Talk:War on women/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Possible sources

Some promising sources that are not yet used in the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Torregrosa, Luisita Lopez (April 3, 2012). "US Culture War with Women at its Center". The New York Times.
  • Mundy, Liza (March 26, 2012). "Women, money and power". Time. Much of what liberals are calling the Republican war on women centers on the Pill, whose arrival 50 years ago fostered the rise of female sexual freedom and economic power. Print preview available at http://www.odec.umd.edu/CD/GENDER/Mundy.pdf
  • Abramovitz, Mimi (2012). "The Feminization of Austerity". New Labor Forum. 21 (1): 30–39. doi:10.1353/nlf.2012.0018. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Buhle, Mari Jo (2013). "Women and Power in the Wisconsin Uprising". Dissent. 60 (1): 70–73. doi:10.1353/dss.2013.0017. As women began to mobilize against the GOP War on Women, the leadership of women and the significance of gender in the protest movement became more visible. Almost immediately after taking office, Walker had targeted Planned Parenthood. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Siegel, Reva B. (2013). "Equality and Choice: Sex Equality Perspectives on Reproductive Rights in the Work of Ruth Bader Ginsburg" (PDF). Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. 25 (1): 63–80. From time to time, courts and the general public view laws depriving women of control over contraception, abortion, and pregnancy as presenting questions of equal citizenship for women. Indeed we have recently witnessed conservative efforts to reassert traditional controls on women's reproductive lives colloquially termed a 'war on women.'
  • Charo, R. Alta (April 12, 2012). "Warning: Contraceptive Drugs May Cause Political Headaches". New England Journal of Medicine. 366: 1361–1364. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1202701. Given the lack of past controversy over state laws on contraceptive insurance coverage and the spate of recent efforts to constrict reproductive rights — ranging from 'personhood amendments' granting fertilized eggs the same legal rights as liveborn children, to mandatory transvaginal ultrasonography before consenting to an abortion, to the defunding of screening for cancer and sexually transmitted diseases at organizations that separately provide privately funded abortion services — some observers characterize the debate over contraceptive coverage as a war on women.
  • Klos, Diana Mitsu (December 29, 2012). "The Status of Women in the US Media 2013". The Women's Media Center. Retrieved December 9, 2013. Think the war on women in 2012 was a myth? Consider these comments and actions by media pundits, social media commenters and out-of-step politicians...
  • Carbone, June; Cahn, Naomi (2013). "Is Marriage for Rich Men?". Nevada Law Journal. 13 (2): 386–410. The second possible vision for the future is to bring back patriarchy. The 'war on women,' which targets women's reproductive autonomy, seems designed to increase the risks of sexual intercourse by re-stigmatizing women's sexual autonomy, particularly outside of marriage.
  • Vavrus, Mary Douglas (May 29, 2012). "Postfeminist Redux?". Review of Communication. 12 (3): 224–236. doi:10.1080/15358593.2012.671350. When even the not-given-to-hyperbole New York Times refers to recent attacks on reproductive health services by members of the US House of Representatives as 'the war on women,' then I think it is safe to say that the post post-patriarchy is eluding us... {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • Thomas, Tracy A. (2012). "Women and the Law". University of Akron. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) U of Akron Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-21. Abstract: "This foreword to Women and the Law highlights the dramatic attacks on women's rights over the past year. It summarizes the articles contained in this annual selection of leading scholarship in the field of women's rights."
  • Gilman, Michele E. (2014). "Feminism, Democracy, and the 'War on Women'". Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice. 32. Paper submitted March 2013. Abstract: "This article analyzes the social conservative attacks on women preceding the 2012 election cycle, known as the War on Women, and the ensuing feminist response. Combat was waged on many fronts, including abortion restrictions, access to contraception, funding for Planned Parenthood, welfare programs, and workplace fairness. The article discusses what this "war" means for the complex relationship between feminism and democracy... The Article concludes that the War on Women reconfigured the relationship between feminism and democracy by reinvigorating the feminist political movement, redefining the scope of women's issues, realigning women voters across interest groups, and spurring a surge of women into office. Still, the War on Women kept feminism on the defensive, thereby draining the movement of the ability to fashion a feminist offensive."
  • Mosko, Melissa A. (2013). "Democracy, Deliberation, and the (So-called) War on Women". Social Philosophy Today. 29: 33–47. doi:10.5840/socphiltoday20132915. Abstract: "...Using deliberative theory, I develop a test for judging the success and failure of public discourse, and apply this test to political debates in the United States in 2011–2012 concerning women's lives: the Violence Against Women Act, the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act, the censuring of two female legislators in Michigan, and the congressional testimony of a fetus in Ohio."
  • Colebrook, Claire (July 12, 2013). "The War on Stupidity". Parallax. 19 (3): 24–33. doi:10.1080/13534645.2013.808018. One might note that there is something intrinsically stupid about being either for or against feminism: a refusal of feminism is a refusal of all the ways in which thought – despite its claims to futurity – remains mired in homely concepts of man and woman, and yet an insistence on the significance of feminism seems to draw everything back to a single-issue mode of inquiry. This necessary stupidity does not only contaminate philosophy but could be witnessed in the 2012 United States election campaign and the incredibly muddled 'war on women'. This 'war' took a series of forms: a claimed attack on women by right-wing republicans for the sake of family values and 'pro-life' policies, a counter-claim for a war on women by 'liberals' who were destroying the family and prosperity, and a more diffuse war on women that could be discerned in the use of certain issues for short-term political expediency. 'Woman' was nothing more than an opportunistically seized figure that would allow thinking to fall back upon rigid moralisms, on both sides of the debate. The war on women included republicans attacking women's rights, democrats warring for women's votes, republicans claiming that democrats were really attacking women by not repairing the economy, then the republicans declaring that the use of the word 'war' trivialized war. The 'war' prompted alarm that republicans would deny or limit women's reproductive freedom, fears that there would be a return to some conception of woman prior to the sexual liberation movement and 70s feminism, while democrats seemingly leapt with joy upon this archaism, allowing a no less politically expedient appeal to a post-feminist figure of the informed and liberated rational woman. What occurred was indeed a war in which 'woman' was a projectile – no one really meant or intended the term; it was thrown around as a dead weight.
Very awesome finds. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Why, thank you. That last one is quite the thing—Colebrook stands above the mud to see it objectively. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, great research as always Bink. There's a lot of useable material there. - MrX 17:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

I concur with the removal of the POV tag and, in fact, edit conflicted with Binksternet when I tried to remove it. The only current talk page discussion is about scope, not neutrality. As far as I can tell, neutrality concerns have already been addressed. - MrX 03:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Gee. I'm beginning to question AGF in your case, X (sound familiar?). Scope and bias are quite obviously inextricably intertwined here. That's why we don't have a title such as "FDR's court-packing scheme" for his proposed 1937 judicial reforms. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The tag served no purpose. MilesMoney (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Cute. It would now, though. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Badmintonhist:Go ahead and question my good faith if you wish. The discussion about scope is going nowhere, as is evident above. I notice that 24.239.249.127 didn't take the advice to start a new article or start an RfC to redefine the scope of this one. Personally, I would be more in favor of narrowing the scope of this article, rather than broadening it.
Neutrality was discussed at length up thread, and digressed quite a bit. In September, a (rough) consensus was reached about some wording in the lede to achieve neutrality. Are there remaining neutrality issues? If so, let discuss each one and resolve it. - MrX 04:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the alleged problem with the article? If it's related to the above section, I don't see how we can take a politically rhetorical term and make it neutral. It is, by design, not neutral. We can only endeavor to explain the meaning and impetus behind the term neutrally. If you feel that the content of the article is not neutral, can you identify which parts please? As for the use of "War on Women" without a qualifier, the term is primarily used in reference to Republican political efforts. If there are other wars on women, it would be understandable that other articles be made and add an {{about}} template at the top of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my opening comments (Problem with scope of article) above. We can have an article on the political catch-phrase "War on Women" but it should be JUST THAT: an article on the PHRASE, not an article on the actual substance of the disputes between social conservatives and social liberals in the last few years. That could be handled in a separate article with a VERY different title. If someone created an article titled "War of Northern Aggression Against the South" on the development of said term, that would be fine but it would not be fine if he/she tried to make it the main article on what is normally known as the American Civil War. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hm... I think I see your point. But we do need to explain what the term means and how it's used politically. In doing so, we must explain the impetus behind the term. Each section should directly relate to the term though... and it seems like not all do. Some are implicitly related (e.g., rape/sexual violence), but the H2 headers should be followed with exactly how reliable sources say the topic is related. The H3 and subheaders don't need to mention the war on women specifically so long as they support the statements in the umbrella header... if that make sense. (I.e., pick a topic, explain how it relates to the War on Women, and then give specific examples in subsections). Is this the sort of thing you mean? If so, that seems like a fruitful avenue and doable task. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the lead and the section after it (Development of the term) would form a pretty good nucleus for an article on the partisan slogan "War on Women." An article on the slogan would stick to stuff related to the development and use of the slogan and responses to the slogan. Much of the rest of our article should be part of separate article with a neutral sounding title such as "Women's issues in contemporary US politics." At least that's as good a title as I can come up with now as I prepare to go to bed. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
You and Ever are going to have to convince a whole lot of people, first. Starting with me. MilesMoney (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, actually, not necessarily STARTING with you. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this was ever properly addressed. I'll restate those comments again. Morphh (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to divert from the topic above that needs to be addressed, but I'd also like to point out some issues with WP:NPOV. The article lays out a lot of legislation describing how it is bad, who says it's bad, or why some Democratic proposal which was good was fiercely opposed by Republicans. What is left out of all these is why the other side proposed or opposed the legislation. You'd think they were all complete monsters! Maybe that's the point... but we need to add balance to this. If we describe a bill or proposal, we need to describe in their own words why (and not using their opponents cherry picked comments of why). "In February 2011, House Republicans proposed a budget that would cut $758 million from WIC, a federal assistance program for low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under the age of five." WHY? "In April 2012, Governor Scott Walker signed into law an act that repealed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which allowed workplace discrimination victims redress in state courts." WHY? "The renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides for community violence prevention programs and battered women's shelters, was fiercely opposed by conservative Republicans in 2012" WHY? We give no context! What is their argument and point of view? Morphh (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Overall, last I read the article the tag was still needed. I recall thinking it was probably one of the most bias articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. But it's been a bit since I've read it through, and don't have time now, so perhaps many of the criticisms have been addressed. Some of mine were. Morphh (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
SOFIXIT. There is obviously not broad agreement that the article lacks neutrality, but I don't see anyone standing in the way of addressing the issues that you raise. - MrX 15:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not really a topic that holds a high interest for me. The effort to work though a contentious article like this requires a good amount of time, along with pain meds for the non-sadist. :) My intention was to just comment one what I thought were problems in the article and let interested editors work on it. I'm not sure I want to get sucked back into it. As for the tag, it's not usually a case where inclusion requires broad agreement that the article lacks neutrality. A tag doesn't need consensus, which is being repeated in the comments. Anyone can add the tag if they dispute the neutrality of an article (if they including discussion) - it's generally removed when there is broad agreement that article has achieved neutrality or that the disputed section / issue has achieved a consensus or is not actionable based on policy / guidelines. As the tag states " Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.", not "do not add this tag unless a consensus believes it's necessary". I would say that if it's only one particular section or sentence that is in dispute, then it would be more proper to just use a section or sentence tag, and not an entire article tag. Morphh (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I restored the tag. This is not to say the article is POV or not. Per WP:NPOVD, "A NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved." There is an active dispute with the article, so I suggest the tag stay for now while you work things out. It's temporary. If time passes and no further action is taken or deemed necessary, then remove it at that point, but it's contentious to remove it during an active dispute. Morphh (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted myself. I had added it based on the summary, which I thought was an improper reason to restore the tag to which I thought was an ongoing dispute of the article's POV. Since I haven't been involved enough and I haven't taken the time to judge the articles neutrality to dispute this myself, I'll leave it for others to decide if the neutrality disputes have been sufficiently addressed. Morphh (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I verified that my NPOV concerns above have not been addressed in the article. If I have time, I can try to fix it, but until then or until someone else does so, the tag should probably remain. Morphh (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Lede (again)

I'm opening this section for those who believe we need to change the lede from the September consensus version.

I object to "seen by some" or "some see" as unnecessary and lacking concision. The first sentence is clearly explained and attributed in the very next sentence. We should avoid cramming everything into one sentences—it's bad writing. For the same reason, the [who?] tag is superfluous. - MrX 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

But without "some see," we have a statement that feigns objectivity and is accusatory: "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe Republican Party initiatives that [are] part of a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights." I agree that the [who?] tag is superfluous, because it is answered in the following sentence. But I would object to making the first sentence sound so conclusive, even if the second sentence qualifies it. Not only does such a direct first statement stand the chance of influencing the reader in a certain direction, but it is also the total of Google's summary (Google "War on Women" and see what I mean).24.239.249.127 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Big can of WP:WORMS. I think attribution of the viewpoint is necessary, though it could be worded differently. I would not agree to just removing the terms without alternative language. It must be clear that the phrase is used to express a viewpoint and removing the attribution would suggest / imply a statement of fact in WikiVoice. The second sentence would not properly qualify it. If we're looking to simplify the first sentence, then I'd look at removing the specification of Republicans - it could easily be put in the second sentence as the major target of the phrase without running into NPOV issues and it would address much of the scope debate above. Morphh (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Does "red scare" express a viewpoint or is it simply the standard term for McCarthy-era red-baiting? MilesMoney (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no issue with our definition of Red scare. Keep in mind that the viewpoint that the GOP is waging a War on Women is in the minority according to polls. Morphh (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
More importantly, none who are accursed of waging a war on women would agree that is what they are doing. I wrote more extensively on this a few minutes ago in the "What is this article about?" discussion.24.239.249.127 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
They don't have to agree; it just has to be a reliably sourced term. I doubt that McCarthy would have characterized his patriotic actions as a red scare, yet that's what it was and is called. In the same way, American Republicans who roll back women's rights might not agree that this constitutes a war on women, but their agreement is irrelevant. WP is based on reliable sources, not self-sourced views. MilesMoney (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not a self-sourced view and knowing what a political phrase means is not the same thing as stating the accusations implied are fact. It's an opinion based on interpretation of facts and, as such, must be qualified per WP:NPOV. Morphh (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess I can live with adding "by some" as long as we leave out the [who?] tag. The only alternative would be to combine the first two sentences, which would be even more awkward. I would not be amenable to removing Republican Party from the fist sentence as suggested by Morphh. - MrX 19:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
While I think there is sufficient weight in sources to describe the who primarily as Democrats, I'm ok with using a generic who without a tag and covering that point in the second sentence more broadly. Morphh (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Can we find a RS that says a certain group holds the view or uses the term "war on women"? Pro-choice, feminists, liberals, Democrats... all would be sensible additions. The main this is that it needs to come from an RS. I wonder if the survey Morphh alluded to did any analysis like that... let me dig. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
They specifically mention Democrat/Republican and liberal/moderate/conservative on page two. I can dig around news sources later to see if any group uses the term "war on women" particularly. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
@MilesMoney - What are those sources reliable for confirming? That there is a war, or that there is a phrase?02:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk)
I just noticed the rewording by User:Badmintonhist. That version works for me and I think it addresses your criticism. Morphh (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Works for me. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Works for me as well.24.239.249.127 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What is this article about?

We've bantered back and forth (and often not as politely as we should) about this in the midst of other discussion topics. I think it's time to highlight t his question and try to arrive at consensus. The answer to this question determines acceptable and unacceptable content in the rest of the article. Let's do our best to stay on topic with this. Provide your answer with clear logic to support it. In my strong opinion, it cannot be about more than one of these. If that's true, then content cannot be about any of the others.

Is this article about:

  1. An objectively genuine war (like WWI and WWII)
  2. A perceived war
  3. A Phrase/Slogan
  4. Political Positions/Policies
  5. An interpretation of or opinion about political positions/policies
  6. Something else?

For my part, I believe it could be about #2 or #3, but I lean toward #3 - a phrase - and nothing should be in the article that is not about the phrase itself. I say this because (1) I can't see how anyone could say it's an objectively genuine war, and (2) Without that, the title can only be interpreted as a phrase. However, I admit that the article could be about any of the others in my list. If so, I think the title needs to be changed.

What say ye?--24.239.249.127 (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Given how most people would define war, I favor #3 without entirely denying #2 and #4–#5. A focus on the phrase overlaps with perception of war and with political positions and their interpretations. I'd edit to emphasize where the phrase is used and explain a little about each of the issues with which is it associated. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a phrase that collectively refers to a set of policies. The phrase is not literal, in that it's not about a war with tanks and bombers. It is not simply a slogan, in that what it refers to exists independently of the term, and has been recognized independently. MilesMoney (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both of you to an extent.

@Nick - I agree that the description must encompass all of those, but the degree to which it must will be determined by the actual referent of the article. I don't believe the referent can be a phrase and a perceived war and a political position and an interpretation of political policies, all at the same time. If we were creating an outline (which we actually do in WP articles) one of those would have to be at the top and the rest subservient to the the main.
@MilesMoney - I, like you, favor the term "Phrase" rather than "Slogan" for the reasons you gave. I really only grouped those two together because other commenters have used them interchangeably.
@All - In my mind, we are writing about a phrase in the same way the article Driving While Black is about "a phrase in the contemporary American vernacular that refers to the racial profiling of black drivers." I appreciate that the sentence following that one points again to the phrase as the article's referent: "The phrase implies that a motorist may be pulled over by a police officer simply because he or she is black, and then questioned, searched, and/or charged with a trivial offense" The article goes on with a section called "Generalization," which is an unduly anemic history of the phrase, a section called "Criticism of the concept" (BRAVO!!), another section called "Plays on the phrase," and finally a section describing the phrase's use "In popular culture."

Notice that all of these sections squarely focus on the phrase itself, not on support for its use nor on the controversy surrounding its use. Finally, the article closes by linking to other articles about topics that have prompted its use. I believe that article serves as a capable mentor to this one (if this article is about a phrase or "expression," as our lede states that it is). --24.239.249.127 (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are some counter-examples to the "phrase itself" argument: Final solution, Red Scare, Great Purge, and The Troubles.
Given the almost continuous press this has received, I would argue that "war on women" is in now in common, accepted use, and we should simply change the first sentence to "War on Women describes US Republican Party initiatives seen as part of a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights." - MrX 15:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@MrX- I don't quite get how your comment applies to this discussion. Can you please explain?24.239.249.127 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to your @All comment. We have article titles that are politically charged/florid/hyper-descriptive/inflammatory and those article are not limited to etymological descriptions. We also have guidelines for choosing titles. In this case, we chose the phrase that these initiatives are collectively referred to as. Your example Driving While Black is interesting, but not instructive for how we should treat this article. Driving While Black is a very specific, unambiguous phrase that is not commonly used in the press, and even less so by politicians.- MrX 18:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@MrX- I still don't quite get how the second paragraph of your remarks fits here, but I took a look-see at the articles you linked to in the first paragraph. They don't seem comparable at all to "War on Women" because those phrases describe facts rather than opinions. Déjà vu.

  • Final solution- Says it "was Nazi Germany's plan during World War II to exterminate the Jewish people."
This is not a subjective statement. That was Nazi Germany's plan. Nazis would agree with that.
  • Red Scare-Says it "denotes the promotion of fear of a potential rise of communism or radical leftism, used by anti-leftist proponents."
This is not a subjective statement. Anti-leftist proponents who are described by this phrase are promoting fear of the rise of communism. They would agree with that.
  • Great Purge- Says it "was a campaign of political repression in the Soviet Union orchestrated by Joseph Stalin from 1934 to 1939."
Again, this is not a subjective statement. Stalin would agree that he was campaigning for political repression during those years. And then he would kill you. :0
  • The Troubles- Says it "is the common name for the ethno-nationalist and sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland that spilled over at various times into the Republic of Ireland, Scotland, England and mainland Europe."
Ditto. Not subjective. That is the common name for a conflict that both sides would agree is described accurately.

That is the important difference in our article. Those who are described as engaging in a war on women would disagree that they are "part of a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights."

Similarly, those accused of arresting someone for "Driving While Black" would disagree that they are engaged in "the racial profiling of black drivers."

Both are pejorative or accusatory phrases, or at least their referents would take offense at their usage. None of your examples are like that. So I still believe DWB is a more accurate comparison.24.239.249.127 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Using the the top-most example: Final solution: Nazi's would agree with it; Jews would not. War on women: Democrats would agree with it; Republicans would not. Both Final solution and War on women are subjective terms. - MrX 18:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Nazis, presumably, and, as far as I have observed, Jews would agree with the term as naming what was quoted as the description; they would disagree on whether it was the right solution (Jews' solution would have been integration on a principle of equality, I think; any rough approximation of that is sufficient for our discussion here). And probably the Nazis who would agree would have been those who did not deny that it was about to be, being, or had been applied, given that it was officially denied (I think) until bodies were discovered by Allied soldiers. Regarding the Republicans' war, Republicans would deny it, if only because admitting it is not good politics and probably because most don't believe they are in a war against an entire gender whom they love (their word). It would be interesting if a reliable source quotes a Republican leader as having described this as or called for a "war on women". Even with such a source, I assume some sources report a denial and we should report both sides in accordance with sourcing: the description as a war on women and the denial that it is anything of the sort. I suspect that virtually all Republicans would deny while Democrats would split, the latter because they would use the language appropriate to their audiences, which vary, and would especially avoid the term as overly inflammatory (thus susceptible to backfiring) when swing voters are being courted, especially for Presidential general elections, and I assume sources would approximately reflect that split among Democrats. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The point, MrX, is that the phrases "Final Solution," "Great Purge," and "The Troubles" would all be accepted by those to whom they were applied. War on Women and DWB would not.
[I may be wrong on "Red Scare." I would have expected that those to whom it applied would agree that they wanted the people to fear the society being overtaken by communism. But I'm not knowledgeable here].24.239.249.127 (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised that so many who have expressed very strong opinions in the rest of the discussions here have ignored this foundational question. I am convinced that this question is what must receive consensus before anything else in the article can. I'm the one that put the neutrality tag on the article in the first place, and I think it belongs there still. I will be adding it back - I didn't see consensus for removing it.24.239.249.127 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised that you put the tag back again. A discussion about scope has nothing to do with POV and anyone who has concerns above POV content in the article can address it by copy editing to make sure that our sourced content is presented in neutral language, and with DUE weight. The foundational question was answered many discussions ago. The verbose minority who disagree and refuse to put the stick down can not hold this article hostage with shame tags.- MrX 17:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
This is nonsense. The article is about the Republican War on Women. Perhaps you would be happier if the article was moved to a new name to reflect its topic. If so, you should propose a move. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, as I said above, the problems of scope and bias are inextricably connected in this article. When Bink says that this article is about the Republican War on Women rather than the political catchphrase "(Republican) War on Women" he is saying that there are Republican policies which Wikipedia should designate as a War on Women, thus Wikipedia, IN ITS OWN VOICE, is effectively calling these policies anti-woman. That, fellow editors, is political bias. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. The scope is about the political battle which has been variously called "War on Women", "Republican War on Women", "GOP War on Women", etc, according to the reliable sources which discuss it. See my list down at Talk:War on Women#Possible sources... These very high quality sources are not in doubt about the topic. They all agree that the topic is about various initiatives proposed by Republicans which have been seen as a whole to be chipping away at women's rights. These sources are wa-a-ay past wondering whether there is a real war, or whether the topic is about an empty slogan. They are discussing the meat of the issue which is Republican initiatives having to do with family values and abortion, challenges to the Violence Against Women Act, challenges to the birth control portions of the Affordable Care Act, efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and so on. If you guys will look at the sources then it is very clear that this topic falls mostly under #4 and #5 of IP 24's list, with various potshots taken in the form of #2 and #3 by both sides of the political divide. This is the scope of the topic. Of course the topic is crammed full of bias on both sides, but we must ignore that and tell the reader what are the main issues, accusations, and counter-accusations. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
One problem I'm having with the content is that it seems like a list. In some sections, it's like you could almost bullet point each sentence as a rundown of bills. And I wonder if we're just approaching it all wrong. If this article is turning into a U.S. Women's Rights article (cataloging legislation and controversial statements) instead of more directly focusing on the phrase and general debate regarding the policies. For example, I like the first paragraph of War_on_Women#Mandatory_ultrasounds, while the second paragraph and next section War_on_Women#Gestational_limits_on_abortion is just a bullet list. Morphh (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's in our sources' own voices. In any case, should we have another RFC to explore renaming the article? Perhaps this time we can get some additional outside participation. Or we could take this dispute to WP:NPOVN.- MrX 20:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article on the political battle(s) that Bink refers to above is fine. We are under no obligation to call it a War on Women, however. In fact, we should studiously avoid doing so for a number of good reasons. (a) Many of our sources and potential sources either DON'T use the phrase "war on women" at all, or do so only in referring to a phrase used by others (b) It is an inherently biased and partisan designation for these battles primarily used by ONE SIDE in them. (c) These battles are not between Republicans and women at all but between social conservatives (who are mainly but not exclusively Republicans) and social liberals who are very, very, very far from being exclusively women. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, so you would be in favor of renaming the article right? What would you propose to call it? Would you like to initiate an RfC? - MrX 21:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I wonder, based on content, if this article would be better titled Women's rights in the United States (follows the topic naming of other countries on Wikipedia). Include a historical section on suffrage and property rights, then get into modern movements to include political phrasing of the "War on Women". Most of the article here doesn't discuss the actual phrase and messaging. It's primarily an article about political initiatives that effect women's rights. Morphh (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
It hardly matters who the debates are between. The use of the phrase and the contexts matter a lot.
Renaming would be fine but more to something like Republican War on Women, not to something as large as Women's rights in the U.S. We already have several articles akin to the latter title. But the consensus appears to be not to rename it. That probably still applies, so we need a section for uses besides the Republican context. And content suited to a much larger scope should be moved to other articles already in Wikipedia.
Nick Levinson (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC) (Corrected syntax: 22:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
Calling it the Republican War on Women doesn't address any of the issues that I brought up in my last comment. Of course, If we modified the current article to clearly make it an article on the phrase "Republican War on Women" that would be different. Naturally, an article on the PHRASE would have to at least mention some of the substantive issues in this inning of the Culture War. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What is readily apparent here is that neutrality as the article is currently written is in question by several active commentators. It is also apparent that more than one person considers scope and neutrality to be related. Strong voices hat deny that these opinions are shared here do not change the fact that they are. The POV "tag war" of today shouldn't have happened, and those who decided to gang to ensure that I reached the "3 reverts" are clearly in the wrong. I do not think you can find a single time when I have not been reasonable in my comments and approach here - except once long ago, when my words came across differently than I intended. When it was pointed out to me, I quickly apologized publicly. I think this is far too important to play such childish games like this. I'm here to ensure a neutral, well-written article about a very important modern topic. I have not time for such childishness.24.239.249.127 (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, but you and Badmintonhist have not convinced enough editors that the article is not neutral, or that the scope should be changed. It seems to me that your choices are 1, to convince enough editors here that the article scope should change and form a consensus (which has failed to happen after several sections of discussion); 2, create an RfC, which by its nature must be specific and actionable; or 3, escalate the issue to WP:NPOVN to get outside involvement.
As for the tagging issue, please read WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING which advises:
"Especially in the case of a tag such as {{npov}}, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed. It may help to refer to applicable content policies, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, though WikiLawyering is discouraged." - MrX 01:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@MrX, are you not reading comments from Morphh or Nick?24.239.249.127 (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is impossible to "convince enough editors" or "help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed" when those who disagree are unwilling to engage in thoughtful discussion when specific questions or issues are brought up. I can't reason with silence. If this is a competition or about turf wars, which it appears to be, I'll check out. That is definitely not in my nature, nor in the best interest of truth or factual accuracy.24.239.249.127 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

potentially book-length

Quite a few paragraphs don't mention anything like the phrase the article is about, and, given the wider subject they encompass, this article could easily become a book. It's proper to go somewhat afield if the resulting content still fits within the normal upper length limit for an article, such as when only a few sources address a subject, but this article risks becoming a general guide to feminist issues and criticisms of them, and Wikipedia already has numerous articles on them (which are expandable). An item (paragraph, list item, or other) in this article should be about the phrase or a similar phrase and should give some of the masculist/feminist/other context of the phrase, but beyond that we should link to other Wikipedia articles and move content out of here into there.

An example is the mandatory ultrasounds subsubsection; if I'm missing something because the ultrasounds were perceived as being part of the war, please specify that in that subsubsection; likewise for the reproductive rights subsection before the subsubsections, whereas the abortion restrictions subsection makes two clear and sufficient connections.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC) (Corrected syntax: 21:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

I made similar comments today posted above in a couple other sections. Morphh (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent editing has helped to resolve problems. As editors may have sources I don't have, here are the passages that I think should be edited, if anyone can add connections to the phrase or something like it:

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nick - Outstanding work. Good starting list. Connect everything to the phrase and mention policies when needed. No reason to elaborate on policies. Give best effort to provide both interpretations of policies when they are mentioned, if providing interpretations is even essential to an article on the phrase (I'm not sure it is essential). Link to WP articles on women's rights or specific topics (abortion, wage equality, etc.) when needed for more info. If an article for one doesn't exist, create a stub or write it. Keep this article clean and focused on its topic - the phrase/expression "War on Women." I'm a good writer, but I do not have the resources to edit and write here. I appreciate and respect those who do, though, and realize it's an arduous task. These guidelines, I think, have risen to the surface among a fair number of us as the way to publish in NPOV WikiVoice.24.239.249.127 (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Portrayal

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I'd like to explain why I reverted. I believe that "describe" is completely neutral, while "portray" connotes artifice. To portray is to depict, not just describe. It is creating a fiction intended to be based on beliefs about reality. MilesMoney (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I would have reverted it as well. - MrX 23:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Too small a matter for me to really contest but I'll add my two cents since Miles has. By the standard that Miles is using here the article, taken as a whole, is far pointier than the use of the word portray in the opening sentence. Yes, "describe" is rhetorically neutral but it is not as accurate in context as "portray." The use of an obvious exaggeration such as "War on Women" is, in fact, a "depiction" -- "a fiction intended to be based on beliefs." Badmintonhist (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not hyperbole, it's analogy. MilesMoney (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Ummh, the two are not mutually exclusive, no? Badmintonhist (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Tag edit war

Can we stop edit waring? Perhaps I can force the issue if I make my own claim to specific NPOV violations documented in the talk. Are we going to edit war over that as well? The tag is clear on its use. While I could care less if the tag is there or not, leaving it there for another week or two is not going to make one bit of difference but the disruptive editing is creating issues. If this dispute is about article scope, I can end that - I have NPOV issues with the article. Morphh (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The tag serves no purpose when there is an active discussion. Editors who wish to refine the topic of the article are in the minority. The only remaining neutrality issue that has been raised is the title of the article. I have recommended over and over that those who wish to re-title the article can use the RfC process to test consensus. What they can not do is try to coerce a new consensus by placing this useless neutrality tag in the article and transmitting to our readers that we don't trust we have written. - MrX 22:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The tag is for readers, not editors. It tells readers that some have challenged the neutrality of the article. And some have. It is not a "badge of shame" as some keep calling it. It simply indicates that the article is still under construction. Where there are no egos and no self-seeking, there is no shame. That's the problem here - contest over desire for accuracy. That doesn't serve WP well.24.239.249.127 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
That's literally the exact opposite of what the tag is for. From the documentation: "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to 'warn' readers about the article." Unless you were just making a joke, in which case I apologize for taking you seriously. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is correct. The tag is not for warning readers of a disputed article. It is for attracting more input from editors. With a vigorous discussion underway between many people it is not needed. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I read articles much more than I am involved in them like this. And as a reader I have always appreciated knowing that neutrality was in dispute from the start. I commented based upon an assumption.24.239.249.127 (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
For no particular reason, I guess, I do want to add the reason I assumed it was for readers (I had to think through my assumption). It is because it is displayed publicly, not internally. I guess I'm surprised that something that is for the sake of editors is displayed to readers. I would expect it to be buried just like these talk pages are. Does anyone have an idea the reasoning for this thusness? I'm a noob, Just trying to learn here. THanks. 24.239.249.127 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
According to the tag page "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." So it's placed publicly to draw in additional editors, as they're more likely to see and read it on the article page, then on the talk page. Morphh (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The tag serves the purpose of a reminder for an active dispute until that dispute is resolved (which the tag states). This does appear necessary since you've already forgotten about my past NPOV objections within this active talk page (in the POV tag section and reminded in the paragraph above) along with the archive version of the original criticism (likely along with many other unresolved NPOV archives). I said above my concerns were not based on scope. As for tagging in general, I've seen NPOV tags on FA articles that have gone through several levels of peer review, which are way less deserving than this one. If that's what it takes to stop the back and forth of disruptive edits, it won't hurt our readers to see it for another week or two. Morphh (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could link to some specifics complaints. All I have seen is your claim that the article is biased, which is vague and unactionable. You also wrote "I verified that my NPOV concerns above have not been addressed in the article. If I have time, I can try to fix it, but until then or until someone else does so, the tag should probably remain.". Is that not emblematic of holding the article hostage? We're here now to fix it. These cleanup tags are not bookmarks to remind you that you think there is an issue that you might possible fix as some future time.
Please read WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING.- MrX 01:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
See the gray box quoted section in Talk:War_on_Women#POV_tag. I gave three specific examples that are actionable, though there are other statements in the article that are similar. We need to fix the WHY. This is not drive by tagging. It's also not holding the article hostage - it's the purpose of the tag based on it's own wording. If the article is not compliant with policy, then perhaps it should have a tag letting readers know. If a consensus of editors feel the NPOV issue has been addressed, then remove it. That's the way it works. Oddly, I didn't even care, but you've pushed the issue to a contentious level. Morphh (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you have given examples of missing context, but I guess you expect someone else to fix it? Obviously other editors do not see it as much of a problem, so you (or someone else) needs to show us what is missing based on our sources. Remember also that balance is not the same thing as NPOV, but of course we should represent all major viewpoints in due proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. - MrX 02:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is common for interested editors to work on fixing issues brought up in the talk page. I guess no one should bring up issues with the article if they're not planning to fix it themselves - is that your argument? You're not making any sense. You wouldn't need a tag if you were just going to fix it yourself - it is intended for the discussion and act of fixing those issues by interested editors. What is missing is the other viewpoint - if we're going to criticize someone for passing or proposing a law, we should include their argument for doing so. I made a change to one of the sections I criticized as lacking context. Morphh (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the point people are making is that while you don't need consensus to add a tag, leaving a tag on an article until the end of time is not a Plan B for when you've failed to gain consensus for changes - like refocusing the article around the slogan (any and all uses thereof) instead of the policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Addressing Morph's most recent comment above, editors who are sympathetic with the idea that there has been a "Republican War on Women" of sorts, are not likely to help us "show the other side" in this article. While there are a few "Republican responses" in our Wiki article, they are mainly rhetorical responses to the "War on Women" meme rather than explanations or defenses of substantive policies. What we would need to do is to actually go back to the times when various state and federal measures were debated and find sources that give the "Republican" rationale for such measures. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
@Roscelese, if you go back and look at the discussion "What is this article about," I think you'll find only a smattering of attempt to reason through this foundational question by those who either participated in removing my POV tag or stood in support of its removal after the fact. As I said above, I cannot reason with silence. And most certainly WP requires consensus to remove a POV tag, yet even though it stood there for 2 months, MrX removed it without even raising the question in the discussions. I added it back yesterday and once again it was removed without [public] discussion. That is the problem. A close group here considers itself to be the consensus, but they stand the risk of earning a railroad label instead.24.239.249.127 (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

People who say this kind of legislation is the forcing of beliefs

A fair question was posed by Badmintonhist in a recent edit summary. Does anyone know whether the War on Women involves accusations of one group forcing their beliefs on the other? I know Colorado State Senator Morgan Carroll, a Democrat, said in the context of the War on Women, "That right for religious freedom in this country has never included the right to force your religious or moral beliefs on others."[1] Otherwise I have not seen notable people quoted in this manner. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That's sufficient in itself, but there's more. If you look at this cache of the ACLU's "War on Women" page, one of the articles, entitled "Serving the People or the Bishops?" uses the phrase in question. No doubt, other reliable sources could be found without much effort. I don't think this is something we need to worry about sourcing. MilesMoney (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but you've got to take the trouble to add these sources to the statement in question in the article, not just make the change in the article because you've mentioned sources here. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC). After sleeping on it, I realize that there's another problem with adding such a statement to the lead. According to WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to provide an overview of the article's body. As the article now stands, however, such a statement would be more of an anti-Republican (anti-social conservative, really) throw-in given undue prominence in the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney, I was looking for prominent politicians or at least notable observers who were saying this. You found Sarah Lipton-Lubet who is a policy counsel for ACLU. She has impeccable credentials but she is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. If we were including such sources then there is Patty Pinkley, a political organizer for the Democratic Party in Humble, Texas, who says in the context of the War on Women: "Stop trying to legislate OUR bodies and force your values on Americans with different beliefs." I don't think it is so important to tell our readers what folks at this level are saying. The person's comment should at least be seen as influential. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The ACLU is a reliable source for confirming that this understanding is part of the whole War on Woman issue. The one you found is also reliable, and has the advantage of being more self-contained. I'll add it to the article. Thanks. MilesMoney (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
And I removed it as an opinion piece akin to a letter from the editor. Arzel (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, I still don't see this "forcing their personal/religious beliefs on the rest of us" as being part of a summary of the body of the article, at least as the body of the article now stands. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I would agree that the American Civil Liberties Union is a notable, reliable source for the page, regardless of the individual notability of its representatives. I am wary however of using a political organizer for a rival party as a source. The person is probably neither an expert on issues of discrimination, nor can be expected to be particularly objective when talking about opponents. But ACLU comments and sources should be incorporated in the body of the article, not used to further expand the lead. Three paragraphs and 28 sources for what is supposed to be a summary and overview section? Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the lede is too big. The third paragraph and maybe some of the second would work better in the "Development of the term" section. As for all the citations, I think it's probably because everything in the lede gets challenged and reverted if it isn't immediately cited.
The idea that the War on Women is about socially conservative (and usually religious) beliefs being imposed upon women who do not share them is pretty fundamental, so it belongs in the lede. MilesMoney (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
@Arzel: The opinion piece was from a representative of the President of the Humble Area Democrats which would seem to support "Prominent Democrats and feminists have used the phrase to criticize proponents of the laws as trying to force their social views on a general public through legislation." - MrX 17:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems a weird point to make as most legislation is a level of force to conform society to deny or support certain social views. The reverse can just as easily be said with regard to public funding of said rights or special provisions to correct perceived social injustices. If we define it more narrowly as religious views, then we get into some other problems as to how it applies overall. One concern I have with the sentence is that it could be read that when they use the phrase, it is to criticize forced social views, as opposed to saying that it can be used to criticize for forcing social views. That may need to be clarified and in that context, what is the weight because we give that viewpoint top placement and appear to have difficulty finding good sources. Some of the War on Women doesn't easily apply to the logic - such as domestic violence, workplace and pay discrimination, etc. Morphh (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
In a trivial sense, laws against murder are an imposition of the moral views of some onto others; presumably, the murderers do not see their actions as immoral. Of course, murder is inherently harmful to both individuals and society, so opposition to it is not based solely on personal moral views. The distinction here is that individuals are allowed to further constrain their own behavior based on personal beliefs that cannot be justified in terms of societal good, but they cannot constrain the actions of others. If I don't believe in blood transfusions, I'm free to reject medical treatment and die for it, but not free to kill you by interfering with your transfusion.
That's the background. Applying it to this article, we have reliable sources showing that those who refer to the War on Women believe that these laws are based on personal morality that is not related to societal good. MilesMoney (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It's obvious, Miles, that YOU think that the idea of conservative social beliefs being imposed on those that don't share them is a fundamental point that should be included in the lead but again, the lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article so if that point isn't made more extensively in the body, why should it be included in the lead? As for your most recent philosophical point -- nonsense. Of course those who oppose legal abortion can, and often do, argue that legal abortion is destructive to society as a whole, and thus justify banning it "in terms of societal good." All sorts of legal constraints are imposed by some on behaviors that others feel are "strictly personal." I can marry a man in Rhode Island now but I can't marry a bevy of gorgeous women, something I might otherwise do if I had the dough. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It's their personal belief that abortion is harmful to society, but this belief is not shared by society as a whole. Contrast this with murder, which is recognized by all as harmful. In any case, you are edit-warring in violation of our consensus to keep this cited material. MilesMoney (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
More nonsense. If the people of a state, or nation, can convince a majority of their fellow citizens and/or a majority of their legislatures then they, in fact, represent THAT society as a whole. Let's not forget that abortion became legal across the United States by the "vote" of exactly seven people. Explain this "consensus" by the way. A consensus of Two?Badmintonhist (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Abortion is beneficial to the society as a whole? That is quite an offensive thing to say. I think if you look at the American history of Abortion and the main promoters of abortion at that time you would be called quite the racist. Arzel (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Gee, Arzel, let's not inflame things to a level beyond what Miles and I already have. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow, so much bias in so few words. Fortunately, it's not my job to explain to you why you're wrong. I only need to explain why your views are not a good reason to change the article, which I've already done. MilesMoney (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Either side in most cases would see their political viewpoint as beneficial to society. That's generally why we hold certain views. Morphh (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
With murder, there is no "either side". Society as a whole recognizes it as bad, and only a few outliers -- mostly career criminals and/or sociopaths -- disagree. This is not true in the case of more controversial issues, such as abortion, where society is split.
In the case of this article, we have reliable sources showing that those who use the term also view these various laws as examples of imposing personal moral beliefs upon others. It doesn't matter whether any editors agree; we just have to report what our sources say. MilesMoney (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Miles, you seem to be forgetting that abortion is murder in many people's minds - even among abortion supporters. So to them, justifying abortion requires justifying murder in certain circumstances. I am NOT trying to open up that debate here. I am trying to show the inconsistency in your logic when you say "With murder, there is no "either side"... This is not true in the case of more controversial issues, such as abortion." Every legislation is a legislation of someone's morality.24.239.249.127 (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
In the case of this article's LEAD, however, we preview the MAJOR points of the body of the article, so unless the body of the article STRESSES the notion of socially conservative Republicans imposing their personal beliefs on others, there is no convincing reason to include it in the LEAD at this time. Perhaps it could go somewhere in the Body of the article first.
The other stuff, of course, is basically a college bull session but I DO get a kick out of how Miles keeps acting as if governmental prohibition are supposed to be as morally clear cut as those against murder. Laws that forbid abortion, like laws that forbid marriage to more than one spouse, or that forbid merchants from closing their doors to black folks, or that require men but not women to register for a military draft, are all examples of governments overriding deeply held personal beliefs "where society is split." Badmintonhist (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The rest of the article has examples of how social conservative morality is being forced on women, so the lede summarizes this, referencing the language that's actually used. The lede does not need to repeat, word for word, what is in the rest of the article, only abstract it.

Your examples are not great. You bring up polygamy, but this is wildly unpopular. A more parallel example is same-sex marriage, which is (for now) controversial. Likewise, I don't think that, even with the Tea Party, there is really a significant contingent that wants to bring back the "good" old days of white-only stores, do you? MilesMoney (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And you're not showing much historical, or global perspective. The Mormons in Utah held out for decades before finally yielding to outside pressure to forbid polygyny, a practice which has been quite common across the globe among well-heeled men in many cultures. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited a lot of formerly "private" discrimination was controversial enough for Republican Presidential candidate-to-be Barry Goldwater to join with Southern Democrats in voting against it, asserting that it was a violation of private choice. The point is that moral questions requiring governments to go one way or the other are RARELY AS CLEAR CUT AS MURDER, which you kept posing in contrast to abortion. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is turning into a forum, not a discussion on improving the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

propose to add other uses in own section

I propose to add a section titled == Other uses == to accommodate what belongs within the scope of the article but is not about U.S. Republican initiatives and criticisms of them and the party. A move to a narrower parentheticized title has been rejected, so another article under a nonparenthetical title is not warranted. Meanwhile, other uses positing a war on women are sourceable. A solution is needed. Guidance already established suggests that the scope is determined by the article's title. A policy says, "article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." An essay, which is not in itself binding but is not contradictory to policy, says, "all material that is notable, referenced and that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope must be covered (at least in a summarised fashion)." A solution for this article appears to be to add a section for uses that are not within the main subject of the article (the U.S. Republican-Democratic conflict) but are still within the subject's scope as defined by the article's title (all war/s on women as such). I recall reading somewhere that the Other Uses section is generally recommended for such needs and that concept appears to be a good solution here. I propose to re-add on a feminist objection to pornography as "war on women", that being sourced to a notable author and with that exact phrase. I had considered adding on the Taliban's objection to women's education, and think there's probably a source for it, but right now all I know of is an incompletely-displayed opinion by an apparently non-notable author in which the term is used in the headline without substantiation. Because I do not subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, when I display the article it is incomplete, so perhaps someone has access to a full text and can justify inclusion in the proposed section. If the Michelle Malkin opinion about a Democratic war on conservative women is an RS on a view, and it probably is, it probably can be included as long as it is labeled as a view (if we want only content about a "war" that is indisputably factually a war, e.g., with uniformed troops and a commander-in-chief on each side and the legal applicability of Geneva conventions, we immediately run into a definitional problem about present content I'll address in a separate talk topic/section). I'll wait a week for any response to the proposals. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with the addition of such a section. A glorified list of search results for "war on women" does not belong in the article. If any other usage can support an article, create such an article and we will link it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No way. The topic is "Republican War on Women", not anything else. The topic extends to include Republican responses to the assertions against them. It does not extend to anything else. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No list of search results was proposed. I don't suggest that we find where three words were used in physical proximity but where some form of a war on women is sourceably written about, other than in the Republican-and-response context.
If the scope is only "Republcan War on Women" but a move to there is refused, which looks self-contradictory, is the solution war on women (other uses)? I think that's a bit unorthodox; I assume it would lead to a merge proposal.
Nick Levinson (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
If the topic of this article is strictly "Republican War on Women" why have we given it a a broader title? Badmintonhist (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You can consult the talk page archives if you want to see the results of the move requests. As far as I remember, the idea was that there was no other significant use of the phrase, so disambiguation was not needed. If you were to write Impact of war on women (about war-related violence and other war effects), War on Women (drug arrests)[2] and War on Women (Islam)[3] then people would probably change their minds about moving this topic to a less ambiguous name. I would not oppose such a move if there were other articles already written. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
@Bink, do you disagree with the policy that Nick referenced, "article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject?" It certainly seems reasonable to me for the sake of disambiguation even when no other articles are referenced. What objection would one have for the title clearly stating the scope of the article's content? If none, then what objection could one have for naming an article that is only about a Republican War on Women "Republican War on Women?" Otherwise someone may choose to write about other wars on women in the future, in which case I assume this article would have to go through a renaming process. That wouldn't be necessary if we were specific at the front end since we realize that the phrase is used in other contexts.24.239.249.127 (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to specify since it is by far the WP:COMMONNAME. We're dealing with the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so if other articles get created with such a title, we can use a Template:Other with disambiguation link at the head. That is the common practice, for example Inflation. Morphh (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It's curious that an article that is only about the "Republican War on Women" takes the time to talk about the "development of the term" in other contexts as if this were some sophisticated semantic formulation. That would seem to cut against the idea that our title obviously refers to Republican policy initiatives and rhetoric. I suspect that some editors want to include such window dressing for the same basic reason that they are reluctant to make the title "Republican War on Women." They don't want to appear TOO overtly partisan and biased. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be unacceptable to the general Wikipedia community to create other articles just in order to merge them into this one. Nor should we require that each item be notable; in an article, an item of content need only qualify for due weight, not be independently notable. What we're talking about qualifies for weight. It probably qualifies for notability, too, but the result would be stubs.
The short history of the title is that the first content on the War on Women was mostly about Republican views and contexts. That's not a scope problem, because that's what was written into the article under that title and at no point in the article's history should we assume that everything has already been included that can be. Wikipedia is a work in progress, including in the beginning of an article's history. Non-Republican content consistent with the title came later and some of it was deleted as not being about the Republican context. In my view, those deletions are what caused part of the dissonance between scope and title. And when other uses have been deleted, it's harder for other editors to find that there was such content or to judge it as insignificant. For instance, the Lee Habib source qualifies as a nonfringe statement of a view that there is a war on women in Islam since he is notable. It should be included as an other use.
Writing about the Republican war is not biased; that is what sources talk about. If sources are biased and we report them neutrally so that the article is biased, that is bias due to sourcing, not due to nonneutral editing. If editors have personal biases, even all in the same direction, that does not matter (except for COI), as long as the article is neutral with respect to sources. Thus, a large set of biased editors can use a large set of biased sources to produce a neutral article.
Universe expansion studied by physicists and price increases studied by economists are far more different from each other than are the various wars on women we're talking about and which are studied in common by feminists (perhaps studied also by others such as political scientists but in common by feminists) and the premise of the hatnoting is that they should be separate articles, when merger would likely result or challenges on nonnotability would arise if every fact or claim has to be in its own article. We're talking about war(s) on women; would it be better to have one half-encompassing article for everything about the war/s on women except the Republican one with hatnotes cross-linking the two articles?
Nick Levinson (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I have no objection to "Republican War on Women." It's obviously unnecessary since there is, as other users have pointed out, no call to disambiguate a title that is presently unambiguous, but if it would stop this goddamn trolling, I am all for it as it does not actually harm the article. But, you see, this would require users proposing a change to actually do a requested move and outline their reasons for it, and that might be too hard for the "I'm just at Wikipedia to whine about its liberal bias" crowd. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well if it would end this goddam bitching over conservative trolling of liberally biased articles, I'd suggest that you enter the the change request, Ros. I'm personally lousy at these technicalities. Moreover, taken as a whole, I DO find a lot of unnecessary ambiguity in the whole project and the title would be a good place to start. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the article is move protected so any one can be bold and move it. On my interface, it's the first menu item in the drop down menu, just to the right of the watchlisting star. Detailed instructions here: WP:MOVE.- MrX 16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please don't move it without a consensus to do so, which I think the consensus thus far (based on talk archives) has not been to move it. That title fails in several areas. If you wanted to narrow it down in a non-bias way (which the pointed "Republican War on Women" would certainly be WP:NDESC), you could do something like War on Women (women's rights) or War on Women (United States), but again, it seems unnecessary at this point. I could agree to a "Other uses" section, but perhaps proposed text should be placed on the talk first. Morphh (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Republican "War on Women" or "Republican War on Women" would avoid WP:NDESC, a guideline I hadn't been aware of before, so Thanks, Morph, for pointing it out. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh Geez!! Now under WP:POVNAME I see the admonishment to avoid "trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected to the issue years later." Why that would seem to fit this article's title better than a glove (better than O.J. Simpson's glove, at least). Badmintonhist (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
My reading of WP:NDESC was that it could be a problem if it were to be renamed. I think the inclusion of Republican sounds like an allegation and judgmental, which according to that section, we are to avoid. It comes off as non-neutral, as if to state directly that there is a Republican War on Women. Morphh (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but given that the article IS about a so-called Republican War on Women, simply calling it "War on Women" is arguably even more of an WP:NDESC faux pas because it implies that it's pretty much common knowledge "War on Women" refers to Republican policies toward women. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC) PS:Perhaps the lesson here, in any case, is that we should be careful about adopting a political party's partisan talking point as the title for an article. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
A move would be fine except that it was proposed not long ago and rejected so that the local consensus is against a move and I don't know of a new reason for a change in the consensus. I would move to a title that is nationally specific in addition to being about the Republican context since articles should be globalized unless otherwise titled, but even a move to "Republican ..." would be an improvement (it's consistent with sources from both sides of the discourse and the sources go beyond mere talking points from the Democratic party so it is relatively neutral, given the acceptance of "Boston Massacre" as a title) and I don't think it is problematic under WP:NDESC. Moving to War on Women (women's rights) or War on Women (United States) would likely raise the same disagreements already raised about what may be included as content, so those moves would likely be futile. The present title and the proposed titles, all as capitalized, may all violate the WP:POVNAME policy if, say, 10 years from now the phrase will have been mostly replaced in widespread advocacy discourse by other terminology; I don't want to predict in either direction. The phrase without regard for capitalization, however, does have staying power, having already lasted over two decades. Anyone concerned with the applicability of WP:POVNAME should please propose a title for an article that may still be primarily about the phrase, i.e., so that the title and the scope are mutually no less consistent than they are now.
Permission to edit is not required for most articles or this one and proposals and edits relevant to other uses have already been offered by several editors. Please do not attack editors personally, as one or two of the recent posts seem to do. And don't treat editors as receptacles for assignments as if they're here just to do others' bidding. Please try to focus on developing a local consensus that is consistent with policy consensus and refuting claims of inconsistency if they're wrong. There's room in this article for both liberal and conservative views and both conservative and liberal editors and that room is consistent with neutrality.
Nick Levinson (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC) (Corrected misspelling & syntax: 00:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC))

Gee, I sure wouldn't use the title Boston Massacre as an argument for either "War on Women" or "Republican War on Women." "Boston Massacre" has about 243 years of history behind it. "War on Women" has about three years of history behind it. See WP:POVNAME, "trendy slogans and monikers." Badmintonhist (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible alternatives that avoid accusations in the title: War on Women (political phrase), War on Women (political expression), War on Women (United States politics), War on Women (politics). If these fail to resolve the ambiguity, could you clarify the scope disambiguation causing conflict? Morphh (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, good suggestions, Morphh. I would prefer something like "War on Women (United Sates political phrase)" but editors who insist that the article is about Republican policy initiatives and rhetoric rather than the phrase itself would probably object. So of the alternatives you've suggested, War on Women (United States politics) would seem the best to me. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC) PS: Another alternative would be "War on Women (trendy monikers)."
For what it's worth, I looked up "War on Christmas" to see how Wikipedia handles this "war" and it redirected to "Christmas controversy." That tells us something though I'm not sure it gives us much of an idea for an alternative title. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
While minor, we do cover the Republican's attempt to turn the phrase on Democrats. So I think the current article is about the political phrase with the vast majority of use and weight covering Republican policy initiatives. If we narrow the title scope, I think these alternative political phrase / U.S politics suggestions better cover the current content anyway. With regard to the War on Christmas comparison, I made a similar comment earlier that the article could actually be broadened and retitled to "Women's Rights in the United States" with a section on the War on Women political phrase, since at the time (and even now) few sections in the article associate the phrase's use. Morphh (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm rather surprised to find that we don't already have a general article on women's rights in the United States, despite (or maybe because of) all the articles we have on specific aspects of women's rights in Wikipedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
War on Women (political phrase) and War on Women (United Sates political phrase) would be fine and are the best of these. War on Women (political expression) would be misunderstood as being about how women express their politics, a far larger subject for which much more content and sourcing would be needed, and War on Women (United States politics) and War on Women (politics) are also much larger subjects. If whichever decided-on move destination does not refer to the U.S. in the title, then global content would belong in the article, such as if a party in the U.K. or India has accused another party of waging a War on Women; if globalization would be objected to, then the title has to name the nation as a limit. Any of these titles would also permit editing the uncapitalized war on women redirect into an article for other uses, with cross-linking.
Women's rights in the United States is already the subject of a single article, since the subject of women's rights is mostly coterminous with feminism. I created a redirect from that title to feminist movement in the United States.
Nick Levinson (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC) (Replaced link, expanded link text, and added on cross-linking: 23:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
I'd be fine with War on Women (United Sates political phrase). War on Women (United States politics) might be less contested though since that could cover the phrase and policies and it still narrows the subject scope. I don't particularly see the distinction that using "political phrase" changes the meaning of the article for some editors away from policies, since the phrase describes policies, but either are acceptable to me. Morphh (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet is correct. This article has always been very specifically about the "Republican War on Women", "not anything else. The topic extends to include Republican responses to the assertions against them. It does not extend to anything else." We should follow the sources and rename the article for the sake of accuracy. A title should describe the topic, and the current title is too open and invites GOP gaming the system, which we have seen. Outside politics should not be allowed to manipulate an article to divert its purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

war as real or metaphorical

A difference of opinion, explicit and implicit, in these discussions is whether something counts as a war. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand international law lawful wars can be relatively unlimited in their destructiveness and can legally include deliberate killings of massive numbers of people, but they can also include that which a nation merely declares as a war without any other action. When years ago the U.S. had a naval submarine inside a Soviet port uninvited and recording the sounds of Soviet subs in case of a future war, followed by a Soviet sub bumping into something that wasn't expected, causing the bumped U.S. sub to scram out of there and the Soviet sub to chase it through an open sea until the U.S. sub entered a friendly nation's territorial limit where it surfaced (which was about when the Soviet sub stopped chasing it), that, I argue, was two acts of war, one by each side, even though each side was justified and even though those acts of war were not in any declared war to my knowledge. When North Korea sent a war missile for a flight test through Japanese airspace without Japanese permission, that was an act of war, even if no war response occurred. Civil wars are probably as defined by the nations within which they occur until they spill across a border. A publisher of National Review once said in a radio interview that "there is no moral equivalent of war", there is only war and not war. One children's card game is called War. Some of what is described in this article does result in adults' deaths. I have no objection to including in this article what is only metaphorically a war, as long as at least one source for each disagreement refers to it as a war and the characterization as a war is by a notable entity. If that inclusiveness seems too wide, that can be resolved by referring generally to these statements as views. If that would be needed for too much of the article, a general description that many of these are views can serve the purpose. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

When you have a reliable source to draw from, bring it forward. Otherwise you are just wasting bits. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand. I'm saying the debate is already here and that, as a solution, inclusion is legitimate. What is it that you need a reliable source for? Talk posts? I am not proposing that the article be about kinds of war. This isn't the article for that and I didn't suggest it. Was my post on the difficult side? I didn't intend that it be. I was only talking about what is already being talked about and offering a way to deal with it. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I am leery of any diffusion or opacity spread across this topic. I fear that your intended changes would be of such a nature. If you propose actual text for the article then I will know better what you intend. In order to propose text you would necessarily have references in mind. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I was not proposing a specific text (and don't need to) but rather encouraging inclusion of content of a general kind, where that had been disputed in the past. It was thought that (roughly speaking) only wars of the type that public high school teachers agree are wars belong in this article. I favor including a wider range of wars and so-called wars, as long as sources use that terminology or terminology kindred to it. I didn't want to spend time digging up what exactly had been said in past threads and edit summaries, so I started this thread to put the thoughts into one place and I hope that was okay. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
If you are thinking about wars in general then you are off-topic. This topic is not about wars in general, it is about various initiatives put forward recently by Republicans, which taken as a group were seen by others as having a negative effect on women's rights. There is no place for wars in general to be discussed in this article. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I was not thinking that this article should be about wars in general, virtually every single one of which, probably including when Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals went at it, significantly affected women. Rather, I was talking about war or wars in the context of this article. Generally, posts are presumed to be about the subject of the thread they're in, threads are presumably about the talk page they're on, and the talk pages are presumptively about the article they're associated with, unless there's contrary evidence about a poster's intent. That this article "is about various initiatives put forward recently by Republicans, which taken as a group were seen by others as having a negative effect on women's rights" is true insofar as some version of the phrase is sourceable for the initiatives or the responses, otherwise the article would become as long as a book and replace so many other articles that splitting would be required. If we agree that war in this article's context does not require shooting with metal bullets, dropping the kind of munitions usually associated with the Air Force, and so on, then that is pretty much what I was saying in the first place, I'm glad we agree, and it doesn't appear that anyone else disagrees at the moment. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC) (Corrected overclaiming: 00:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC))
We agree on that point. What is this thread about, please? What concrete changes are you proposing? Explain it to me with the simplest possible language, 'cuz I'm not getting it. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Some editors disagreed. One or more felt that the wars discussed by this article were not real wars and so should not be discussed in this article. I disagree and you agree with me. I did not propose any concrete change. I did not need to propose a concrete change. This talk page is about improvements to the article and is not limited to specific wording changes. I did not have to propose a change in wording. And I did not propose one. Instead, I agreed with inclusion of a type of content already present in the article. Therefore, I agreed with some editors (those who would include) and you agreed with me. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

possible diversion

OK, Binks is being nice and open minded here. Let me put this into words. Republicans are issuing talking points through their media manipulation propagators in the names of FOX News and other right-wing radio cohorts to try to transfer this subject back at Democrats. Playing up other kinds of war in this discussion is only trying to divert the discussion away from the hideous things against women that are being voted into law by almost exclusively Republicans and largely against firm opposition by Democrats. Who is doing what is easily documentable in public records. This is one of the most lopsided The problem here is the attribution does not follow suit in the media and thus on Wikipedia. If you don't like the term War on Women, may I suggest a better term "American Sharia" 98.154.60.168 (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I am on record as being against any kind of diminution of this article's main point which is Republican initiatives that are seen as limiting women's rights. Of course Republican responses to the accusations are part of the topic, but not to such a degree that the main point is made into Democrat offenses. Nor should any other material be brought into the article with intent to detract from the main point of Republican initiatives seen as anti-woman. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
More precisely, I think, the main thrust of the article should be Republican initiatives that some (such as our one-edit-only IP contributor above) see as anti-woman. Others, such as just about all the many men and women who favor such initiatives, don't see them as anti-woman. Since opinions about these initiatives obviously differ, and since we are advised by WP:POVTITLE WP:POVNAME and WP:NDESC to use titles that "reflect a neutral point of view rather than titles those that "suggest any editor's opinion," it seems to me that we should be VIGOROUSLY searching for a more neutral title for our article. It is instructive that what some have called the "War on Christmas," for example, is handled under the title "Christmas controversy" in Wikipedia. Since finding a similarly concise, NPOV title for our present "War on Women" may prove elusive, I think that the alternative favored by Nick and I (he's convinced me), War on Women (United States political phrase) is pretty good. It at least alerts the reader that he/she is probably dealing with a partisan moniker. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The article's not about the phrase, though. It's about what the phrase refers to: the legislation. Would you accept "War on Women (United States socially conservative legislative movement)"? Too long? If so, then let's leave things alone. MilesMoney (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The legislative movement and the motivation behind it could also be covered in our underdeveloped article on social conservatism in the United States, since this forms the background of the War. Dimadick (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
@ MilesMoney. In other words, let's leave in an obviously one-sided title that reflects MY opinion in violation of WP:POVTITLE. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Do I really need to remind you to WP:AGF? If you have an alternative that's not terrible, suggest it. MilesMoney (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Did I say anything that wasn't right on the MONEY, Miles? A number of us have been making suggestions that aren't necessarily terrible. The FIRST SENTENCE of our article now begins "War on Women is an expression in United States politics . . . " so I don't think that a title such as War on Women (United States political phrase) is too bad an idea. Naturally, we would also be including some detail "about what the phrase refers to." Badmintonhist (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The solution may be two articles. If the scope is about Republican initiatives against women and Democratic responses, which is a very legitimate subject, then the article should be retitled to drop the phrase "War on Women", the phrase only to be used in the article, not in the title, because the phrase would not be the main subject of the article. Not moving it results in the title being a POV title for that scope.
A title with "War on Women" would be the other article, the subject being the phrase, both articles existing at the same time. "American Sharia" is not appropriate as a title since no source uses it and numerous sources speak of a War on Women, thus the latter is notable as a subject and suitable for the title.
Other content is not dilutive when it is within scope, but a scope can be narrowed to exclude some other content by retitling the article.
Social conservatism covers much more ground than conservatism about women, so this article's content should not be merged into social conservatism in the United States.
Nick Levinson (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Disagree about retitling to drop "War on Women". The link between a lot of the material is simply that it has been called or linked to the "War on Women". The phrase provides the framework. Remove the phrase and the battle is joined regarding what must go into the article or what must come out. This article will never see stability if it is called something that does not have "War on Women" in the article title. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean you would be open to a title such as War on Women (United States political phrase), Bink, or are you insisting on the status quo with its obvious WP:POVTITLE problem? Badmintonhist (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The title is just fine. Tell me exactly what part of POVTITLE you think applies. MilesMoney (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Been there, done that. Waiting for Bink. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the current title is sufficient, but I would not fight against a move request to Republican War on Women, because that formulation is also pretty common in the reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
War on Women (United States politics) is another suggestion from above that avoids the "phrase" vs "policy" issue, but narrow enough to address most scope concerns. I think the title "Republican War on Women" has problems with WP:NDESC with the inclusion of Republican sounding like an allegation and judgmental, which we are to avoid. Also, while the scope does primarily focus on Republican policies included in the War on Women description, we do briefly cover the Republican attempt to use the phrase on Democrats. So a non-partisan title would better serve the current content anyway. Morphh (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The Republican response is not anything that would change the article title. The Republican response is simply part of the political back-and-forth surrounding this topic. I see no reason that a parenthetical disambiguation should be used when perfectly good alternatives exist. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Bink. Yes, "Republican War on Women" has been quite a trendy partisan moniker over the past three years or so. The problem, however, is that unless we clearly alert the reader that our article is about the PHRASE "Republican War on Women" or "War on Women," rather than about a set of Republican initiatives that Wikipedia in its own voice is designating as a war on women we are clearly violating WP:POVTITLE and WP:POVNAME. It is an objective fact that the MONIKER "Republican War on Women" exists, just as it is an objective fact that the MONIKER "War on Christmas" exists. It is not an objective fact that either moniker has much standing, outside of its adherents, as a commonly accepted description of reality. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It is not about the phrase, it is about Republican initiatives seen as limiting women's rights, with a section devoted to Republican responses. The phrase is used to encapsulate the group of initiatives; the phrase is not the focus. The focus is Republican initiatives. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Right. Which rather makes my point, doesn't it? The article as you see it, at least, is about "Republican initiatives." This IMMEDIATELY raises he question of why we are naming the article "(Republican) War on Women" which, it seems to me, Clearly violates WP:POVTITLE WP:POVNAME. Why is Wikipedia, in its own voice, giving the article such an obviously partisan name.? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Badintonhist, the part of WP:POVNAME that refutes your argument reads:

Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.

This is the case with the war on women; it has become the usual term for the event, which overrides any concern about endorsing one side of an issue. MilesMoney (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

WEAK!! The Boston Massacre, as I mentioned before, Has over 243 years of history behind it and countless history textbook articles (at least US history book articles). Teapot Dome, which is now about 90 years old, was a scandal by just about everyone's reckoning, even staunch Republicans of the day. No, Republican War on Women doesn't have the same bona fides except for folks like Miles Money. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Saying "weak" is itself a weak argument. More of a non-argument, really. I've never heard of the War on Women described by any other term. No plausible alternative has been offered. MilesMoney (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't an argument, it was an exclamation. The rest was an argument which you've done little to counter. If you've never heard Republican initiatives affecting women (and, in truth, often Democratic initiatives where I live in Rhode Island) called anything other than "a war on women" you must be moving in VERY ideologically skewed circles. Back to the issue at hand, we might start by calling an article on Republican initiatives affecting women something like . . . "Republican initiatives affecting women." Badmintonhist (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC) PS: Have you ever heard the "War on Christmas" called anything other than "War on Christmas." Good title for one of our articles?? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Title change

The discussion above does not seem to be going anywhere other than in circles. Having read all of the arguments and counterarguments, I want to go on record as strongly supporting no change to the title; weakly supporting changing the title to Republican war on women; and strongly opposing any change that uses a parenthetical disambiguation, which is entirely unnecessary. - MrX 13:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That is my position as well. Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
At this point, reading above, "Republican war on women" seems most appropriate since other formulations of the "war" in public discussions are being so actively discouraged. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia ought never be seen as promoting partisan positions on any article, including titles. Such a title would affirm in Wikipedia's voice that Republicans have a "war on women" which is contrary to WP:NPOV from the start. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Collect - that is my opinion as well. Morphh (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that "Wikipedia ought never be seen as promoting partisan positions", and fortunately, it's not. It's simply using the most common, precise, recognizable, concise, mainstream phrase "to describe certain Republican Party initiatives as a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights". - MrX 14:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, the issue is, unfortunately, that we have two options in front of us: 1) an article named "Republican war on women" which would conform to sources and be solely about the claims made about Republican policies, or 2) an article named "war on women" that is not allowed to include non-Republican claims and concepts. It's a NPOV situation in either direction, so my preference is that we go with the named one (which is supported by sources). Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
What about this: The article should have no rules banning any sources which use the term even if they are not about Republicans! The dichotomy you present is contrary to Wikipedia policy utterly. And the fact that guardians prevent NPOV here does not mean Wikipedia should, by title and in its own voice, support a POV article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely. Unfortunately, the discussion at this article appears to not want to follow that aspect of NPOV, so my preference, with that in mind, is to make the article explicit about the attacks on Republican politicians. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to misapply NPOV. NPOV applies to editorial actions and motivations, not to sourced content which describes a POV, and the title reflects such content. Therefore such a title is not in Wikipedia's voice. Throughout the whole of Wikipedia we follow the sources, regardless of their POV, and we obviously must include content documenting various POV, or Wikipedia would be blah and not worth reading. It would fail in its mission to document the sum total of human knowledge.

Since titles must specifically describe and define article content, we need one which does that. This article has always been very specifically about the "Republican War on Women", and not anything else. NPOV requires that opposing POV be included, which would give due weight to Republican denials of the charges that their legislations which negatively affect women constitute a "war on women".

We should follow the sources and rename the article for the sake of accuracy. It must be clear what is on-topic and off-topic. A title should describe the topic, and the current title is too open and invites sabotage and gaming the system by GOP friendly editors through bloat and watering down the content by including irrelevant topics merely because the words "war on women" happen to exist elsewhere, etc., and we have seen such efforts. We must keep this article on-topic. Real world politics should not be allowed to manipulate an article to divert its purpose, and we're documenting a real world legislative attack on women's rights which reliable sources have documented. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No. A change in the article title to "Republican War on Women" would be order ONLY if the thrust of the article is clearly about the EXPRESSION "Republican War on Women" not an article that proceeds as if there is a Republican war on women in the real world. Real Republican policies affecting women should be handled by an article with a with a a far less propagandistic title. We have an article on Japan's "East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" but it is certainly not our main article on Japan's policies toward its neighbors during WWII. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
BullRangifer, I'm not sure where you got the idea that NPOV doesn't apply to "sourced content which describes a POV". In this case, we have a section in NPOV for titles WP:POVNAMING, which I think the third paragraph applies. "Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that because many partisan sources use the term "Republican War on Women", that the use is neutral. We see many sources that will qualify this as a "so-called" War on Women - we're describing a POV. If we were to apply that statement in the lead such as "the Republican War on Women is", it would not be accepted as neutral as it WikiVoices a viewpoint. I'd consider "War on Women" as proper noun and "Republican" as an adjective. The adjective's use in this case is accusatory and judgmental - a pov, which we are to avoid (WP:NDESC). While I know Mr.X and Binksternet didn't care for a parenthetical title, it helps remove the accusatory and matter of fact tone. If we're to reduce the scope title to Republican policies, a more neutral way to present the same thing might be "War on Women (Republican policies). Morphh (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
In case it's not clear, I generally agree with MrX, Bink and Bull. MilesMoney (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Mr. X and Bink indicated they have stronger support for War on Women than Republican War on Women. To that point, I agree with them. While I prefer alternatives, I find WoW acceptable and would oppose RWoW. Morphh (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Badmintonhist and Morphh, the article is indeed about the descriptive expression. This is not the place for in depth coverage of Republican legislation or policies, except to document where they have been pointed out as part of a war on women. Therefore they do get mention, but not truly in depth coverage. That would be best done elsewhere.
Badmintonhist, NPOV obviously covers all content. My emphasis is to point out that it does not mean we don't have content which shares a documented POV, and that article titles are not "in Wikipedia's voice" when they are clearly about that sourced POV. Misuse of "Wikipedia's voice" refers to when editors carelessly make unattributed and unsourced statements without making it clear that the content is found in RS. They should not do that without providing the sources, and when in doubt, attributing them. The statements don't necessarily need changing if sourcing is provided. They just need proper framing.
Here we don't have that problem. We have massive sourcing and attribution demonstrating that the expression is an accusation made by opponents of the GOP and its war on women. Whether the GOP considers there to be such a "war" or not is irrelevant to the point of the article. We simply document what RS have said about their actions, and document their reactions to those accusations.
The part of NPOV which requires the inclusion of responses and opposing POV is fulfilled here. As I wrote above: "NPOV requires that opposing POV be included, which would give due weight to Republican denials of the charges that their legislations which negatively affect women constitute a "war on women"." Is that clear enough? I'm not proposing that the GOP doesn't get their say in the article. They certainly should, but it must be "due weight" which does not change the subject and focus of the article.
Morphh writes: "Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that because many partisan sources use the term "Republican War on Women", that the use is neutral." That's a red herring. Of course it's not neutral. No one would be so foolish as to propose it is. The POV is not a neutral one, and if we as editors make what is not neutral into something neutral, we have violated NPOV and misrepresented the sources. We are not allowed to do that. We must use RS and represent them properly, which includes preserving their POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Brangifer, Then it would seem as if you and Binksternet have conflicting ideas as to what this article is supposed to be about. You've stated above the the article "is indeed about the descriptive expression" whereas Binksternet has consistently insisted that the article is about the Republican policies that have given rise to the expression, not the expression itself. Also (not to nitpick, but I think it is revealing) you've just referred a couple of time now to "Republican (legislation/policies) which negatively affect women." That rather indicates a mindset quite hospitable to the phrase. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a real conflict. It's only a matter of degree of emphasis. We still mention the actual legislations and policies if they have been mentioned in connection with accusations of them being a "war on women". The phrase is the primary emphasis, and the other requires a short description for establishment of context. In that sense the actual legislation does get mentioned, so Binksternet is right about that. As far as my personal POV goes, we all have them , and that is no hindrance to editing here, otherwise you wouldn't be allowed here either, and no one is suggesting that happen. We just need to stick to the sources and represent them neutrally, without any whitewashing. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Bull, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but per WP:YESPOV, we are to fairly represent different viewpoints without bias. In doing so, it is important that a POV described should not be reflected in Wikipedia voice. I think the title represents Wikipedia voice and as you state, the phrase "Republican War on Women" represents a POV and is not neutral. Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. WP:IMPARTIAL The tone of Wikipedia articles (and their titles) should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. I think using that title would clearly be endorsing the POV it represents. Morphh (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
My proposal does not violate WP:YESPOV in any manner. We keep OUR OWN biases and POV out of it. WE stay neutral by presenting the content as it is, biases and all. Our content is another matter. We must include the biases and non-neutral POV without doing them violence by changing them. Remember that NPOV refers to editorial actions and motives. It is WE who must be neutral, not the content. The content must be what it is, and Wikipedia documents lots of very non-neutral stuff. I have already explained what misuse of "Wikipedia's voice" refers to. We aren't doing that here, because the content and title are/will be based on what RS say. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
@ BullRangifer, thanks for the dignified response, but it seems to me that you are glossing over a fundamental problem of scope here. If the article is really about the expression "(Republican) War on Women" then its emphasis should be on the purveyance of the phrase rather than an extensive description of the policies/initiatives/legislation that are being negatively characterized by the phrase. Otherwise we are essentially buying into the characterization. For example if our current article titled Christmas controversy were instead titled War on Christmas and we proceeded to go into much detail on all the ways in which a generic "holiday" theme was being substituted for more specific "Christmas" themes we would essentially be buying into the idea that these changes could fairly be called a "War on Christmas." Badmintonhist (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The scope is ONLY about the Republican War on Women. Changing the title helps to keep it that way, since attempts at sabotage-by-watering-down by some editors have occurred. Such editors are not worthy to be considered wikipedians.
Each use of the phrase requires documentation, attribution, and context. That's why the various ways in which the RS use the phrase must be documented, and we can see that RS use it in many ways. They believe the GOP is attacking women on many fronts, and it is our job to document those uses. That requires mention of the different actions by the GOP which the RS see as a war on women. We follow what the RS say without glossing it over, whitewashing it, or failing to include it because we don't agree. That would be very unwikipedian. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope you're not suggesting that I'm sabotaging, watering down and not worthy to be considered a Wikipedian because I disagree with your application of the title. I would consider that a personal attack. To your point above, we present the different points of view with their respective biases but we have to attribute it. We're not talking about content though, we're talking about the title and there is no attribution for the bias in the title. It stands in WikiVoice. So we're not describing a point of view there, we're stating it. There is not proper context around the title to properly attribute it in a non-bias way as we must with content. We would do so in the article by saying "Democrats state the Republican War on Women is" or "Scott Walker repeal of the EPEA was described as part of the Republican War on Women". We can't just say "The Republican War on Women is" without attributing that description as a point of view - it's in WikiVoice. Similarly, we shouldn't do so in the title. I'm not trying to sabotage or any such nonsense - I just disagree on how the point of view applies to the title. Morphh (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I wasn't referring to you, but to the past history of this article. Attempts to game the system have occurred. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Morphh, WP:YESPOV gives two relevant instructions here: (1)"If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Which makes attribution of these opinions necessary. (2) "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." Which means we should be paying attention to how prevalent is the view that there is a War, and how prevalent opposing views are. --As for the name, there is no real reason to seek a neutral title. The suggestion of WP:YESPOV is to keep the names that are "likely to be well recognized by readers", "even though some may regard it as biased". The suggested remedy is to "mention alternative names and the controversies over their use". Dimadick (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the point of the above Holocaust example. In the case of expressions such as "War on Women" and "War on Christmas" millions of folks find them so absurd they don't bother to comment. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You're getting into the real world conflicts here, and that's a bit off topic. (It is ironic that the same people who believe the one are the same ones who think the other is absurd... ) While it's okay to have our own POV, we shouldn't let them dictate how we edit or what we oppose or approve. We should let policy do that. Where our varying POV can help is that we come from different places, and therefore are more likely to know different RS which might be useful. That's why the best articles are written through intense collaboration between editors who hold opposing POV. They enable each other to get that POV documented properly in the article (assuming the POV is found in RS).-- Brangifer (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
According to polls, the viewpoint that there is a "Republican War on Women" is a minority viewpoint (about one third). Morphh (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know which polls you're talking about (not that it would make any difference here), but "[a] May 2012 Kaiser Family Foundation poll[2] found that 76 percent of women believed there were efforts to "limit women's reproductive health choices and services" with 31 percent believing it to be wide-scale and 45 percent believing that certain groups are taking such actions. In the same poll, 42 percent of women and men have said they have taken some action in response to what they heard about regarding reproductive health issues.[145]" -- Brangifer (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
That's correct (even taken at the hight of debate). What is described as "War" is a wide-scale attack on Women's rights. 'War On Women' Only Seen By Third Of Female Poll Respondents. While the term covers many individual policy initiatives, it is the totality of the policies and the significant rise in the Republican efforts that is considered "War". That's what the term implies. Morphh (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
If you only take the title, one could get the wrong impression. Read the article you cite and the actual source from Kaiser. My comment quotes from our article which uses both sources. The article you cite actually states: "The survey, conducted by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care research organization, found that 31 percent of women believe there is an ongoing and "wide scale effort to limit women's reproductive health choices and services." A larger portion, 45 percent, believe that some groups are actively working against female health services, but that the effort is not quite "wide scale." " Put together that equals 76% who see a war on women. The difference is only to what degree they see it. That article's title is very POV slanted. To say that a minority of anything is "only", and ignore the vast majority, is rather disingenuous. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I've read the article. Degree is an important aspect of what the phrase describes. It's also important with regard to what each group attributes to action. The 31 percent said that there is "currently" a wide scale effort to limit. The 45% say some groups "would like to limit" but it's not wide scale. That can mean a lot - most people think religious institutions would like to limit certain women's rights, and we wouldn't be labeling that as the War on Women. There is also part of those figures that think it's a good thing or a bad thing. It looks like you're projecting your own views on to their data. Go to the actual Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation survey and it has a section Do Women Think There is a "War" on Women's Heath?, where it states the 31%. Also note that we're just including the women for this figure. It drops to 28% for men. I'm just relaying what it says, don't shoot the messenger - our views on it are irrelevant. In either case, we need to be neutral with regard to how we present the viewpoints. Morphh (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The changes Bull made were a huge improvement. Rather than cherry-picking one number and presenting it in a biased way, he summarized neutrally and comprehensively. Let is stand. MilesMoney (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
My comments were not directed at Bull's changes. Though the sources do support labeling the 31% as the War on Women. And I think Bull was just lecturing me above about presenting the POV of the source. Morphh (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Badmintonhist, Bullrangifer is correct regarding the lack of contradiction in our two stances. I keep saying that the topic focus is the Republican initiatives and not the phrase, but this is because I definitely do not want the phrase to be used as a lever to bring in material which is not about the recent election accusations of Republican initiatives being seen as limiting women's rights. If I were writing this article, I would certainly discuss the phrase's history and usage where the RSes also discussed it. I would not, however, hunt further afield to find Islamic or other cases. These should be treated as "See also" since they are off-topic. Binksternet (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Per Morphh's most recent comments, I actually do not have a problem with the title "Republican War on Women" PROVIDED that the article actually focuses on the expression itself, the policies only as they "inspire" the expression, and so alerts the reader from the outset. Reading Binksternet's and Brangifer's comments here, HOWEVER, I don't see this as much of a possibility. Bink says that article is about Republican policies. Brang says the article is about the expression, but then says that he doesn't really disagree with Bink. That tends to leave us with the worst of all POV worlds in which the most biased of titles is used to denote recent GOP initiatves, which are then described in significant detail and always, of course, on the defensive against a charge of being a "War on Women." Moreover, the article would be Wikipedia's basic statement on those policies, the one that readers looking up say "Republican policies toward women" would be redirected to. Again, a POV nightmare. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Disagree. The Republican initiatives identified as limiting women's rights are the proper focus of the article, with the expression itself discussed in context, according to RSes. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Badmintonhist, I don't see those concerns as a problem, because no one is suggesting the focus or content be changed in any different direction. The title change wouldn't affect that at all. The title would be specific and accurate, not vague and open to misuse, as it is now.
Moreover, "... the article would [NOT] be Wikipedia's basic statement on those policies,..." We provide "main" links to existing articles where those topics are dealt with in depth, and usually not in connection with the "war on women", but in a more general sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I find it odd that MrX and Bink say they support two possible options (current title being primary), and oppose over 10 others presented. (Nothing against them expressing their views - I accept their critique) But, A few of us oppose one of those two titles (the least supported one), but support or favor the other 10+ and it turns into a big dispute and get bashed as white-washing, bias, sabotaging, non-wikipedians. WTF? Morphh (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
How is it that 10+ suggestions for article names are not as popular as one or two perfectly good names? Maybe the 10+ names are not so good—certainly the quantity does not help them. If you thought there was a snowball's chance of changing the article's title, you would have started a move request. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think what we have here is a process failure and probably some raw nerves. Arguments are being repeated and no obvious consensus for change seems to emerging. May I suggest that someone review the last 6 months of these discussions and create a list of the titles, each of which at least three editors support. Then, present them here and create an RFC (or even a straw poll) allowing users to choose the title that they most favor with a brief reason, and a separate section for threaded discussion? I would be happy to do the research and create the RfC, if others agree that this would lead us out of this morass. - MrX 14:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
That wasn't my point Bink. Of course, the quality is subjective and I haven't started a move request because I'm not one of the editors pushing for a title change. I only offered title suggestions as a point of compromise, while opposing some myself. I think MrX hit it on the head. Morphh (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I support the idea in User:MrX's last post above. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

42% of men

Regarding the sentence "In the same poll, 42 percent of women and men have said they have taken some action in response to what they heard about regarding reproductive health issues", @Morphh: said that the source mentions men, but I'm not seeing it at all. I do now see it in the PDF though. Wanted to see if I'm missing something in the original link before adding that PDF as a source instead. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they were using the source we were discussing above from the Huffington Post. So I was looking at that. It's named "huffpo1" in our refs is you wanted to link it. Morphh (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I'll use that and the PDF. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It's the last paragraph of the HuffPost ref, so no absolute need for the PDF, but it won't hurt either. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Last sentence of "Abortion restrictions"

As it currently stands the last sentence of the "Abortion restrictions" subtopic is misleading. Yoest and Burke of Americans United for Life are clearly using the phrase "War on Women" (which they place between quotation marks) mockingly in their Wall Street Journal op-ed, the source for our sentence. We, however, are not conveying this to the reader. Instead, our sentence appears to say that they are soberly acknowledging that a war on women IS taking place. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I see the problem, but I don't agree that their use of "declared war on women" is necessarily ironic. Perhaps we should simply quote them: Yoest and Burke wrote, "Indiana is being threatened with the loss of federal funding for health care and being held up to scorn as having "declared war on women." " (or something like that)- MrX 19:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be better. Thanks. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_on_women/Archive_5&oldid=928107433"