Talk:War on women: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War on women article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 60 days

War on women was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 13, 2013). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the War on Women or related topics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the War on Women or related topics at the Reference desk.

Error: The code letter for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, May 7 2012, see discussion. delete, March 8 2012, see discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War on women article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies C‑class Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Rachel Maddow Show (June 4, 2013). "GOP abandons pretense, embraces war on women". MSNBC. Archived from the original on June 9, 2013. Retrieved June 19, 2013. Might be time for an update on the Wikipedia page on War on Women.

This article, War on Women, was mentioned on the Rachel Maddow show on this date.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly disgusting, a blatant assault on WP, if this [[1]], if the "Transcript" part is what you are talking about. A national network show advocating vandalism of Wikipedia to further partisan objectives needs to be condemned by all Wikipedia editors.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous209.6 is either trolling or completely out of touch. The only mention of this article is just after 6:30 where Maddow says "it might be time for an update" to this article after discussing four stories that seem to be connected to the topic here. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous is neither (WP:PA?). Unscintillating pointed out that a national TV commentator advocated vandalism of WP, I pointed to the offending section, which relates to puppetry of a kind, and causes bad editing, such as much of this article. That SPhD likes the kind of Vandalism that may result is irrelevant. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating pointed out that this article "was mentioned on the Rachel Maddow show on this date," nothing more. Maddow said, "With all of that happening and republicans asking us to reflect on the possibility of the romney presidency, and gee, why did that happen, might be time for an update on the Wikipedia page on the war on women," nothing more. To find "vandalism" in both of those statements requires a secret decoder ring most of us don't have access to. I'll step out on a limb here: I do like having Wikipedia updated. (Note to Anonymous209.6: By "update", I mean "update", not "vandalism of Wikipedia to further partisan objectives". I suspect Unscintillating and Maddow use a definition similar to mine as the alternative seems to be completely not reflecting what is true or actual. By "out of touch" I mean "not reflecting what is true or actual".) - SummerPhD (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another incident to mention. The remarks are directly tied to similar remarks by Todd Akin:

• Blake, Aaron. GOP congressman: Rate of pregnancies from rape is ‘very low’. The Washington Post, June 12, 2013

Brangifer (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article does tie this to Akin's remarks. However, we need a reliable source tying it to the Republican "War on Women" to include it here. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles connecting Franks with the WoW:

• Trent Franks’s abortion claim and the manly Republican Party, Washington Post.
• The War on Women is back, The Week
• Rep. Trent Franks: Just Another Idiot When It Comes to Abortion, The Daily Beast.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franks is already in the article, quit duplicating the information. Arzel (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph basically says there is a real war on women and blames it on Republican policies. The "war on women" is opinion, it is not proven fact. However major Obama fan BullRangifer has made it clear here that he only wants his biased opinion used. Wikipedia is so biased. It has no right to call itself an encyclopedia.Bjoh249 (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the expression is only used in the United States by liberal Democrats.Bjoh249 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have suggestions for improving the article? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Franks was controversial both for the fact that his bill banned abortions at a certain date with no exceptions and his rape remarks. It is why there are different sources in both sections. As to Policymic, it is used throughout Wikipedia. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of Duplicate information do you not understand? Policymic is a blog that is not appropriate for BLP issues. Stop using WP to promote your personal activism. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see why we should be using policymic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the obvious WP:Civil and WP:GF, WP:Blogs are not banned from Wikipedia and Policymic is used throughout the site. Here is a search to demonstrate what I mean. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you have BLP related issues, you need a better source than a blog. You know or should know better. Your continued attempt to include duplicate information makes it all but impossible to assume any good faith. You have not provided any rational for the duplicate information and your state reason is no reason to include basically verbatim information in two separate areas, it would appear you are trying to make a point about Franks and thus are also in violation of BLP for Franks as well. Arzel (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this article is not a BLP and Policymic is used throughout similarly non-BLP articles (e.g. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson campaigns, Hegdes v. Obama etc.). And completely different sources and entirely different issues are not "basically verbatim information." Controvert over bans of abortions =/= controversy over rape remarks.

Secondly, you are clearly reverting new information, such as the military sexual assaults and Texas's reaction, which have nothing to do with Franks or Policymic. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, that policymic is used on 61 of over, what, 4 million articles is not evidence of anything. In fact, a good argument could be made that it shouldn't be used on any. That might be another project for another day, the question is whether it's appropriate here based on the available policies. We should probably err on the side of caution, as we should with other blog-type and highly-partisan sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as unreliable and I'd agree on caution if this was an actual BLP. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it reliable, especially when concerning living people? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First it's worth pointing out that "War on Women" is a not a living person and thus this article is not under the scrutiny of BLPs. And Policymic is not just a bunch of random blogs, the site is based on articles written by millennials which has an editorial policy and at least is not immediately unreliable. I agree if this was an actual BLP then I would caution against it. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs exist in the article, so the article must also conform to that policy when talking about those people. Franks is a living person. The Policymic editorial policy appears to be mostly nonexistent, so it looks like we should remove the Franks stuff per policy and per your own claim given how BLP works. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted/added in the article that this invasive medical procedure has no scientific or medical purpose in this case. It serves merely to intimidate women for political and religious reasons. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is duly noted, however considering that millions of women have this ultrasound performed annually for medical reasons related to the health of the fetus it is difficult to accept your premise. Arzel (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are clearly not understanding the issue. this is, in cases like this, UNNECESSARY (aka not based on any medical or scientific research) and INVASIVE trasvaginal probe ultrasound procedure dictated by religious politics - which in turn became a law contradictory to First Amendment. Furthermore this is not about some stomach ultrasound you have seen in the movies.

50.9.97.53 (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That millions of women have this ultrasound performed annually is no defense of performing it in this instance. Millions of people have anal probes every year. But a law mandating that all men have anal probes before they get a prescription for Viagra, has no scientific or medical purpose. It's just something done to humiliate, intimidate, frighten, and even traumatize. Furthermore, THIS is not the ultrasound that pregnant women typically get. Pregnant women typically get abdominal ultrasounds. Transvaginal ultrasounds are not typically performed unless there's some kind of problem with the pregnancy. These transvaginal ultrasounds are not designed to address any medical problems with the pregnancy.QuizzicalBee (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A woman that does not want to have a child at that time in her life is not interested in the health of the fetus.Gandydancer (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a reliable source that links the Texas Senate Bill to the alleged War on Women? If not, we should remove the section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times and Washington Post link it in their articles. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither links work. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the current bound of activism is reaching a crescendo. Cartoon Diablo is continually inserting duplicate information into this article along with questionable information from blogs in BLP related issues. It is one thing to present your activism in a neutral tone, it is entirely different to use WP for activist purposes, which is exactly what this article is becoming. Arzel (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]