like this and edit based off that. Resaltador (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC) It was just one example on the negative impact that putting them in the same prisons as real women can have. Maybe a better example would be the recent name change of Fund Texas Women to Fund Texas Choice, specifically to appease the Trans Lobby because "some people who identify as men can have abortions to." [5] Nonsense like that harms the notion of the right to choose being a women's rights issue and plays right into the hands of the Republicans. @Resaltador, the fact that my edits were reverted on other trans related articles because I disagreed with the Wikipedia Cabal is exactly why I posted on the talk page this time rather than editing the article directly. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Tempted to close this, but will just comment that this user has been made aware of the WP:ARBCOM ruling re: transgender issues which can be found here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fact or fiction ?

This article is made in a very biased way. It is writen like it is a fact, even tought it is a democratic slogan to win elections. If this is to be called an encyclopedia, that contain only facts, we should write what it is. Not the whole propaganda aparatus of the democratic party. Olehal09 (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's considered fact or fiction would depend on one's political POV, and we don't participate in that fray here. We just document what the RS say about the controversy. This article documents a very notable Democratic accusation against well-documented GOP actions, with lots of RS they use as evidence for their accusation. The weight of the content must be on the topic of the article (the Democrat's accusation), but, to satisfy NPOV, we also mention some GOP objections. As editors, we must cover this matter and not engage in GOP whitewashing of what RS say about the matter.

I doubt that you'd appreciate Democratic-friendly editors coming to a similar type of article documenting a notable GOP argument, and doing what you've done. It really borders on POV vandalism, so don't ever remove properly sourced content again. By doing that, you just slapped the faces of myriad editors whose long and difficult good faith efforts produced this consensus version. Respect their efforts, or you will have a difficult time during your (short) editing career here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You have to rember that this is an encyclopedia, it is suposed to be based on fact. Look at the references for what I removed, it is about the republicans backing down from sertan proposed policies by some members. You can't write that it is a repiblican war on women, when they actually back down from everything else than beeing negative to abortions. If this page should exist at all, it should speak of facts and not fiction. And it should state clearly that it is a democratic accusation. Olehal09 (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Olehal09, I hate it when this happens! I assumed, based on your argumentation, that you were a newbie, but now I see that you have made all of 36 edits since your account was created on 2009-02-12, so based on the time you've been here, you're only a relative newbie, but based on the number of edits, you're very much a newbie, so I'll keep working with you.

You should know by now that we base our content on RS, including what RS say, regardless of whether it's fact, fiction, opinion, conspiracy theory, fringe idea, metaphysical belief, or other stuff. The encyclopedia includes and documents all of it, as long as it's notable.

In this case it's a matter of opinion, so there is no "fact" or "fiction" about it. The events are concrete, sometimes statements, and often legislation, of that there is no doubt. In that sense they are undoubtedly "fact". The Democrats, minorities, elderly, and women, are of the opinion that all those laws which disenfranchise them and make it harder for them to vote, are part of a war on them, and this article deals with the "war on women" part, because those words are a very notable meme used in this context.

The article makes it clear that it's often Democratic opinion, as well as the opinion of the writers, some of whom are favorable to Democratic politics, but sometimes are Republicans objecting to what their own party has been doing. (Yes, the GOP has gotten flack from their own members!! That's pretty strong proof that the accusations made by the Democrats are true.) If you were American, especially a member of a minority, elderly, or woman, you might know that, otherwise you might not. If you watch Fox News, you would be ignorant of these issues, because they often don't mention them, and in the instances where they couldn't completely hide what happened, Fox would have "educated" you to see these things in a very different light.

Now please help us. You say that the sources say the Republicans were backing down. Please provide the exact source and the exact wording and place it here in this thread so we can see what you're referring to. Regardless of whether they were backing down or not, things happened which the Democrats believe should never happen in a democratic society. We document that. Now if they were backing down, and the sources say that, we might need to incorporate that as well, so help us document that, but don't delete the documentation of the opinions about the bad events which happened, because that is POV whitewashing. --- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of this is clearly exaggerated...

I've been trying to assess how broad a biased-editinig issue has spread and found this page. Some of the edits here that have been reverted based on purported consensus and sources are just wrong.

This from the first paragraph: The expression is used to describe Republican policies in areas such as access to reproductive health services, particularly birth control and abortion services; the prosecution of criminal violence against women; the definition of rape for the purpose of the public funding of abortion;[11][12] and workplace discrimination against women.[13][14][15][16]

It appears to me that its correct up until the first semicolon. Going through the sources, none of them involve the prosecution of criminal violence against women, the "definition of rape," or workplace discrimination. The one purportedly about violence against women actually involved an immigration bill and standards for asylum-seeking. The one purportedly about the "definition of rape" concerned the use of the phrase "forcible rape" as opposed to "rape" in a health-funding bill. I don't see anything in the sources about discrimination. The sources do, however, support the contention before the first semicolon.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the underlying policies (for the record, I'm against the Republican side on all of these issues), the sources do not support the page, and the page has a POV problem.

It also appears other editors have tried to address this and been shouted-down by false claims that these are "facts" from "reliable sources."

Are there legitimate sources to support the claims? If not, I will collapse the parts after the first semicolon to "and possibly other issues" so the sources can stay.

Djcheburashka (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that you're referring to content in the WP:Lead, not in the body? The lead is a short summary of content in the body, and it may not have all the references, plus its wording is in a very abbreviated form, so it's not proper to start there. To really understand what's going on, you need to start with content in the body of the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help proving my point. If you are saying that the lede is relying on statements in the body, the statements at issue in the body don't say "the Republicans did x, y, and z"; they say that moveon.org and Emily's list characterized the Republicans as having done x, y, and z. That's a proper way for the article to talk about it. Adopting one side of the political dispute, however, is not proper -- it is the definition of improper POV.

I think I do "understand what's going on": You and another editor with WP:Fringe agenda ganged up on a third to accuse him of bias and ignoring plain "facts" in the sources, then said he was being disruptive for disagreeing with you and declared a consensus. But he was plainly correct -- the sources do not say what you and the other editor claimed; you were improperly pushing an extremist agenda, and masking it as "the facts" by citing to political operatives' analysis as not just reliable, but the final, authoritative source.

Isn't what the Republicans were doing bad enough on its own that you don't need to exaggerate for effect? Can't the facts just speak for themselves? Djcheburashka (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not contributors, and try to avoid invective like "pushing an extremist agenda". The content in this article is adequately sourced. Secondary sources have promulgated the idea of a "war on women" and thus we can about it, objectively. The neutral POV of this article has been debated at length and, so far, consensus is that it conforms to our policies and guidelines. You're welcome to make new arguments, but you're probably going to have to be more specific.- MrX 12:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the presence of the page, or the majority of its content. There are parts of the page, however, that go beyond what the sources support, or where the wording distorts what's in the sources or on the rest of the page. This has been raised by several other people in the past. The response -- with was inappropriate -- was to threaten those people. The addition of a new person (me) can change what was the prior consensus. All of us, including the people who were shouted-down earlier, "count" when determining what the consensus is, not just the people who support the current view. Really, this sort of thing should not be controversial, and the vehemence of the response does support agenda pursuit. Djcheburashka (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Being neither a Democrat nor a Republican, AND being an American woman, I have to note that I find this biased. The War on Women is defined by the ACLU with only the legal and legislative issues as should have been done by an unbiased professional.It then leads into the parties, the legislation and the agendas--as well as proof of exaggeration of the political parties involved where appropriate which this item does not. It appears that it was designed for sensationalism and effect if it was not poor technique. I have created no edits here so as to avoid the obvious attack mode that appears to be so rife on this item, but I would lend what I see here all the credence of a Fox news broadcast on Obamacare. I'd like to add this. I have been the recipient of the American Red Cross Volunteer Service award. I have overseen volunteers and I've been one. I cannot express strongly enough how outraged and appalled I truly am at the comments to and treatment of editors who tried to explain their feelings and to create a better and more unbiased approach. It certainly made me defer from any edit--which of course was the effect it was meant to have. Ladymacbeth9 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

PolitiFact

Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq boldly removed a paragraph about in the Other reactions section about PolitiFact's reaction. I am starting this section on the talk page to discuss that bold removal per WP:BRD

Personally I see no reason for this to be removed. PolitiFact is a notable and authoritative source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of source reliability, it's off-topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. We can all agree that Politifact is a trustworthy source, but that fact alone doesn't warrant the paragraph's inclusion in the article. The problem is that the section is titled "other reactions" but the blurb from Politifact is really Politifact's reaction to some random website's reaction. That simply doesn't make sense. And as I explained on BullRangifer's talk page, including this little segment is a blatant example of the selection form of the straw man argument, otherwise known as the "weak man" argument. So I strongly question the intentions of whoever decided that this blurb from Politifact belongs, since its place in the context of the article "War on Women" is... questionable, to say the least.

Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I've undone the bold revert. It stays in the article, as it is applicable. There is no real need to defend the good name of the GOP on this article on the war on women. That is clearly what plok and roscelese seem to be interested in. An analysis of GOP actions in the war on women is certainly relevant to an article on the war on women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.180.114 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the GOP's policies against women, not their policies against Muslims. If this had gained any sort of traction like the "oooh it's the Democrats waging the real war on women because of sex scandals", I could see it, but it's fundamentally an article supporting an anti-Muslim bill that invoked a phrase that people were using at the time, rather than being about the thing that that phrase typically describes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr(s). 96.52.180.114, the point we're talking about actually has nothing to do with "defending the GOP." The little paragraph is an attack on an article that was an attack on Democrats. This has nothing to do with defending the GOP as you say. Literally nothing. This is simply an issue of maintaining the integrity of this article by keeping it focused and sticking to relevant & noteworthy information. If anybody here is "clearly" focused on POV-pushing, it's you. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The PolitiFact-sourced entry should be deleted. That source is responding (surprisingly, in my opinion) to an article in an obscure blog (picked up by other obscure blogs) that seems to dote on outrageous stories and headlines. For example, another one of Westernjournalism.com's headlines labels President Obama a "Homo." Westernjournalism's accusation that Florida Democrats are subjecting women to Sharia law only seems to have been taken seriously by a single writer in a single reliable source, PolitiFact. Had such an accusation come from the Republican National Committee and/or a significant Republican politician, and/or Fox News, that would have been a different story, and, of course, all sorts of other reliable sources would have covered it. Pretending that the Westernjournalism story and the stand-alone PolitiFact response to it are important additions to our article here, is just silly, in my opinion. Definitely what our guidelines call undue weight. KatieHepPal (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

As a feminism concept?

I made comment over on the template as I think that is where the issue is.[6]. Broadly speaking, this U.S. political phrase was coined as a more virulent word for anti-feminist. It's not a feminist concept from what I gather. "Anti-feminist" is not something that people view as negatively as "War on Women" but the goals are generally aligned. Is "War of Women" a distinct concept from "anti-feminist" or should it be removed as a concept and moved to a geographic view of "anti-feminism?" --DHeyward (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

POV in lead section (two sentences)

I see a problem with the following sentence, which I will put in bold letters:

"The expression has been used to describe Republican policies in areas such as access to reproductive health services, particularly birth control and abortion services; the prosecution of criminal violence against women; the definition of rape for the purpose of the public funding of abortion; and workplace discrimination against women."

"reproductive health services" is a euphemism coined by the left to refer to birth control and abortion. There is no general consensus that birth control services and abortion services are "reproductive health services". Having access to contraceptives has nothing to do with a woman's "health". And in most cases, what the left says regarding abortion is that it should be available to women who might find it merely inconvenient to have a baby given their circumstances, not due to health concerns. Most Republicans agree that abortions should be allowed when the pregnant woman's health or life is in danger.

Here's the modification to the sentence that I propose:

"The expression has been used to describe Republican policies in areas such as access to birth control and abortion services; the prosecution of criminal violence against women; the definition of rape for the purpose of the public funding of abortion; and workplace discrimination against women."

I see the same problem with this sentence:

"The term is often used to describe policies that reduce or eliminate taxpayer funding for women's health organizations such as Planned Parenthood, in attempts to restrict abortion subsidies."

Planned Parenthood does provide health services, such as mammograms, but as its name indicates, the main goal of Planned Parenthood is to provide abortions for women who have unplanned pregnancies, which is not a women's health issue. Therefore (and understandably), there is no general consensus that Planned Parenthood is a "health organization", so Wikipedia must not present this left-wing description as a fact. My proposal is to remove "health" from the sentence, and let it be "women's organizations" instead. There might be a better solution, but an encyclopedia must not state as facts terms coined and accepted by only one segment of the political spectrum. There is no general consensus. Dontreader (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I must add that reproductive health services deal with fertility, not abortions or birth control. In fact, any measures that decrease a woman's fertility are decreasing her reproductive health. As I said, linking "reproductive health" to abortion is a euphemism. My statement is supported here, here, here, here, and the list is endless. Therefore, Wikipedia cannot state as a fact what a large segment of the population views as a euphemism created by the left. Dontreader (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Strident sources may dispute the term "reproductive health", but calmer heads associate the term with birth control and abortion.

• Parenthood in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2, pages 7, 473–475, 527–528.
• Critical Issues in Reproductive Health, pages 11, 22, 112, and especially the chapter starting on page 23 titled "Reproductive Health Vocabulary as a Metaphor for Other Things", written by A. M. Basu.
• Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, pages 22–25, 690.

So I see no reason why your stance should be implemented. The term may be considered a euphemism by ideological opponents but it is used matter-of-factly by scholars writing about the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Binksternet. The first source you provided, which might seem to be scholarly, appears to have been written by Sandra Jordan (her name shows up right after the end of the last paragraph). Do you agree? And if so, would you agree that she is the same Sandra Jordan who worked for Planned Parenthood according to this page? If that is the case, that first source that you provided is not neutral, obviously.

Your second source appears to have a similar problem. Even if we agree that Andrzej Kulczycki is a "scholar", he has a high position in the American Public Health Association, as proven by this source. And the American Public Health Association is a supporter of Planned Parenthood, and opposed to Republicans, which is proven by reading this Planned Parenthood article. So your second source is not neutral either.

Regarding the author of your third source, I could not find a connection between Jodi O'Brien and Planned Parenthood, but she's a liberal lesbian, as you can see here. I do believe she's a scholar, but hardly neutral on this matter.

The fact that a person is a scholar in a certain field does not guarantee a neutral point of view. It means nothing if a biased scholar writes an "encyclopedia". I could write a book and call it an encyclopedia on whatever topic, but that doesn't make it an encyclopedia. The fact remains that this Wikipedia article presents a euphemism coined by the left as a fact. That euphemism is deemed outrageous by a large segment of the population. Do you want more examples? The POV issue must be addressed. My research shows that your sources are very biased, even supportive of Planned Parenthood in two cases! Please, let's find a way to fix the problem. Dontreader (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's use common sense to deal with the matter. Mental health services are intended to improve mental health, typically with the help of psychologists and psychiatrists. Gastrointestinal health services try to improve gastrointestinal health (by treating symptoms such as diarrhea, bloating, etc.). Reproductive health services have always had the purpose of improving patients' ability to reproduce (men with a low sperm count, women who have difficulty conceiving, etc. - it's a fertility issue). It's irrational to think that "reproductive health services" have anything to do with abortions or contraceptives. The term was hijacked by the political left in recent times to replace "abortion" especially, because it sounds nicer. But it's a nonsensical term in the context of abortions and birth control. It comes as no surprise that the scholarly sources you cited are all militant leftists with an agenda. In their academia bubble, common sense is thrown out the window. Logically the use of the term "reproductive health services" in the abortion context is opposed by many people, and no one can say that Brit Hume, for example, is a fanatical right-winger; rather, he's a very respected and veteran journalist. This Wikipedia article is slanted, at least in those two cases that I presented. Do you agree or not? If not, why not? Dontreader (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lots of text here; you appear to be quite concerned. However, the issue you raise is not explicitly connected to the War on Women in any of your sources. That makes the issue appear off topic. Perhaps you should take these concerns to Talk:Reproductive health.

If this issue you raise can be connected to any topic, I would point out that you have also not proven that the term "reproductive health" was coined by American abortion proponents to hide abortion behind a veil of medical safety. Instead, it looks to me as if reproductive health has been a general term for women's reproductive health for more than a hundred years, in various countries.[7] So I don't see any future for your argument. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I made it very clear that the term in question has been around for a long time, but its meaning has always been associated with fertility (until recent times). Congratulations on providing a very old book with the term... very difficult for me to understand what on Earth he was talking about, but when he mentions "reproductive health" I don't see the connection to abortion at all. Do you? I insist that the association of that term with abortion occurred relatively recently (unless you can detect that the author of that book is referring to abortion). I never said (unless I'm really getting old) that the term was coined by American leftists. It was coined by the left, yes, but it was the international left (USA and Western Europe, mainly). Can I prove that "reproductive health" is a euphemism for abortion (and birth control) that was coined by the international left in recent times? No. But I have proven that there is no consensus for "reproductive health" having anything to do with abortion or contraceptives. I gave examples above to prove that such an interpretation is irrational, and utterly rejected by the conservative segment of the population, yet the article claims it's a fact that "reproductive health" includes abortion. Look, my friend, having abortions does not improve a woman's reproductive health! Abortions are just convenient in most cases to solve unwanted pregnancies. How hard can that be for a bright guy like you to grasp? I could take this discussion to the other talk page, but I pointed out two problems in the lead section of this article. It's not a matter of me being quite concerned, no. I'm just trying to make the article comply with neutrality guidelines. If no one cares, neither will I. I honestly tried. Chances are that an article entitled "War on Women" (in the USA of all places) is only being watched by liberals because conservatives don't even believe it exists. The majority of white married American women vote Republican, which is very telling. I really seem to have wasted my time coming here to try to improve the article. But at least I'm grateful to you for having had the courtesy to show up to discuss the matter politely. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this whole quibble is relevant, though? About half of PP's services are cancer screenings and STI screenings/treatments, which are repro health by any measure, surely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You are right. I will no longer complain about the second sentence that I pointed out, but this one remains absurd:

"The expression has been used to describe Republican policies in areas such as access to reproductive health services, particularly birth control and abortion services; the prosecution of criminal violence against women; the definition of rape for the purpose of the public funding of abortion; and workplace discrimination against women."

There is absolutely no way that anyone can explain how "reproductive health services" has anything to do with abortions or birth control. It's gibberish. Reproductive health services address fertility problems. You see, when a man or a woman wants to have a child, but can't manage to get the job done due to low sperm count (for example) in the case of a man, or due to other reasons in the case of a woman, that's a reproductive health problem that requires reproductive health services to achieve reproduction. "Reproductive health services" was chosen by the international left as a euphemism to replace "abortion" because it looks nice and it sounds sophisticated, but it's nothing more than a nonsensical euphemism rejected by pro-life people. The article is using a term that is only accepted by pro-choice people. That's massive POV, not neutral. I ask in other words, when a woman wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and has an abortion, what does that have to do with her "reproductive health"? Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation is novel, not widely held. You have not proven anything in this discussion, especially with regard to relevance to the War on Women. I see no usefulness in continuing this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Although a Google search on reproductive health fertility shows countless academic studies that deal with reproductive health solely in the context of fertility, I cannot sustain my argument because of this definition of the term according to the United Nations: [8]. Thanks again for your input. Dontreader (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Democrats

@Dontreader: I've had to revert your addition to the lede. While the sources you added do note that the term is used by some Democrats, per your wording, our other sources show that it's also used by some Republicans and some people who are not publicly partisan. I think it's probably better to leave the lede as it was, where we note in the second sentence that it's prominently used by Democrats, but without implying that no one else uses it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese:. You should not have reverted an edit with three very reliable sources to back it up. Besides, my Bloomberg reference mentions "women's rights activists" opposed to this alleged instance of "war on women". The women's groups that are mentioned in that article are the National Organization for Women, Moms Rising, and the National Women's Law Center. Let's suppose that they are not "publicly partisan". In that case, you could have added "women's rights groups", or "women's rights activists" to "some Democrats". Read WP:ONLYREVERT. What would be wrong with that solution? Also, since you claim that some Republicans use that term, please cite a source right here on the talk page in which a Republican uses the expression "war on women" in a manner that validates it, agreeing that it's real, instead of just to say that it's a Democratic lie used for political purposes. Otherwise, it's dishonest to say that Republicans use that term. Finally, my Washington Post source reads:

A Republican "war on women" has returned, Democratic senators and women's groups proclaimed Wednesday

So again, you could have inserted "women's groups" (or "women's rights activists") since this is backed by the sources I provided. That's much more constructive than reverting, which in this case is hostile behavior, unless you can back up your claim that some Republicans agree that there's a war on women. If they merely say that there's no war on women, then you are being dishonest. If you cannot back up your claim, choose which term you prefer to add to "some Democrats": "women's groups" or "women's rights activists". Dontreader (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"unless you can back up your claim that some Republicans agree that there's a war on women" - The very first sentence of this article cites Lisa Murkowski's criticism of her colleagues' policies as an "attack on women." Citations elsewhere in the article back up the usage of the phrase by people with no verifiable party affiliation are cited. That said, I've done my own search for sources and you're right that the sources usually attribute this to Democratic politicians (I think I was reflexively reacting to a slightly different quibble people have had in the past). If you don't think the current version, where Democrats' and feminists' use of the term is described in the second sentence, is sufficient, I would suggest "[often/largely/primarily] by Democrats", rather than "by some Democrats"; "some" doesn't add anything of use. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Roscelese. As you know, although Lisa Murkowski has some opinions that conflict with mainstream Republican views, she did not say "war on women". "Attack on women" is strong and similar, but not quite a "war". Do you have examples of Republicans saying that there is a "war on women", or is Lisa Murkowski the closest you could find? I would have agreed to what you have suggested, but I have been reverted again, by a reactionary user who didn't have the courtesy to come to the talk page.

Look, MrX, I could not care less how experienced you are as a Wikipedian. It doesn't make you automatically right, and you are not above the law, including civility guidelines. I provided solid sources. I made an edit that was intended to reach consensus after Roscelese reverted me. Your behavior is utterly reactionary. Quoting you from your edit description: "The term is also used by the media and some republicans." Some Republicans? Please name some, with reliable sources, in which they agree that there's a "war on women". You made that claim, so please back it up. And hard news programs in the media will obviously mention the term because they must report what the news makers are saying, such as politicians. Opinion shows in the media do not count, or do they? Rachel Maddow and others like her probably claim that there is a "war on women" on their shows and wherever they are invited to speak, but as I said, those are opinion shows, where a bias is understood to exist. So can you really sustain that "the term is also used by the media and some republicans."? Do you really have enough to justify that reversion? Dontreader (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how was I not civil and when did I claim that my experience makes me automatically right? My edit summary said "This is not accurate. The term is also used by the media and some republicans." My objection is to narrowly attributing the use of the phrase to Democrats and women's rights activists. It misleads by omitting the various op ed columnists, bloggers, news commentators, and members of other political parties who have used the term. (Yes, they do count). Here is Jeb Bush, a Republican, using the term.[9]- MrX 23:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

MrX, you really should know that the media (plural of medium) do not claim that there is a war on women. They simply report what is being said by others. Such claims are only made on opinion shows with a heavy political bias, not hard news programs. Dontreader (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's not confuse the issue. We're not talking about "Claim that there is a war on women", we're talking about "use of the term to describe...".- MrX 23:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering that my fully-sourced edit had already been reverted, and then I rewrote my edit in a manner intended to reach a compromise with the person who reverted me after seeing that person's points on the talk page, and taking into account that my edit summary reads, "Added 'women's rights activists', per sources, not stating that they are Democrats. That addresses the problem. See talk page. No need for drastic reverts.", your reversion was most definitely uncivil. You failed to have the courtesy to visit the talk page, and you reverted my edit despite my request for no reverts. You should have tried to work out a consensus here first. That would have been civil behavior.

Let's be honest. The FIRST sentence in the lead section of the article should say who uses the expression "war on women". Otherwise, there's blatant bias because an attempt is clearly being made to give the impression that the "war on women" is real. And let's not kid ourselves. The "various op ed columnists, bloggers, news commentators, and members of other political parties who have used the term" are all American liberals, and they vote for Democrats, even if in some cases it's just to keep Republicans out of power. You say members of other political parties have used the term, not just Democrats? Please, which political parties are you talking about? And does even 2% of the population identify with them?

Jeb Bush used the term only because he's afraid that the Democrats will use it. You know very well that if Democrats stop talking about the alleged "war on women", Republicans will stop mentioning the term, too. You have resorted to flawed logic. If I tell an atheist that God exists, and he reacts, saying that I'm a fool for believing that God exists, that doesn't mean that he believes in God just because he mentioned "God" in a sentence. Actually, the second sentence in the lead section gives a much better idea of who uses the "war on Women" expression. But I insist that the first sentence in the lead section must define who uses that expression, or else we've got massive POV here. It doesn't require too much creativity to reach a balanced compromise. Dontreader (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't find your arguments especially convincing. don't agree that the first sentence is blatantly biased. I'm not inclined to get involved in a complicated debate and I've made my last revert on this content for now. I suggest you review the talk page archive and try to establish consensus for your proposed edit. Good luck. - MrX 01:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

MrX, the Bush link you provided is him speculating about opponents' reactions to such policies, so I'm not really sure that counts as a Republican using it per se. On the other hand, Dontreader, Lisa Murkowski is literally a prominent Republican senator, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with this "closest you could find". Hence my suggestion of "[often/largely/primarily] by Democrats". The voting patterns of people who aren't in political work are also not what's implied when you say "by Democrats". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese, I guess I did not express myself correctly. Lisa Murkowski is indeed a very prominent Republican. What I was saying was that although she came close to saying that there's a war on women, she didn't quite take it to that extreme, stating instead that there was an "attack" on women. So I was asking you if that was the best you could do, or if you could find a notable Republican who actually has said that there is a "war on women". And I would certainly agree to use "primarily" by Democrats. I would also include "women's rights groups" (or an equivalent term) because that's also in the sources I provided. At least you brought the issue to the talk page after reverting me. I find it unacceptably biased, uncivil, cowardly and reactionary to have been reverted a second time without first attempting to reach an agreement here (which we were close to accomplishing). It's one of those cases in which an editor knows that he or she is in a majority group of the page watchers and calculates that I will run out of reverts before they do, instead of discussing the matter honestly on the talk page. Very cowardly, and such behavior discourages people from editing. The Jeb Bush example is pure fantasy coming from a militantly biased mind. Very much like the fact that only a partisan lunatic could have hoped that this article could achieve GA status. The only way to achieve GA status is to listen to other points of view and make the article much more neutral, instead of panicking and reverting, and showing no interest in discussing the issues (I'm not talking about you).

I still believe that the first sentence in the lead section should define who uses the expression "war on women". The first sentence is key. As you said, the second sentence does shed light in that sense, but it does not exclude other possibilities at all. Without defining who uses the term (and I provided very good sources to indicate that it's Democrats, or primarily Democrats, and women's rights groups), the reader assumes after reading the first sentence that the war on women is a fact, and that's false. Even Bill Maher says there's no war on women in the US [10]. And if there's a war on women, why do most white married women vote Republican? [11]. Do many women in the US believe there's a war on women? Yes, but that doesn't make it a fact, yet the first line in the lead section implies it's a fact. That's just wrong. If my three sources aren't enough to cover who uses that term, notice that the Bill Maher article says "Liberals". It's just a matter of shedding fanatical bias and having the will to improve the article, which I think you have. Articles that might be worth reading to reword the first sentence are Modern liberalism in the United States and at least the lead section of Democratic Party (United States), which reads, "The party's philosophy of modern American liberalism advocates social and economic equality, along with the welfare state." Notice that "modern American liberalism" links to the other Wikipedia article. At least I'm making a sincere effort here, as you can see, to improve this article. But I did not understand your last sentence about voting patterns. Could you please rephrase it? Thanks for your reply. Dontreader (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You're being incredibly uncivil, and you need to chill out with the attacks on others. While you're looking at policy and guideline pages, also check out WP:BRD: "I find it unacceptably biased, uncivil, cowardly and reactionary to have been reverted a second time without first attempting to reach an agreement here" indicates that you don't have an understanding of this normal process. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first sentence in the lead section establish who uses the term "war on women" so that it won't be perceived as a fact? Dontreader (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

An RFC question needs to be phrased neutrally, Dontreader. Begging the question like this is just a recipe for any result that develops being reasonably contested as invalid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If so, please feel free to phrase the question differently. I'm open to suggestions. Dontreader (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest "Should [clause] be added to the first sentence of the article?" You may or may not opt to neutrally summarize arguments for and against for the benefit of people coming in from outside. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. The request for comments option is something I had never used before (which may be obvious to you). Anyway, I took the time to read most of the article, and I now see that my proposal is not viable. For example, we can't exclude feminists, and there are other problems. In my opinion the lead section would have to be restructured to some degree, and that complicates everything, so I will forget about the request for comments. Thanks anyway for your help. Dontreader (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese, please tell me, per the sources I provided that disappeared because of reversions, would you be okay with "used primarily by Democrats", or "used primarily by Democrats and women's rights groups"? I would prefer the first option because the "war on women" expression is totally political, and if we include "women's rights groups" then I guess we would have to include other people (although women's groups are in two of the sources I provided). The solution I most like, "used primarily by Democrats" includes the vast majority of Liberals and Progressives (see Democratic Party (United States) if necessary), and the reader would understand that some groups are not being mentioned because of the words "primarily Democrats", such as left-wing commentators (whose mission is to demonize Republicans anyway and try to help Democrats) and women's groups (who might not be openly Democratic, but if they feel so strongly about abortion rights then they are probably not Republican voters), among others. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems to ignore the fact that the term is used by people of all political persuasions. See for instance Megyn Kelly's question to Trump at last night's debate. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gobonobo, but Megyn Kelly says in the video that Hillary Clinton (a Democratic politician) will accuse Trump of being part of the "war on women". Megyn Kelly never claims the term is real. I must insist that the article is better served by indicating who uses that term in the first sentence of the lead section, and I think "primarily Democrats" is a good solution. If I react to someone who believes that there's a war on women, and I say "No, there's no war on women, at least not in the US", are you going to claim that I use the term? I don't think that's right. If the Democrats stop using it, the term will vanish. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump's remarks regarding Megyn Kelly

I'm not going to spend much energy debating this issue, but I really think the reference to Trump's remarks weakens the article. The lead section of "War on Women" says nothing about Republican men who make offensive remarks about women, or at least you have to admit that Trump's remarks have nothing to do with Republican policies and legislation that affect certain women. Kelly's question was absurd because derogatory remarks made about some women are not what the "War on Women" is about. The reality is that Trump insults everyone who upsets him, regardless of gender. He recently criticized Carly Fiorina's face, but later he indirectly made fun of Rand Paul's face during the CNN debate as well. I've lived for many years in two countries with very different cultures, and if Trump made a reference to Kelly's period, that's common among men all over the planet, I guarantee you. That doesn't make it right, but it should not be in this article. Conan O'Brien made a highly offensive (and premeditated) comment about female Fox News anchors being like porn stars, but that's not part of the "War on Women" either, per the description of the term in the article. Dontreader (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Fiorina

@Dontreader: The removal wasn't a mistake. As I said in my edit summary, we should keep the article focused on its topic, which is not anything relating to women in/and American politics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. The topic of the article is the so-called war on women. I wasn't the editor who first included Fiorina's remarks, but I think they are relevant because she addresses the topic. To me, erasing her comments weakens the article because POV becomes more obvious. That's my opinion. Anyway, I have removed this page from my watchlist. I hope you can work out a solution with the editor who added Fiorina's statements. All the best, Dontreader (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on War on Women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130523034552/http://politicmo.com/2012/09/06/op-ed-ann-wagner-war-on-women-rhetoric-a-distraction-from-economy/ to http://politicmo.com/2012/09/06/op-ed-ann-wagner-war-on-women-rhetoric-a-distraction-from-economy/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131014134431/http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/28/george-will-obamas-war-on-women-rope-offensive-to-professional-educated-women/ to http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/28/george-will-obamas-war-on-women-rope-offensive-to-professional-educated-women/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120822075947/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/blogs/the_rumble/2012/08/todd-akin-paul-ryan-and-the-very-real-war-on-women to http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/08/todd-akin-paul-ryan-and-the-very-real-war-on-women
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120504122611/http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-11/news/31326804_1_wage-gap-wage-bill-discrimination to http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-11/news/31326804_1_wage-gap-wage-bill-discrimination

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)