Talk:War on women/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The topic entry is legitimate but the content is severely biased

The very first line of the article says the phrase "War On Women" "used is to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights."

My comments:

1. The initiatives in question are not specifically Republican, but even at that this phrase charges a political party with declaring war.
2. The sources cited to substantiate this are clearly of a political persuasion and are, well, angry in tone - not neutral
3. The greater violation here is the conclusion that abortion is a woman's reproductive right. This is contested by many. It us a statement of opinion

There are numerous violations like this throughout the article, but this will suffice to explain my addition of the POV flag,

The article could be useful and neutral if it described "politically conservative" views that are "perceived by political opponents" to "limit women's freedoms," or something to that effect. But the article's sources need to be reworked as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, at least with your 3rd point. I just happen to read this (still on my watchlist) and I read that first line. We debated a while ago and it was a consensus that we can not state as a fact in Wikivoice that the initiatives restrict women's rights. That is an opinion and must be reflected as such. Extremely bias. It use to say this " used by some political and social advocates to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that they see as restricting women's rights". That is accurate. This change by IP 141.70.11.96 completely violated NPOV and no one fixed it. Morphh ^(talk) 13:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Morphh - Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as "used by some political and social advocates to describe judicial initiatives in federal and state legislatures that they see as restricting women's rights?" I say this because there are abortion supporters in the Republican party and abortion opponents in other parties. I believe that the initiatives are perceived as acts of war, not specifically a party. For instance, if a conservative or centrist Democrat or a right-leaning Libertarian took - or said they would take - such judicial actions they would also be perceived as waging war on women by those who strongly support abortion. Am I off base here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• IP user, your quarrel seems to be with the sources and the topic, rather than with how Wikipedia is presenting them. There isn't much we really can do about that. Yeah, it's presumably unpleasant to hear the meme that one's party is engaged in a war, but that doesn't mean that we can either make up Democratic initiatives that would also be part of the topic (we can't make stuff up, or relate it to the topic if sources don't) or remove the mention of Republicans (because that does a disservice to the reader, who might not know that Republicans are by and large the anti-abortion party, for instance). For the sources, can you identify specific ones that you have an issue with? Perhaps we can try to replace them with better ones. For your last point (hi Morphh, too), maybe we can find a compromise wording. "That opponents see as restricting women's rights, especially reproductive rights" seems like a poor choice of words because the question isn't whether the laws do restrict reproductive rights (or the right to equal pay, protection from domestic violence/rape, etc.) but whether, according to supporters of the laws, reproductive rights, equal pay, protection from domestic violence/rape are rights. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

As to the basic definition, from many of the sources it cuts across party lines. That could more reflect the success of the phrase from one side in defining the debate but like Roscelese said that is the reality of the sources. Likewise I'm sure there are "biased" phrases coming from the other side which have a similar effect. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Roscelese, my quarrel is not with the topic. I tried to make that clear by beginning the title of this discussion "The topic entry is legitimate..." The phrase "war on women" is legitimately part of the United States today and thus deserves mention. But it is the initiatives rather than a political party that are perceived as offensive. Stances of political parties change over time. For example, to my knowledge it is uncontested that the Republican Party pioneered the right of women to vote and consistently supported it throughout the long campaign. Had the "war on women" phrase been popular at the time those initiatives would have been seen as countering the war on women, an if the same party also officially supported abortion then abortion initiatives would have also been seen as supporting the war on women. I draw from history here only to demonstrate my reason for saying that (1) Political parties change their official stances, and are frequently inconsistent,and (2) It is initiatives rather than parties that are perceived as attacks. So in my way of thinking, the statement is most unbiased and accurate by simply removing the phrase "Republican Party," which places the focus on initiatives.

You did point out well that what is contested among individuals is whether certain things are "rights." So, combine the end of my last paragraph with this and I would propose "War on Women is an expression in United States politics, primarily used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures which opponents see as restricting women's choices, especially reproductive choices." -IP User (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed wording has the same problem. The initiatives do restrict abortion, equal pay, etc. Writing "the initiatives are seen as..." seems to suggest that it's, I don't know, like the way in which opponents of contraception or marriage equality see marriage or contraception coverage as restricting their religious freedom, where that's not actually what the law does. Can we find another wording that conveys that this is actually what the laws do while accommodating your neutrality concerns?

Re voting, etc. that isn't really relevant. As we well know, party platforms today aren't the same as what they used to be. I don't think removing "Republicans" is a good idea because it obscures a basic fact about these initiatives: that they are generally promoted by one party. Again, one may very well agree with efforts to limit contraceptive access, etc. and if one does, it sucks that it gets called a "war," but removing the party information doesn't help anyone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, first I meant to remove "Republican party" from my suggested wording and forgot. Maybe that was obvious, but I want to be clear. What I intended to suggest in my last comment was this: "War on Women is an expression in United States politics, primarily used to describe initiatives in federal and state legislatures which opponents see as restricting women's choices, especially reproductive choices."

But you make a good point that the initiatives do restrict, rather than a perceived to restrict. With careful wording I think "are perceived to" can be removed while maintaining neutrality. Here is one suggestion: "War on Women is an expression in United States politics, primarily used to describe initiatives in federal and state legislatures which limit women's choices, especially choices regarding contraceptives and abortion." I believe this is a neutral, factual, and appropriately thorough introductory sentence.

I think you overlooked something important, however, when you wrote "...voting, etc. that isn't really relevant. As we well know, party platforms today aren't the same as what they used to be. I don't think removing 'Republicans' is a good idea because it obscures a basic fact about these initiatives: that they are generally promoted by one party." You agree with me that party platforms change, yet you want to leave in a statement about a particular party's platform. That makes the article not enduring. I am not an expert on Wikipedia's rules and standards. I am certain you are because you are very involved. I just do occasional anonymous edits when I see something as a reader. But I would guess that "enduringness" is part of it.

So please let me close with a direct question. What, if anything, is flawed in this opening sentence? "War on Women is an expression in United States politics, primarily used to describe initiatives in federal and state legislatures which limit women's choices, especially choices regarding contraceptives and abortion." -IP User (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk)

"Women's choices" over "rights" seems an odd and idiosyncratic wording, but let's see what other users think - I think I would suggest "opportunities," though. Re enduringness, the article topic is actually quite time-limited (these are specifically initiatives being promoted in the past few years, not, say, anti-contraception laws from decades ago) so it's not wrong for our description of it to reflect that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

IP, the goal of this article is to attack Republicans now for political purposes. Historical accuracy is of limited value. Arzel (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, You correctly pointed out that there is disagreement over whether or not certain things - abortion or Morning After pills, for example - are rights. You suggested "opportunities." "Opportunities" is a pro-leaning word. For example, if you believe that the abortion debate is about a woman being able to make choices about her own body, you might think of abortion as a right or opportunity. If you believe abortion is murder you would agree that abortion is a choice, but you wouldn't call it an opportunity any more than you would call a mother murdering her born child an opportunity. Both sides agree it is a choice, but both sides wouldn't call it a right or opportunity. Both sides would agree that the initiatives remove a woman's right to choose an abortion. So "choose" seems to be the most neutral word here. I agree that other voices are important in this discussion. I do appreciate the way you communicate. -IP User (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Choices" is not a particularly good description of the other issues, however; equal pay and protection from DV might be described as "opportunities," a little awkwardly but not entirely wrongly, while "choices" doesn't describe those well at all. Hmmm. Does "women's rights, especially [reproductive choices" work for you, or do you feel that describing equal pay/DV stuff etc. as "women's rights" is an issue? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, You make a good point that "choices" doesn't fit well with issues like equal wages, and I still believe "opportunities" doesn't fit well with abortion in a neutral way. You asked about the phrase "reproductive choices." I believe those who are against abortion would say it is not a choice to reproduce - from their perspective the woman has already reproduced - and would say it is a choice to terminate a life. Of course to those who favor abortion freedom, it is a reproductive choice. But both sides consider it a choice to have an abortion. It is really important to me that Wikipedia maintains neutrality in articles that come so close to very hot issues. Otherwise I would probably not exhaust both of us by examining wording at such a granular level. I guess it could read this way: "War on Women is an expression in United States politics that is used to describe initiatives in federal and state legislatures which are perceived to limit women's choices and rights. Examples of such initiatives include those related to abortion, wage equality, and protection from domestic violence." This doesn't flow as well as I would like - maybe someone can fix it. -IP User (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk)

Maybe (it may be unduly foregrounding issues that were less prominent than reproductive ones - note that contraception has been a major issue too). Let's see what others say :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a touchy thing but I think we're ok for now. MilesMoney (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

(Unindent) I agree with this edit. The sources fail to support that "War on Women" is waged by the Republican Party only. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That's just not true. Let's come to consensus before changing the lead sentence to eliminate any mention of Republicans. The sources support that the War on Women is a legislative agenda pushed by Republicans. I have been through almost all of the references on this article and do not recall a single reliable source describing the War on Women as a bipartisan or Democratic endeavor. WP:V requires that we rely on sources and not our own suppositions. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 23:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but wouldn't it be prudent to use at least some citations accross the sources, in order to fully support the beginning sentences? It seems like we are synthesizing too much what the sources say without expressingly and fully citing. On my end all I see from the four sources brought is this, an article which reports a Democrat convention. Hardly an unbiased source. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. Lead sections should give an introduction to the topic, summarizing the key aspects. Often we don't even use references in the lead, as everything should be sufficiently sourced in the body of the article, but in this case, I think because this article discusses such a contentious topic, there is a tendency to provide more references than we might need. If you have another source that supports the current language and would like to see it added or have it replace another reference, I think that could be fine. And of course if there is a specific reference that you feel is too biased, you're welcome to bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard. The specific citation that you are calling out as 'hardly unbiased' though, is a Reuters piece (not a press release from the DCCC) that describes how some Congresspeople characterized the war on women at their convention. I think that source supports the language we are using ("primarily used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights"). Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 00:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll grant that the source is reliable. But it's a primary source. What distinguishes a primary source from a secondary source is how the author distances themselves from the event and how it will give an analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, and concepts. In our case this is a typical primary source, and, since it cannot fullfill these criteria hardly properly supports the lede. We should use primary sources on Wikipedia with lots of care. In absence of good secondary sources, I'd rather have a short lede, than have a lede that is not properly supported, or is supported by weak primary sources, i.e. media news, which makes the article itself weak, and vulnerable. An article that lacks stability because of lede issues, is problematic. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reuters is not a primary source. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case it is for the reasons I highlighted above. Do you think it is not because 1) you feel like there is some thought poured in the article by the author? (I don't see any btw, the author, in my opinion keeps us in the dark as to what he/she thinks and is merely reporting what happened in the convention) 2) because the source is reliable? (this would not be sufficient for the source to be primary, and, again, reliability of the source is a different concept from its classification into primary, secondary or tertiary) or 3) for some other reason? --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Gobnobo, we have evidence of pundits using it to describe Democrats as well, and it exists in the article. To say "it's not true" that it's been used in a bipartisan fashion is false. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

IP User, why would things like equal pay and abortions be "choices" rather than rights? And it's not exactly in dispute which party is attempting to remove them. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

My primary concern all along has been that this article depicts the phrase "War On Women" as an objective description of fact rather than a subjective interpretation of events. Focusing on the lead sentence: I am less concerned with the inclusion of the phrase "Republican Party" than I am other aspects of the sentence. I will break it down more precisely here:

"War on Women is an expression in United States politics" - No firm objection here, but the statement might be more balanced by utilizing the phrase "an expression in United States Democratic Party politics." Doing so would help the article's title look less like an objective fact and make it clearer that this is one party's perception of another's policies.

"primarily used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures" - I have shifted on this. I am OK with leaving this phrase if other suggested changes are incorporated. I had to better understand my own concern, viz., that one political party was depicted as objectively warmongering. These discussions have helped. I've realized that it is not the inclusion of the party name, but the words surrounding that inclusion, which create this tone.

"that restrict women's rights" - The "rights" described in the article are not objectively rights. In fact, as is explained at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rights, there is little denotative meaning to "rights." This is my reason for preferring the word "choices" or something like it. An abortion, for example, is objectively a choice. It is not objectively a right.

"especially reproductive rights." - This in particular is problematic according to my remarks above. Abortion, as an example, is not objectively a right. But neither is it objectively a "reproductive" anything at all. Some would call it a reproductive choice. Others would call it a choice that is made after reproduction. I would concede with reservation to "reproductive choices," though. Better would be a few more words: "that restrict... women's choices regarding birth control and abortion." But as Roscelese correctly pointed out, "choices" doesn't work well with issues like the definition of rape or how violence against women is prosecuted. I'll leave that to someone else to work through. hopefully, though, I've made clear my neutrality concerns and at least began a move toward more reasonable, neutral wording.

[Note: I added this comment at 18:28, 22 August 2013‎. User Binksternet notified me that I deleted other comments in the process, which he restored. I greatly apologize and am not sure how I did that. I think it may have been that I began writing the comment yesterday afternoon but completed and submitted it this afternoon. I could see that wiping out anything added in between. I’m new at this. Lesson learned.I wouldn’t be opposed to gentle guidance as to how to avoid doing this again.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk)

I'm not getting into the particulars, but we must qualify that the restriction of women's rights is an opinion held by the opponents of the legislation. The proponents reject this opinion, suggesting they are protecting the rights of the child (thus opponents would be "restricting those rights"). Likewise any of the other legislative initiatives can be manipulated to present the case of inappropriate spending of tax payer funds (which could be funded by other means) or to other health initiatives that even protect women's health (like North Carolina's recent law to improve abortion clinic standards). It's all political word smithing and we can not (per policy) state an opinion as fact and choose one side as correct. It is our job to state the opinion objectively and qualify it. I'm agreeable to other wording, but stating this as fact is not acceptable. Morphh ^(talk) 13:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, we need to find a way of satisfying your neutrality concerns vis-à-vis "rights" without obscuring the fact that the laws are aimed at doing the things opponents accuse them of doing. (If that makes sense? What I'm trying to convey is that there's a difference between this scenario and "opponents of same-sex marriage say it restricts their religious freedom. These laws actually do restrict contraception, abortion, equal pay, etc. - the issue is that some people don't think equal pay etc. is a right.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see your post before reverting again, or I would have replied first. You're coving this with a generic factual statement, which is completely POV. You're correct regarding the term "right", but it goes further than that. Is reducing tax payer funding of an abortion clinic or birth control restricting? Maybe.. Might depend on the definition of "access". What if they get private funding instead to supplement costs? Is it restricting your right if the tax payer doesn't fund it even if it's still available? So if I have to pay for something myself, then I'm what, restricted or prevented access from that service? Is any subsidy given then a "restriction" if reduced? It's opinion and it depends. I'm not an opponent of abortion, birth control, or women getting equal pay, but you have to see through all the spin - this is an opinion, part of a continued political campaign to show one side as anti-woman. Not to say that this doesn't have real effects, but those effects are disputed, conflicting, and diverse. Morphh ^(talk) 17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Morphh on this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

For Republicans to say that this is a "war on caterpillars" is to deny there is any effort to restrict women's rights by these laws. It's opinion and everyone here knows that the proponents of these laws do not agree with the statement that it restricts women's rights. This is a political term and we have to treat it with that context. Morphh ^(talk) 17:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had an idea of going in another direction - retaining the current text but adding a sentence or two to the lede about the motivation for such initiatives, eg. preventing contraception usage or abortion, what they see as bureaucracy or threats to business, etc. That way, we're not suggesting, your concern may be, that these laws are being passed with the goal of limiting women's rights. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise if we can agree on the language. I'd be on board. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That might help, but I don't see that it addresses the issue. It's still an opinion stated as fact. It's debatable that not giving a women something for free is considered a restriction or prevention of access, even when fully available on the market. This thinking led to the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. Democrats tend to say something is restricted or banned when what is being discussed is public funding or forced participation. You could also look at instances of mandatory ultrasound, which doesn't restrict access, but might be considered to limit choice of not having one. We get into defining terms and fuzzy lines - we could go down each one of these and argue the points on if it is actually a "restriction" or "limiting" and by who's measure (and if alternative solutions would restore said "access"), but it's unnecessary as we know that Republican's do not agree with this statement of fact. It's an opinion. Morphh ^(talk) 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Morphh is saying essentially what I've been trying to say all along, but as a veteran WP editor, so maybe in more recognizable language or tone to the rest. but he problem is that the article's own title "War on Women" is itself an opinion stated as fact. So any attempt to maintain neutrality in its description will necessarily require the use of many phrases like "perceived as," avoidance of emotionally and opinionatedly charged words like "rights" and "restrict," and careful balancing of the mention of sides such as "Democrats perceive Republicans to be..." A topic with a title like this one requires extra care. I don't think anyone would say that the "War on Women" is objectively a war to the degree that, say, the WWII or the American Revolutionary War were wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The title falls under WP:POVNAME and I wouldn't consider it a statement. It just describes the article topic with the most commonly used title. In the article itself though, you are correct in how we need to address the opinions. Per WP:YESPOV we should not state an opinion as fact and need to qualify them. The example they provide is "For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."" Stating the initiatives "restrict women's rights" is clearly an opinion on multiple levels as we discuss above. At the risk of WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA, a perhaps equally biased statement might be that it is "used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that protect fetal rights and religious freedom". It's POV and an opinion. It can be fixed by qualifying it "that they view as protecting" and adding balance "but opponents believe they restrict women's rights". I'm not suggesting this as the phrasing, just making a point of how we have to qualify and balance the language. The article is very one sided and it starts with the first sentence. Morphh ^(talk) 14:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I get why you're suggesting that, but it seems like it wouldn't work because the legislation in various fields is united as a topic only by its limiting women's rights or being perceived as limiting women's rights (ie. Republicans didn't go "here's our 14 point program for protecting fetal rights and religious freedom"). Maybe the mentioning the reasons for the initiatives in the lead is a non-starter after all, I don't know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely concur with you, Morphh. And I wasn't precise enough when I pointed to the subjectivity of the title in my last comment. I wasn't criticizing the title. I meant to be saying that the phrase (which serves as the title) is a subjective statement and that is why extra precautions must be taken. The title is as it should be. but because the phrase "War On Women" is interpretive and subjective, we need to work extra hard on objectivity in the article - doing the very things you are suggesting here and in the following discussion. I compared this subjective war with WWII, etc. But a better example would be comparing "War on Women" with "War on Terror." The latter is used by its proponents. The former by its opponents. This changes the dynamics and challenges of objective description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.104.115.114 (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, right... I was just proving a point. I agree "perceived as limiting women's rights" is the uniting topic and I'd be fine with that phrasing. My objection is to the statement of fact (as if we had a crystal ball) that "all" such initiatives would "restrict" (in an open market with various funding possibilities) women's "rights" (if they are rights). It's a very biased statement. Republican's reject these arguments and from what I can tell in polling of such restrictions, it's a minority opinion.[1] They can be "viewed as", "argued as", "perceived as" being restrictive to women's rights. It's a point of view and we can accurately present that opinion as part of the definition. The other aspects go to your point about goals. We can include the Republican intent for such initiatives and that they don't agree that it restricts a woman's right in many cases, or that when it does, they believe the right to life of the child overrides the woman's right to choose at some point in the pregnancy term (or other factors such as sex-selection). Let's keep in mind that the Americans are fairly split on pro-life or pro-choice and appear supportive of such initiatives.[2] Based on this and the minority view that there is a "War on Women", per WP:YESPOV and WP:WEIGHT, this article should focus more evenly on these viewpoints, but it's primarily one sided. Morphh ^(talk) 16:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You've been getting into some of your issues with the term "restrict," so this may not be good either, but I'll toss it out anyway: initiatives that restrict reproductive health access, domestic violence protection, &c. and other things which opponents of the initiatives classify as women's rights? Seems convoluted and "things" is bad, aaahhh. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ya, that just shifted the statement of fact from women's rights to the other terms. The term restrict, or whatever we choose, needs to be qualified as an opinion. I'm fine with saying they "restrict women's rights" so long as it is preceded by a qualifier indicating it is an opinion, such as "perceived as" (as you did above), "argued as", "viewed as" or some other variation that indicates it's a viewpoint. Morphh ^(talk) 17:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am unreasonably worried about people getting confused about what the laws actually do. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We have the rest of the lead and article body to put forward the debate regarding what the laws do and the opinions regarding their goals and effects. Looking at the sources for the first sentence, they don't really provide a great sourcing for the definition (some barely mention the term or don't define it). Perhaps we need to look at this differently. The Huffington Post in this article actually makes a distinction regarding the term "War on Women" as a wide scale effort to limit women's health choices and services, distinct from the belief that some groups are actively working against female health services. This would make sense for using the term "War". It also uses the term "groups", which could be more than Republicans (one of our current sources for the lead sentence specifically says waged by "religious organizations"[3]). The context of War on Women is not used to describe a specific initiative or bill, but the entirety - the wide scale effort as they put it. We still have to phrase this to indicate that the War on Women is an opinion, but then we can go in to describe the laws consider as part of the War and the point of views regarding their goals and effects. Perhaps this is a more appropriate way to lead into the topics and will provide an easier transition to qualify the viewpoints being debated. Morphh ^(talk) 15:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The idea that the title refers to the perception of a large-scale effort makes sense, but I'm not sure that it does solve the problem with "rights," etc. Do you have any wording in mind? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe something like... "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe the perception of a wide scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights. Prominent Democrats and feminists have used the phrase to criticize religious organizations and Republican Party initiatives as trying to force their social views and religious beliefs on a general public through legislation." Morphh ^(talk) 16:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a really good start. To avoid saying that it's used to describe the perception, maybe "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used by prominent Democrats, feminists [and the media?] who perceive a large-scale-effort by religious organizations and the Republican Party to restrict women's rights"? It gets convoluted and definitely needs more work but you get the idea, is that a step forward? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm Here are some issues I see with it. In my first sentence, we don't get into who uses the term on whom. I prefer this as your sentence introduces the who as a statement of definition, which leads to trying to insert [media] or any other group that may use the term. X & Y criticize A & B - now it becomes a statement that is inherently subjective, since X could also be the subject of charge, or A could charge A - it's no longer a true statement unless we introduce terms that qualify it like "primarily" or "usually". My second sentence is more direct as it states these groups have used the phrase (true), without getting into who else might have used it or who else might have been charged with it. There is no need for qualification. It's not part of the definition - it's just a primary example of the use of the definition, if that makes sense. Also, while they're probably synonymous, I rather use the term "wide scale effort" as defined in the source rather than choosing our own term "large-scale-effort". That way we can easily point to the source as the reference for that terminology. Morphh ^(talk) 20:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think your criticisms are right. Better idea: "the wide-scale effort, as perceived by some" and then we get into who in the next sentence or so. I'm just looking for an alternative to "used to describe the perception," which seems inaccurate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with that wording. Here is another that might be more succinct. "War on Women is an expression in United States politics of a perceived wide-scale effort ..." Morphh ^(talk) 21:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As for the "rights" issue, I could go either way on it. I sort of see it as a common term that describes several issues, and while it can be read literally, we could argue that it falls under acceptable use of WP:POVNAMING. Alternatively, I'd be fine if we wanted to address the contention by doing something like "a perceived wide-scale effort to restrict women's health choices and services, often described as women's rights and especially reproductive rights." Morphh ^(talk) 23:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I had figured the "perceived" would cover the scale of the effort and the rights. Do you not agree? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ya, you're right - it should cover both fine. Morphh ^(talk) 01:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You want “perceived” in that sentence to qualify three things: Wide-scale, efforts, and rights. I don’t think it can qualify all of those words as it is currently written. Additionally, Morphh’s last offering has focused the perceived effort on women’s health issues, which would make transitioning into other topics like equal pay difficult. I am offering an alternative to that phrasing here for critique: "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe a perceived wide-scale effort to restrict what proponents believe to be women's rights, especially reproductive rights. Prominent Democrats and feminists have used the phrase to criticize initiatives by the Republican Party and religious organizations, claiming that these force social views and religious beliefs on the general public through legislation." I'm not sure about my word "proponents." "Proponents of the phrase" is what I mean, but that's pretty awkward. I just couldn't think of a cleaner way to say it. Hoping someone else can. I’ll also note that “especially reproductive rights” may not be helpful in the lede. The issues of focus can be brought out in the article. Why bring one into primary focus here? I am OK with leaving that in if others think it serves a purpose. To me it skews the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Reproductive rights issues are a core focus of the topic, so the lede reflecting this is not a bad thing. I also don't think your proposed language is very good. There is simply no reason to repeatedly distance ourselves from a phrase which we've already attributed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts at NPOV language, some of the suggested phrases seem rather vague.:

• "Prominent Democrats and feminists". What Democrats, what feminists? Any examples to demonstrate the relative prominence of the proponents? Why not "Prominent Democrats and feminists, such as x and y, have used the phrase"...
• "and religious organizations". All religious organizations or are there some individual organizations or groups of organizations specifically named? The phrase religious organization is vague enough to include anything from The Salvation Army to the Westboro Baptist Church. Dimadick (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't think I had really registered that that was a change from the current state. Actions by religious organizations haven't been said, I don't think, to be part of this, for the most part. I would suggest removing "religious organizations" and adding "effort by the Republican Party. This information was in the earlier version of the first sentence and should stay there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should get into specific attribution in the lead as it's intended to be a concise summary, provided we include the attribution in the article body. WP:WEASEL does make mention that the lead applies differently and it might get fairly wordy if we were to try to attribute specific examples of the accusers and similarly the accused participants. I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure how best to address it. The source for religious organizations is "Melinda Gates hits out at 'war on women' on eve of summit" but I don't see that it calls out any particular group. As you suggest, it's not all religious organizations, so we should probably qualify it with something like "various", "certain", or "some". We can also qualify it with their intended goal, which adds balance and narrows the accused groups. Morphh ^(talk) 13:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to explain my thoughts regarding my prior change to Roscelese's edit. I agree that Republican's are the central focus of the topic; however, I wouldn't say they're the definition of the topic as it's not exclusive (it's about the wide effort to push certain policies). They are the application of the definition - they're charged with pursuing a War on Women, but we have sources that other persons and groups are also charged with being part of this effort (certain Democrats, religious groups). I see this as problematic as it seems to imply a statement of exclusiveness that is verifiably not supportable. Stating that it is perceived helps, but we can look through this talk (even point 1 that started this topic) along with the article history and see there is a great deal of contention with inserting that in the definition and I thought we could easily resolve that with the second sentence. I thought we cover the topic of introducing whom in the definition here in which I thought Roscelese agreed with me. I don't quite understand the need to apply it there and what's equally odd is resistance to put in the equal statement that it is charged by Democrats, arguing the same exact point I'm making when removing it - we can verify other actors including other Republicans. The persistence of including it there appears unnecessary. In the end, I can live with this edit, but I expect it will create future debate. What are we losing by placing it in the second sentence which makes it clear they are being charged with a War on Women, which allows for (as I described above) other sourced scenarios? Morphh ^(talk) 17:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources simply don't support giving that amount of weight to Democrats (most of the time when Republicans try to throw the term back at Democrats it's not even about legislative or judicial initiatives at all). Upon what sources are you basing the suggestion that exclusiveness is not warranted? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The Melinda Gates linked a couple paragraphs up is one, which has been one of our lead references for a while. I'm not sure it's a matter of weight as we're not trying to introduce another viewpoint. I'm not suggesting we make it ambiguous or even mention it is charged against Democrats or these other groups. The weight of the articles you reference go more to support the application of the term, not the definition of it. You're including the who as part of the definition and I don't think that's appropriate. We have the definition, then it is applied to whomever promotes the policies, which is widely Republican policy makers. I don't think we're avoiding the obvious - we can make it clear without making it part of the definition, then if any other groups, organizations, persons, political parties also promote such policies, they are still part of the "War on Women". They're not excluded because they're not Republicans. I don't think the current edit violates our policies, so I'm not going to push too hard, but I think it would be better the other way and would avoid future conflicts of the point. Morphh ^(talk) 19:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

What you're saying seems to be, let me see if I can be clear, that "War on Women" is a common noun that can be applied to any perceived effort to limit women's rights - not just in the US, but also hypothetically in the UK, Australia, China, Saudi Arabia, wherever. (I get this impression from your use of application vs. definition.) But I think the evidence suggests that it is a proper noun that, when it is used, is used to refer to these specific Republican initiatives. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really - I'd agree that it is a proper noun and U.S. specific but it can apply to non-Republican initiatives, such as Religious organizations[4] and Democrats. While not common, it's not exclusive either. It could also apply to Conservative initiatives (we had that in the lead a week ago) or to the Tea Party, or Independents. Part of this battle seems to include lawsuits by private organizations and efforts by Catholic church. A war is more than the generals. The War on Women is about policy, otherwise, it's just a catchy phrase for one political group to attack another. Morphh ^(talk) 20:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources for more than a one-off or two-off use of the term to describe anything else? While I'm aware of the various lawsuits by private corporations that don't want to follow the laws about providing healthcare to women, their being described as part of this topic does not come to mind. We really also need more than a single source to describe it as being about religious organizations too - and incidentally that is not about American organizations. (also, Conservative/Tea Party is not actually a separate party in the US) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

More effort than I want to put into it at the moment, since the narrative in the media is certainly focused on Republicans and wading through the search results would be time consuming. Maybe someone else will take up the challenge. :) Though you haven't really said why this way is better then the other or defended it vs objecting to the other. Not sure why we're having to prove this to the point of WP:UNDUE. What is the objection to the other method? I've put forward why I don't like it, but instead of discussing the pros and cons, we're having to prove something. Not sure that's the best way to go about it. Maybe if you laid out your reasoning, I could agree on something and we'd move on, instead of sending me on a reference hunt. For example, maybe we could do something like "wide-scale effort led by Republican Party", which may address all issues. Morphh ^(talk) 21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think having it in the first sentence is important because that's what the topic is. It's not a generic term that floats around that just happens to get applied to Republicans, it's a description of Republican policy programs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough.. point of compromise I suppose. Morphh ^(talk) 21:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese and don't see how it can be properly stated like this in the lead. It is "perceived" across the political spectrum including by GOP politicians.

Likewise it is defined by virtually everyone as GOP policies (the Atlantic article being the biggest example), not just policies that happen to be done politicians that are coincidentally Republicans. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree. We were discussing the best wording and if it should be reflected as part of the base definition for what the term War on Women is or in the second sentence for how the term is used. We've already moved on and Roscelese's edit was current (thus agreeing with her would result in no change on this topic). Your edit reverted consensus to this point and a great deal of work to reach an agreeable wording. Morphh ^(talk) 13:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As for "War On Women" applying to religion and not just politics, there's an interesting article in the Washington Post here titled "All about Eve: The Christian roots of the GOP war on women," another WP article here entitled "A Catholic ‘war on women’," Tacoma, WA's The News Tribute has an article here titled "Catholic bishops just won’t give up their war on women." And a fairly quick Google of | "War on Women" Muslim| turned up a plethora of options, including this one entitled "Obama Subsidizes Egyptian War on Women." I think limiting this to the USA and to politics is shortsighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised that there was no response to my comment just above. I thought it was significant enough to at least warrant discussion. Is there a misperception that "Wa on Women" is strictly US and strictly political? Or is there something I'm overlooking here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are about topics, not (usually) words or phrases. This article is not about the phrase "war on women" (which has certainly been used in numerous unrelated contexts at various times and locations). This article is about the "expression in United States politics of a perceived wide-scale effort by Republican Party politicians to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights". Similarly, we have various articles about various topics that fit under the word "orange": the fruit, the color, various films, songs, bands, albums, political movements, organizations, locations, etc. If you find a reliable source discussing "Orange", "orange", "oranges", etc. it might be useful for one of those articles. It might not. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The IP's argument ties into what I was saying above when discussing this wording. I offered that we could probably remove such objections by placing the "who" in the second sentence, regarding how the term is widely "used", rather than part of the definition on what it "is". It seems that even in U.S. politics there are enough sources to question the exclusive definition of one group waging the "War on Women". Christian organizations are a large part of this effort, though admittedly they're not given as much weight in sources as being the actors. Morphh ^(talk) 13:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The IP is correct. The problem with SummerPhD's arguement is that the actual phrase has been used as a hammer for inclusion...so long as that phrase was being used to attack Republicans. It is a little disingenious to claim that this article is about concepts when the article was created in response to the phrase which was being uttered on a daily basis by the DNC. All of this gets back to the basic problem with this article (for which Morph has done a good job of cleaning up). This article was little more than a political meme being used by the left to attack Republicans. Arzel (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about what can be called a "political meme" (an "expression in United States politics") "used (mostly) by the left to attack Republicans" ("a perceived wide-scale effort by Republican Party politicians to restrict women's rights"). The difference between your read, Arzel, and the text we have is merely one of direction. You see it as an attack, we have it worded as a negative perception. The whole of the article covers both: use of the concept/idea/"meme" to attack/counter/accuse Republicans and the beliefs/perceptions of wide-scale effort by Republicans. Do you have a specific wording change that you feel would make both sides of this he said/she said clear? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no disingenuity here... This article does not attack but it reports the attack on Republicans. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I see neither of you actually read what I said. Arzel (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You see what you want to see. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you aren't in AGF mode, Arzel. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not completely disagree with SummerPhD [<- and I apologize for that rhyme]. We are in fact dealing with a topic (perhaps "concept" is more exact here) rather than a phrase. It is a phrase that describes a specific concept or topic. But I disagree with SummerPhD's analogy - it completely misses my point. "Orange" (the fruit) and "orange" (the color) are very different from each other. A juicy orange would still be an orange even if someone dyed it purple. The color orange wouldn't still be orange if someone mixed it with purple. So in the case of "orange," the same word is referring to different topics. However, if we were to use the analogy of "automobile," we'd say the article should include both cars and trucks. Why? Because the characteristics of each referent that makes the word appropriate to each is the same. Is that the case with the phrase "War on women" as it applies to the political beliefs and actions of some Republican politicians, and as it applies to the religious beliefs and actions of some Christians, and as it applies the religious beliefs and actions of some Muslims, for instance? In other words, is the referent the same? Would separating these be equivalent to writing separate articles titled "Orange" for the fruit and for the color, or would it be equivalent to writing separate articles titled "Automobile" for a car and for a truck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, the article is on (to use an analogy) a convertible, even if we might also call it a ragtop or cabriolet. The article is on the policies, not on the words used to describe them; personally I'd have no problem titling the article something long but descriptive ("Republican policies on women's rights in the 2000s") if something can be found (my example is not good enough). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Christian groups, we're still talking about the same policies. Morphh ^(talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not just Christian, Morph. According to my citations above it would also include Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, I disagree. The article is not about policies. It is about a phrase that is used to describe the perceptions of some about the intentions of others by their policies.

• It is not about contraception policies; It is about a phrase that is used to describe the perceptions of some about the intentions of others by their contraception policies.
• It is not about wage policies; It is about a phrase that is used to describe the perceptions of some about the intentions of others by their wage policies.

I'm not nit picking here. That is an important distinction. The only possible way that this article can be written with the current title in a neutral POV is to focus on a phrase that is used to describe the perceptions of some regarding the intentions of others. Wouldn't, then, the phrase apply equally to perceptions of relgious policies - such as those of certain religious persons or groups - given the references I provided on 17:32, 4 September 2013 above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk)

No, I understand that you're not nitpicking; I just disagree. In my view, while the policies are united as a topic by virtue of the fact that they've been identified by opponents and media sources as restricting women's rights (as Morphh and I said earlier, no one really thinks that Republicans woke up one day and said "let's violate women's rights in X, Y, and Z ways"), the topic is still the policies and not the phrase. Otherwise, we end up with something that's really unmanageable - essentially a glorified list of search results for "war on women," rather than an encyclopedic article. If there really exists the sourcing to support "war on women" being applied to another phenomenon, another article could be created. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm, being dense. Or I'm not developing my thoughts well enough. Not sure which. Allow me to explore through this question: If as you say the topic of the article is policies, in what way does its title "War on Women" objectively describe policies? My thinking is that the title objectively describes how some people perceive policies (because people with those perceptions use the term for them) but cannot objectively describe the policies themselves (because those who ascribe to the policies do not use the term for them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.249.127 (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly, I agree with your premises but not your conclusions. The title is the term that opponents and media sources use to describe the policies, but it doesn't mean that the term, rather than the policies so described, are what the article is documenting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, et al - Are we writing an article about abortion policies (for example)? Or are we writing an article about perceptions of abortion policies (for example)?--24.239.249.127 (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What's your point? What are you trying to change here? This article is about the Republican policies that have been identified by Democrats, mostly (but also Greens and others), as being so reactionary that they limit women's rights. If you want to start from the point of view that women don't have rights then you are working on some other encyclopedia. The sources are clear about what this topic encompasses. (Hint: It's not a catch-all for the occurrence of the phrase "war on women".) Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, your response was reactionary and way off base here. What in my words could possibly suggest that I "want to start from the point of view that women don't have rights?" I think I was pointing out very clearly that the political policies in question are not objectively a war on women. Therefore we can't write an article about those policies that is entitled War on Women. All we can objectively write with that title is an article about perceptions about the intentions of those policies. "War on Women" describes a perception of policies, not policies themselves.24.239.249.127 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of the observers have charted out how the so-called War on Women is actually and objectively an encroachment on women's rights, though of course it is not a war with machine guns, paratroopers and landmines. The article title "War on Women" reflects WP:COMMONNAME, which is why you see it so named. If you would like the article to be named Perceptions of a Republican War on Women or some similar formulation then you are welcome to initiate a WP:Requested move. I doubt you will get this article to move to any new name, seeing as how the existing one is so widely used. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was the IP's objection. Perhaps the IP can offer examples of what they would like to change. Sometimes just giving examples of how you would reword something can change the discussion to focusing on the content. Morphh ^(talk) 03:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You are surprising me, Binksternet, by your lack of careful reading and clear thinking. I've only read a a few of your comments elsewhere, but I don't think that is typical of you. I get the sense that you cannot maintain objectivity in this particular discussion. I understand this is a very emotional topic. If you read my other comments (Hint: I am the one that began this section of the discussion and am the only IP User that has contributed to it throughout) I think you'll see that your reactions are unwarranted. I'm especially surprised that you would say that "the so-called War on Women is actually and objectively an encroachment on women's rights." That is sloppy thinking, and you're capable of more than that.

Morphh, I agree that suggested wording is most helpful. I did that in my early comments here, but then you and Roscelese in particular stretched my thinking. These most recent comments of mine began with Roscelese's comments on 20:01, 13 September 2013. We began to delve into "what is the referent of this article." And until we know that, attempts at suggested wording are futile. I have disagreed that the article is about policies and suggested it seems more to be about perceptions of the motives behind policies. I haven't received any direct interaction with my thought process behind that. Whether or not I am correct, I believe I've at least made a reasonable (perhaps flawed) case for it. After I am clear on the referent of the article, I can better suggest wording. At the moment, I believe the referent is or "perceptions of" or "interpretations of" motives."--24.239.249.127 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

IP, please don't engage in personal attacks - it doesn't help the discussion. I think the article lead already reflects the topic is the perception of the policies - "expression in United States politics of a perceived wide-scale effort". So, I'm a little lost on where you're going (perhaps forest through the trees). Perhaps a recap of the intent so we can refocus on the content objection and how it can be improved. Morphh ^(talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, Binksternet. When I wrote those comments I didn't feel like I was making personal attacks. But after reading Morphh's comment I gave it a few days and came back. I now see that I was more personal in my words that I realized.--24.239.249.127 (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My intent in the comments prior was to support my assertions that:

1. For this entry to be objective, the referent of the article must either be a term or a subjective viewpoint. It cannot be policies, as Roscelese suggested, because those policies are not considered a War on Women by their proponents. This is where Roscelese and Binksternet differed with me and is where the discussion was before it took a turn. I assert that the article can only either define the phrase or it can describe interpretations of, or reactions to, policies by those who oppose those policies.
2. In either of those cases unless we somehow modify the title (which I am not in favor of), the article must refer to all applications of the phrase that are similar and related. This is not, as SummerPhD's suggested at 12:58 on 11 September 2013, similar to "orange" (which needs separate entries for the fruit and the color). It is more like "automobile" (which must include both cars and trucks) or "insect" (which must include both ants and beetles).

SummerPhD's also mentioned in the comment on 12:58 on 11 September 2013 that "Wikipedia articles are about topics, not (usually) words or phrases." That may be true. I am not sure. I realize this isn't Wiktionary. But I'd like to show that this article qualifies as one of the exceptions.

I searched Wikipedia for other "War on" articles to see if precedence has been set. I found War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Poverty, and War on Cancer. Each of these is dissimilar to War on Women in that the ones described as waging the war would not object to the use of the phrase. Yet these articles do help us here:

Here is the opening sentence of the War on Drugs article:

"War on Drugs is a term commonly applied to a campaign of prohibition, military aid and military intervention, with the stated aim being to define and reduce the illegal drug trade. This initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of what said governments and the UN define as illegal psychoactive drugs. The term was first used by United States president Richard Nixon, and was later popularized by the media."

'Observations':

1. It does a particularly good job, I think, of encompassing the various ways the phrase is used.
2. It explicitly states that the article is about "a term"
3. It has been flagged with a "globalize/USA" template for being too US-centric.
4. The ones setting policies and taking actions would not likely object to the use of the phrase "War on Drugs."

Here are the opening sentences of the War on Terror article.

"The War on Terror (also known as the Global War on Terrorism) is a term commonly applied to an international military campaign which started as a result of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. This resulted in an international military campaign to eliminate al-Qaeda and other militant organizations. The United Kingdom and many other NATO and non-NATO nations participate in the conflict. The phrase 'War on Terror' was first used by U.S. President George W. Bush on 20 September 2001. The Bush administration and the Western media have since used the term to signify a global military, political, lawful, and conceptual struggle..."

'Observations':

1. It likewise says it is about a "term;"
2. The one who first used popularized the phrase supported its use as an official description of his policies

Here is the opening sentence of the War on Poverty article:

"The War on Poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964."

'Observations':

1. It likewise says that the article is about a "name;"
2. The one who invented and popularized that name (Lyndon B. Johnson) was the one who also engaged in the war.

Here are the opening sentences of the War on Cancer article:

"The War on Cancer refers to the effort to find a cure for cancer by increased research to improve the understanding of cancer biology and the development of more effective cancer treatments, such as targeted drug therapies. The aim of such efforts is to eradicate cancer as a major cause of death. The signing of the National Cancer Act of 1971 by then U.S. President Richard Nixon is generally viewed as the beginning of the war on cancer, though it was not described as a "war" in the legislation itself."

'Observations':

1. This is the only of the "War on" articles that says it refers to an effort rather than a term.
2. The article connects the phrase historically to the period of President Nixon's policies, but the rest of the article also discusses non-governmental and worldwide efforts in this war.
3. The ones setting policies and taking actions would not likely object to the use of the phrase "War on Cancer."

In my comment at 17:32 on 4 September 2013 I demonstrated with plenty of links that the phrase "War on Women" is not just used in regard to US politics. It is used in regard to religious viewpoints (including at least Catholic and Islamic) and other countries (I cited an article that referenced an Egyptian War on Women).

So, my assertions - for which I covet interaction - are that:

1. This War on Women article must only be about either an interpretation of policies or about a term (I'm not settled on which and hope someone can work this out further)
2. Neutrality cannot be maintained until the article's editors are clear on its referent
3. It cannot be limited to politics because its application to religious policies/viewpoints is similar and related
4. It cannot be limited to the United States because its application to other countries is similar and related--24.239.249.127 (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what you're getting at - the only difference between this article and the other "War on..." articles is that for this article, proponents of the policies don't like the term being applied to them. I don't think that's a good enough reason to rename the article and certainly not to refocus it away from the policies into what I've previously described as a glorified list of search results for the phrase. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think the article needs renamed. I think it needs refocused. If the article is titled War on Women and is about policies, then there is a built-in assertion that the policies are a war. And we cannot do that. It is not an objective fact. The article is on the phrase, not the policies, and the phrase describes a subjective viewpoint, not an objective truth. Admittedly, it was difficult for me to pinpoint exactly what troubled me when I first read the article. It's getting clearer to me as we discuss, though. And it centers on the fact that this article is not (or should not be) about a war on women. It is about the phrase "War on Women". It is not about policies. It is about an interpretation of the intentions of people who make certain policies. These nuances affect how the article is worded. If it was about a War rather than a Phrase, the article could justifiably point to certain policies as attacks on women as easily as an article about an international war could describe a bombing as an attack on a country. But it is not that objective. The proponents of the policies believe they are doing good for women. For instance, someone who is for policies that prevent abortion or require ultrasounds will say that she hopes to save the pregnant woman from physical and emotional trauma, that she wants to preserve the lives of future women (baby girls), that she wants to prevent women from being guilty of murder, etc. She would assert that allowing abortion, or perhaps allowing abortion without the pregnant mother observing the heartbeat and movement of what she is removing from her body, is harming women. Nor would she say that abortion is a "reproductive right." She would say that it is not about reproduction - it is about terminating reproduction, and that it is not about a woman's right - it is a violation of the right of the unborn child. I apologize for having to get into the mind of an anti-abortion person here and I hope that no one steers the conversation into political debate. I did it for a purpose - to show why "war on women" can't describe policies while maintaining neutrality. It certainly can and must mention the policies that are interpreted as attacks of war, but not in a way that suggests that they are objective attacks on objective rights - only in a way that demonstrates that they are interpreted by users of the phrase as attacks on what they believe to be rights. I believe there is a lot of verbiage in the article that leaves the impression that it was written by someone who is on a certain political side and has certain viewpoints about the issues. But before delving into examples of those, can we agree on what I've said so far in this particular comment?--24.239.249.127 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I can agree on what you've said here. Morphh ^(talk) 15:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I simply don't think the article asserts that these policies are a war. We state that they are perceived in this way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right now it says "an expression in United States politics of a perceived wide-scale effort". No question about it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I agree with what you two are saying as well. :) An example of where the article is missing the mark on how it describes the phrase / expression would be helpful to understand the problems. Morphh ^(talk) 18:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Perceived" "wide-scale" and "politicians" in lead

I don't see any evidence from any sources saying it's "perceived," "wide-scale" or just by "politicians" as opposed to the Republican Party as whole. Most definitions, especially in The Atlantic article, say that it is a series of policies by the GOP. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The very first source referenced defines the perception (what is seen) of a War on Women as a "wide scale effort to limit women's reproductive health choices and services." It's one of the few sources, maybe the only, that actually defines the term and makes a distinction as to its scope. Other sources, like the Atlantic, are just describing how it is used, even how the Republicans are using the term in the Atlantic article. We're describing a point of view regarding policies - the Atlantic described it as "messaging". You can also see the aspects of perception in regard to phrasing such as "policies she characterized as against women's interests". It's not an actual War, it's the perception of a wide-scale attack on Women's rights that we express as War. We've covered this topic already in prior discussions and come to a consensus on that wording. The prior phrasing was bias, had numerous objections from many users, and violated NPOV. We've reached an agreeable compromise on it, please, let's move on. As for the "who", I'm not sure it will change but we're still discussing aspects of that, but many sources also describe Christian groups as part of the War on Women. I think it passes POV because we're still describing a perception, which can focus on Republicans, but there are enough sources that point to other groups to question this explicit specification as part of the definition. Morphh ^(talk) 02:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

First, the specific poll in the article is what is cited, not the definition of it and second, regardless of whether it is "perceived" or "real," the definition is not about how perceived it is, but rather what it is:

• Associated Press: "The differences between Obama and Romney on some "war on women" issues were stark. Obama vowed to require insurance companies to cover birth control, preserve federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and protect access to abortion."
• US News and World Report: "...the legislative assault on women's reproductive freedom on both the state and federal levels since the Republican wave of 2010."
• The Atlantic: "[the War on Women] was an argument about Republican policies on women..."
• ACLU: "The "War on Women" describes the legislative and rhetorical attacks on women and women’s rights taking place across the nation."
• National Organization for Women: "And now we face an all-out war on women's reproductive rights and their ability to access health care."

And almost any source that assigns who is behind it, puts it on the entirety of the GOP. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at "War on Christmas", it says, "The expression 'War on Christmas' has often been used to denote Christmas-related controversy in the media". So it's not described as a perception or having anything to do with a perception. It's described as the term used to refer to something, in this case a controversy. The War on Women is a term used to refer to a number of Republican-led policies that restrict women's rights, including to contraception, abortion, workplace equality and so on. The policies are real, not perceived. The "war" idiom is what's used to refer to this group of policies.

Based on this, the lede should start with:

"War on Women is an expression in United States politics that refers to the wide-scale effort by Republican Party politicians to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights."

This effort is real; these are actual laws, so we can't call them perceived, unless that's what our sources insist on. But they don't. Obama's people define it as "Republican attempts to limit women’s access to mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, and contraception" and nobody can honestly deny that these attempts are real. The Republicans are unhappy about it being cast as a war, but that's not relevant. We should add that the Republicans deny that these policies constitute a war, but we can't pretend the policies are imaginary or perceived or whatever. MilesMoney (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was saying, my only problem is with the "wide-scale" aspect, for one, it's used in a single poll and is not denoted by that only source as the definition. Likewise it's largely a value judgement that almost no source actually makes. I'll add in that definition to start off. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, it's not like we gotta get it perfect the first time around, but this is a good start, or at least a step forward. MilesMoney (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we're stating an opinion that these policies restrict women's rights. Obviously, Republicans deny this. For example, is it a "right" to begin with? Must something be subsidized by the government (i.e. contraception) or it poses a "restriction" - thus any free market product is a restriction on your right if someone else doesn't pay for it? The entire concept of what the "War on Women" describes is a POV and must follow NPOV and describe it as an opinion. Pointing to websites that hold that point of view and suggesting based on this that it's a fact is just absurd. There are plenty of sites that describe this as a viewpoint, to include Cartoon Diablo's source above to the Atlantic. We can't say it describes or refers to a restriction on women's rights, because this is an opinion, not a statement of fact. We can say that it describes or refers to what some argue is a restriction on women's rights. It's a perception of those suggesting the term, that there is a wide scale attack on women's rights. The perception terminology accurately reflects the viewpoint. It's not a perception about the existence of the bills - it's a perception on the effect of those bills. It's also a perception regarding the size and scope of the "effort". Morphh ^(talk) 15:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo and MilesMoney, I actually think (per discussion earlier) that "wide-scale effort to" is a good way of sidestepping whether the policies do or do not actually restrict women's rights, that can satisfy all editors. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I can see wide-scale effort but it most definitely not "perceived" by any of the sources, by inserting that it is I think that would be violating NPOV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I should have been clearer - "a perceived wide-scale effort" seems to me like a good compromise because it avoids stating that there is a war (which some users have been concerned with) while also not quibbling over "is equal pay a right? we just don't know." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Lemme give you an analogy. I can say that I'm against the right of two women to marry each other. This admits that it is (or could be) a legal right, but denies that it ought not be. There's a distinction between what legal rights people actually have and what legal rights they should have. The latter can be called moral rights, but this article is about a bunch of laws, so it's gotta be about legal rights.

Now, it's true that some rhetoricians are afraid of the possible implication that a legal right might be a moral right, so they refuse to call these things rights at all. They're just playing word games, framing the debate to make one side look like they're asking for stuff they don't deserve. Logically, though, even if women marrying each other is just a "special privilege", that doesn't have anything to do with whether it should be a legal right.

The common factor uniting all of these legal actions that are called the War on Women is that they attack women's legal rights. This is true even if you agree with the attack and don't believe women should have these legal rights. That's why we can't call this a perception; it's entirely real, having the force of law. The biggest reasonable change I can imagine (but don't agree with) is to say it's "the wide-scale effort by Republican Party politicians to restrict women's legal rights". Still, I don't think we ought to say "legal rights" here because it's redundant and doesn't match our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the distinction between legal and moral rights irrelevant here? The specific concept discussed is women's rights which has its own definition. Dimadick (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

True, and these are concepts over which the intent, impact, scale, and effect of such policies are disputed. Women's rights and reproductive rights describe the policies - the War on Women describes a large scale effort to push and implement these policies. In either case, be it the effect of the policies or the scale of effort, both are an opinion, point of view, or a perception. This is clear in WP:NPOV. It must be qualified. It's not just a qualification of "rights", but a qualification of "restricts" and it also helps qualify "Republicans". Reality is disputed, the perception is not. Suggesting it is just legal rights misses the mark - for example, how does decreased funding to subsidize something result in a restriction of legal rights if you can buy it in the open market? There is no need for us to debate these points - the fact is, these are different viewpoints, so we can't say in WikiVoice these policies restrict women's rights (as a statement of fact) without any qualification that it's a point of view.

How is "perceived" violating NPOV? Is the wide-scale attack real? Maybe, Debated (a POV) - Is it perceived as a wide-scale attack, Yes; Does it restrict? Depends, Debated (a POV) - Is it perceived that it restricts, Yes; Are these legal or moral rights for women? Probably, Competes with other claimed rights, Debated (a POV) - Is there a perception that these are legal or moral rights, Yes. Is this effort only by Republicans? No but vast majority, Christians (yes), few Dems, some Republicans also oppose (a POV) - Is it perceived this effort is by Republicans, Yes; CartoonDiablo says that it's not in any source, but you can look at any neutral source and see that one side is describing another side's politics - messaging (as his Atlantic source states). And no, the blog of the ACLU is not a neutral source for a definition. Our second source (Huffington Post) says the War on Women is "seen" and that "women believe that".[5] Clearly, we're describing a viewpoint and must attribute it in some way as a viewpoint. CartoonDiablo keeps reverting it to a version that is supported by two people expressing a single viewpoint, when the other version was crafted via much more discussion by people on different viewpoints. It would be good faith to leave that version in place until a new compromise is reached and not edit war over it causing disruptive editing. I'm open to other language, but it must qualify the description to be neutral. Morphh ^(talk) 15:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Morph on this. The ACLU is a biased source. They are are an advocacy group and as such their POV will always represent one side against another. They simply cannot be used for any kind of factual statement. I am also dismayed by the edit warring by CD. Arzel (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Perceived" is a WEASEL word and should be removed. Biased sources are allowed, provided that they are reliable sources. Arzel, you have reverted three times in the past two hours; it seems that you are edit warring yourself. - MrX 17:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's an attribution of a point of view. I don't see that it's a weasel word. It's better than stating an opinion as fact in violation of NPOV, which is what we've been working to address. As for the source, bias sources are allowed if you're expressing an opinion and attributing it. You don't use a bias source to suggest a statement of fact, when there is clearly a competing viewpoint. You can read the ACLU source and clearly see they have taken a position - why not just define the topic via Nancy Pelosi? The point is neutrality and NPOV policy. Using a bias source for the definition is inappropriate when we have plenty of neutral sources. Morphh ^(talk) 17:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Perceived is a weighty word that shifts the focus away from the documented efforts to enact legislation to restrict women's rights/prerogatives and onto those most affected by the efforts. Do our sources say that the "war on women" is perceived? By omitting that word, I think we more accurately represent what our sources report: that there is factually an effort, by some, to roll back women's rights.

I would offer this possible alternative wording: War on Women is an expression in United States politics that refers to the wide-scale efforts by some Republican Party politicians to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights. - MrX 18:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some sources do say the war on women is perceived if you include terms such as "'War On Women' Only Seen By Third Of Female Poll Respondents" or "women believe there is currently a broad-based campaign".[6] Or here it describes it as "messaging" or an "argument".[7], which seems to be another term for perception or point of view. It seems you're assuming the point of view that all these policies do in fact "restrict women" and that these are rights, which are all disputed points of view that we can easily source. Republicans do not believe they are restricting women's rights on many of these policies and argue vehemently otherwise, so we can't state in WikiVoice that these policies do in fact "restrict" women's "rights". That's taking a position in the debate, which we can't do. We have to attribute this as an opinion that the policies restrict women's rights. We also don't want to confuse specific policies of women's rights with the larger term War on Women as used to describe a wide-scale effort to implement these policies. Morphh ^(talk) 18:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So here are some possible alternatives that attribute - maybe something can be massaged to provide better prose, but the main point is that it must present that what the term describes is a viewpoint. We can't say that it refers to a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, because that presents in WikiVoice that there "is" a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights. We may all agree that to be the case, but it's a viewpoint, so we have to present it neutrally. WP:NPOV "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Morphh ^(talk) 18:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

1. "War on Women is an expression in United States politics of a perceived wide-scale effort by Republicans ... to restrict women's rights"
2. "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used by Democrats to describe a wide-scale effort by Republicans ... to restrict women's rights"
3. "War on Women is an expression in United States politics of the viewpoint that there is a wide-scale effort by Republicans ... to restrict women's rights"
4. "War on Women is an expression in United States politics that refers to the view that there is a wide-scale effort by Republicans ... to restrict women's rights"
5. "War on Women is an expression in United States politics that refers to the opinion that there is a wide-scale effort by Republicans ... to restrict women's rights"
6. "War on Women is a term used in United States politics to push the message that there is a wide-scale effort by Republicans ... to restrict women's rights"
7. "War on Women is a term used in United States politics to argue that there is a wide-scale effort by Republicans ... to restrict women's rights"
8. "War on Women is an expression in United States politics to describe what is seen as wide-scale effort by Republicans ... to restrict women's rights"
9. "War on Women is an expression in United States politics to describe what some believe is a wide-scale effort by Republicans ... to restrict women's rights"

Most of these proposed wordings are similar in meaning. I think by saying that the term is perceived/a viewpoint/a view/message push/an argument/an opinion, we are dismissing the majority of our sources that say the term describes real, tangible legislative actions. The second wording is demonstrably false. There are more than two parties, and there are independents, so unless our sources unanimously say Democrats, I don't think we can use it. "War on women" is a hyperbolic catchphrase, but it certainly does describe something very definable: Legislation that measurably curtails women's access to reproductive health care, wage equality, discrimination and protection against violence. Notice, I did not use the word rights.

I would be fine with an earlier version, such as we had on January 1: War on Women is a political catchphrase in United States politics, used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are seen as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights. It expresses the same concept as "perceived", but in a way that I somehow find less objectionable. - MrX 19:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Most sources describe it as one party or person charing another party or person with it, but even if a majority describe it that way, a majority of an opinion is still an opinion and we have an identifiable minority. And if the majority of sources describe the viewpoint that way, a minority of people hold that viewpoint. So we have a disconnect in the sources that focus on that topic (those pushing the message) and those that hold the viewpoint (the public). In either case, we don't describe a majority viewpoint as fact. You seem to suggest that because the majority describe it as fact, we should report it as fact. That's not the case as every debate describes their opinion as the truth. We clearly have different points of view and we have to follow NPOV on that and not take sides. I'm surprised you find the second one demonstrably false, and I don't disagree, but seem fine with saying Republicans, when we have many sources saying it is waged by Christians, Catholics, other Party members and also opposed by Republicans. So as you say, it's demonstrably false, but we're stating it as fact. It's one of those things that I think we should qualify. I'd be fine with the phrasing from January as well and I pushed for it, but there were edit wars over the phrase "are seen as", which again changed the meaning to a statement of fact and a violation of NPOV. Then Roscelese and I spent a couple weeks coming up with the alternate phrasing that satisfied both of us. Morphh ^(talk) 20:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we disagree on a few points, but since they have already been discussed above, I won't bog this discussion down by rehashing them. I agree that "Republicans" is problematic, and should probably be qualified (mostly, primarily, almost exclusively, etc.).

I'm on record as opposing the current wording in favor of the wording that existed prior to this dispute, or some similar variation. - MrX 21:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

MrX, is your concern that with the existing wording, we might be suggesting that the policies aren't actually real? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what "perceived" means. Our sources confirm that the policies are absolutely real, and that they attack women's rights, particularly reproductive rights. The only part that involves "perception" is the description of this real behavior as a war on women. If we really needed to highlight that, we could go with:

"War on Women is an expression in United States politics used by Democrats to describe a wide-scale effort by Republicans ... to restrict women's rights"

I don't think this is any sort of improvement. Of course the term itself is an expression; what else would it be? MilesMoney (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@Roscelese - Not exactly. I'm concerned that the wording suggests that the effort is not real. I concede that the restrictive nature of the policies is open to interpretation. Consider these three versions:

1. War on Women is an expression... of a perceived wide-scale effort by Republican Party politicians to restrict women's rights...
2. War on Women is an expression... that refers to the wide-scale effort by Republican Party politicians to restrict women's rights...
3. War on Women is a political... used to describe Republican Party initiatives... that are seen as restricting women's rights...

#1 casts doubt on the existence of the efforts; #2 accepts as fact that there are efforts to restrict women's rights; and #3, acknowledges that there are initiatives, but leaves open the idea that those initiatives are perceived as restricting women's rights. I believe that #3 is closest to what most of our sources report. - MrX 04:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

They're not seen as restricting women's rights. They are unambiguously and uncontroversially restricting them. Whether or not you agree that women ought to have such legal rights, these laws are taking those rights away. MilesMoney (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That is an opinion, not fact. To make a point, here is an example. Is it taking away a right to reduce a public subsidy to a commercially available good? So any reduction in government spending is the restriction of a legal right? Even if you did consider tax payer funded birth control a legal right, it still predicting the effect of the legislation (crystal ball). Other private health charities can fund these, and they do, which may result in no change in service. Or as an employer debating religious grounds, if your health care costs go up to provide birth control that's available on the free market, did you restrict anything by forcing employers to provide it? You may have just increased the cost for many women, particularly older women and gays. Then you have the debate on sex-selective abortion, which usually targets girls. The point is not to debate this issues but to point out that they are debated points of view. This is a complex issue and it is certainly not "unambiguously and uncontroversially". Morphh ^(talk) 11:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're wasting my time here with nonsense. None of this requires a crystal ball, and it doesn't matter what the actual effect is. What matters is that the stated intention of these laws is to strip women of these legal rights. That's not my opinion; it's what our sources say.

The only element of controversy is over the term itself. Republicans don't want their actions cast as a war against women. They'd rather spin them a different way. But nobody -- not even you -- can deny the reality of what the term refers to. MilesMoney (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What most neutral secondary sources say is that one group or person is charing another group or person with restricting rights. Now we're talking about intent being defined by those making the criticism? To make a point, here is how Republicans might define War on Women. "War on Women is a term used in United States politics to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that protect fetal rights and religious freedom". Let's not be blind to the other point of view. What's insane here is that I'm not a Republican, I'm not pro-life, and I believe in Women's rights, but I'm having to play middle ground because the article is so damn bias that it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Morphh ^(talk) 13:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We are going to have to compromise so that we can move forward. @MilesMoney: Morphh has raised valid points about the use of the word "rights" that is well grounded in our neutrality policy. The policy states: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Your assertion that "They are unambiguously and uncontroversially restricting them" (rights) is problematic in that the restriction is not in dispute, but the idea that rights are being restricted is contested. It would be accurate and more NPOV to say that "They are unambiguously and uncontroversially restricting women's ability to X, Y, Z..." and list each item as we do in the body of the article.- MrX 13:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some restrictions are unambiguous, like banning abortion, while others can be fuzzy and debated (a point of view). It's when we lump them all together and describe all the policies as being restrictions and rights that we get into trouble. In the article we can avoid that, by doing as you stated with X, Y, Z. Morphh ^(talk) 14:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

MrX & Roscelese, what about something like this, which shifts the perception away from the policies (which are real) and to the scale and effect? War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe Republican Party initiatives that are (seen/argued/perceived) to be part of a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights." Morphh ^(talk) 13:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would work if we use the word "seen".- MrX 13:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems like unnecessary caviling to me but I don't actually have any problems with it. If that's the compromise solution, let's use it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I had to disengage for a little while both for personal reasons and to get some clarity. I still hope to responde to Morphh, Roscelese, and MilesMoney's request for "an example of where the article is missing the mark on how it describes the phrase / expression would be helpful to understand the problems" [from 20 September 2013 ]. But for now I would like to add that I am also comfortable with Morphh's wording here, and with MrX's preference for "seen." I am in favor of adopting Morphh's lede as accurate and neutral. That I think it is more than a description of Republican initiatives can be discussed separately.--24.239.249.127 (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Other wars on women

Unless we're all sure that it is only the Republican Party and/or U.S. conservatives whose initiatives are seen by opponents as "anti-woman", I wonder if we might consider another War on Women. Whether as a comeback or otherwise, the term has been used to describe "anti-woman" initiatives or policies of Democrats and/or liberals.

Indeed, we might expand the article and make it more general. A War on women could be:

any political action, policy, or proposal seen by its opponents as being against the interests of women

Perhaps this would solve the neutrality problem alluded to above. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been tried. If read through the archives you can see attempts to show that there are examples of the War on Women from the left and other examples as well. However, it has been argued here that this article specifically refers to attacking Republicans for their views. One suggestion would be to explicitly state that this is a Democratic talking point, which is still being used by the left to attack Republicans, but this has been met with fierce opposition as well. Arzel (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Ed. The sources are quite positive in the definition of the topic as being about Republican initiatives. In wanting to expand the scope, you are giving equal weight to the reactionary response from Republicans and conservatives. This response is described accurately as a deceptive counter-attack based on flimsy evidence.[8][9][10][11] There is no anti-woman initiative or set of initiatives brought forward by Democrats and liberals in the same manner as Republicans. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are there any mainstream sources that report that Democrats are engaged in a "wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights" and refer to it as a "War on Women"? If so, then by all means, let's include it, otherwise it doesn't fit within the scope of this article in my opinion. - MrX 20:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-Republican warring on women has to be included, because the article title specifies the scope of the subject and the title is not limited to Republican views, and there would not be agreement that there are separate wars (feminist sources probably count all of the warring as one war). Andrea Dworkin was likely not referring only to Republicans in her book that is cited in this article and which I've read. However, bipartisanism and nonpartisanism do not require equal weight, because the sources do not give equal weight. And, since Wikipedia articles should be globalized when sourcing supports doing so, if the term war on women and the like turn up in, say, criticisms of religious fundamentalism, then this article should report that, too. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

All right, Nick, I tried to add a little balance. I added one more RNC quote and juggled some headings around. I also adding the qualifier "mainly" to the lede. The idea is that 95% of the use of the term "war on women" is by opponents of Republican initiatives. There's a tiny (but not insignificant) use of the same term to describe Democratic behavior, if not policies.

Unless all my work is summarily rolled back, I can add a whole lot more - changing the 95/5 balance to 90/10 or maybe 85/15. It depends on how much tolerance you all have for diverse viewpoints. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

To continue from my edit summary, some of the headings that you changed or added are awkwardly worded, and potentially misleading to our readers. For example, substituting "Opponents begin to see anti-woman aspects in Republican policy" for "Development of the term" is wordy and less neutral. The Kirsten Kukowski quote is undue. Our objective here should not be to "balance" the article, but to represent our sources proportionally and in a neutral way. - MrX 23:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to explore this topic under the discussion heading "The topic entry is legitimate but the content is severely biased." There was some discussion about it, but discussion gravitated to other important issues that probably needed to be hashed out before this one.

It is very important to keep in mind that the title of this WP article suggests that it is about a phrase. Nothing about the article's title limits it to the US, politics, republicans, etc. Therefore if the phrase is used by acceptable authoritative sources in other contexts, either the article needs to include those uses or the article's title needs to be more limiting.

Here is a re-post of what I wrote here at 19:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC):

As for "War On Women" applying to religion and not just politics, there's an interesting article in the Washington Post here titled "All about Eve: The Christian roots of the GOP war on women," another WP article here entitled "A Catholic ‘war on women’," Tacoma, WA's The News Tribute has an article here titled "Catholic bishops just won’t give up their war on women." And a fairly quick Google of | "War on Women" Muslim| turned up a plethora of options, including this one entitled "Obama Subsidizes Egyptian War on Women." I think limiting this to the USA and to politics is shortsighted.--24.239.249.127 (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If you think that Religious war on women is a notable topic, you can create that article. The scope of this article has been established already and is supported by consensus. If you want to test for a new consensus for expanding the scope of this article, you can create an RfC. - MrX 13:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about "political catchphrase in United States politics, used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are seen as restricting women's rights, especially with regard to reproductive rights." We do not have an article about, for example, movies named "Crash". We have Crash (1974 film), Crash!, Crash (1978 film), Crash (1996 film), and Crash (2004 film). The individual films are notable. There have been other films named "Crash". If they are notable, they should have their own articles. Similarly, the phrase "war on women" has been used in other contexts. If any of them are notable, they should have their own articles and this article would get a hatnote and/or be renamed with a parenthetical descriptor. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Very well put. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This has always been a disputed point here. In the case of religious groups or organizations waging the war on women, it's not that they're two subjects or should be two articles - for the most part (Christians), it's not. It's just been a matter of weight in reliable sources. The religious war is the primary base for the political policy - the politicians (Republicans) are just the ones applying it in support of their base. However, the vast majority of sources don't get into that. The focus of sources is the Republicans, so the weight puts discussions about the religious roots of the policies in a small minority. To clarify, I don't think this article would cover other such War on Woman slogans as used for Islamic oppression of women, for example. We're talking about U.S. politics, but sources on war from the Vatican on the same policies certainly encompass the article's subject. Morphh ^(talk) 16:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem with scope of article

As long as this article tries to be two distinctly different things it will always merit a neutrality tag. Is this an article on the political catchphrase "Republican War on Women" or is an article on the recent tug-of-war over political initiatives affecting women? The two topics are VERY different, require VERY different emphases, and should be kept separate. Giving an article which spends most of its time describing this political tug-of-war the title "[Republican] War on Women" unavoidably earns it a neutrality template. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

How many times have we been around this carousel? Count them. Why do you think you're going to be able to persuade the WP community this time? But thanks for the heads-up about the tag, which I didn't realize was still there; there's obviously no consensus to change the scope of the article, so a badge of shame that will stick around forever because some sore users can't handle that the article exists at all has no place here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What you mean "we" Kee-mo-sah-bee? I've spent little time at this carousel prior to this but I know a polemic impersonating an article when I see it. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the whirl. This tag you just restored has no actionable problem identified. Such tags are not to be placed as a badge of shame, to be worn forever because some editors do not like a topic. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How's your eyesight? I identified the "actionable problem" in my opening comment above. While I was not the one who put the neutrality tag on the article, the tag is nonetheless quite apt. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How are those two distinctly different things? The political catchphrase refers to the [tug of war over] political initiatives of the Republican party that affect women. Help us to understand why you think these are VERY different. - MrX 04:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

See my comment in section below. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC) PS: In reality, by the way, political anti-abortion initiatives are often NOT Republican. In largely Catholic and Democratic Rhode Island where I live and in neighboring Catholic and Democratic Massachusetts such initiatives more often than not come from Democrats. That's a specific problem for this article in essentially "buying into" a politically skewed slogan. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The goal of this article is to continually attack Republicans. Just wait until 2016 when it is used to attack Republicans in favor of Clinton. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Cite?- MrX 15:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Development of the term - Subsections

I've been a critic of the neutrality of the article. Many changes and improvements have been made since then. I now consider the article to be adequately neutral until we get to the subheading "Reproductive Rights. Subsections 1.1 through 1.4 seem to serve no "development of the term" purpose. I can't see a connection in those sections to the phrase's history. They appear to just trace a partial history of legislation on topics that can be associated with the phrase War on Women. In other words, they seem unnecessary and out of context in an article about a phrase. Moreover, they read as if the author is trying to convince the reader that Democrats have a solid reason for using the phrase. There are so many examples, and the examples are connected as much to tone and thought development as they are to specific words or phrases, that I find it challenging to enumerate them here. I'll try:

- Here is one example:

Gestational limits on abortion

"In June 2013, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona, passed a national bill in the House Judiciary Committee that would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. The bill did not include exceptions for rape, incest or health of the mother. In responding to the bill's lack of exception for rape victims, Franks stated that "the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low," which was compared to the controversial statements made by Todd Akin; studies show that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is approximately equal to or higher than the rate from consensual sex. Afterwards, the House Rules Committee added exceptions for rape and incest."

In what way does this contribute to the historical development of the phrase "War on Women?"

- Here is another example:

Birth Control

"In February 2012, Republican Congressman Darrell Issa convened an all-male panel addressing contraceptive mandates for health insurers. He did not allow Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law Center student, to participate in the hearing."

This seems designed to make the reader cry out "An all male panel? That's not fair!" and then "Whew! I'm so glad the Democrats included Sandra!" But more than that, again, I see no value that this or any of the stated sections provide to learning about the development of a phrase "War on Women."

Stated differently, I think if sections 1,1 through 1.4 were removed the article would remain just as complete as it wouldn't lose anything about the phrase itself.--24.239.249.127 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire Reproductive rights section needs to be trimmed/summarized in my opinion because it delves into the topic of reproductive rights in an overly-detailed way. I agree that content should be removed if it does not relate to the subject of the article, but there are different views on what the subject and scope are. Your second example is apt in that it may only present one side of the story. Are there are good sources that discuss it from another point of view?

I can't endorse removing entire sections, but I think if we changed "Development of the term" to "History" while acknowledging that the subject of the article is actually "Republican Party initiatives" that happen to be commonly and collectively referred to as "war on women", then that would be an improvement. - MrX 18:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but they are "commonly and collectively" called "the war on women" largely by Democratic, pro-choice activists. Wikipedia should certainly take note this political phenomenon but it should not endorse the moniker. That's why we should differentiate an article on the partisan moniker [Republican] War on Women from an article on the actual political struggle which is not between Republicans and women but rather between social conservatives and social liberals. Ol' 24.239.249.127 is hitting the shuttle on the center of the strings when he says, basically, that starting with 1.1 "Reproductive rights" our article is no longer about the moniker "War on Women" but on substantive policy disputes that should be handled in a different article with a non-partisan title and NPOV wording. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

MrX identifies what I've said again and again: this article is on the political initiatives, not on a phrase that has been used in any number of contexts. I would support renaming the article to something more descriptive and less concise ("21st-century Republican initiatives seen as an effort to restrict women's rights" - terribly awkward, but) if it would put a close to this endless trolling about the catchphrase. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I could envision its inclusion if there was a sentence like:

The War on Women has been used to refer to the limiting of abortion access. For example, [blah blah blah what we already got] <ref some reference to where the term was used in relation to those political actions> EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In re: Roscelese's latest suggestion, not just terribly awkward but just also just plain terrible. Ya' can't have it both ways. If we don't want THIS article to be about the partisan slogan "[Republican] War on Women" but rather about recent socially conservative policy initiatives, public statements, and the reaction to these, then, of course, we should do it in a NPOV manner, NOT from the point of view of political opponents who see them (or claim to see them) as an attack on women. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can have it both ways, because they're not mutually exclusive aspects of the subject; they're complementary. In other words, you shouldn't try to set up a false dilemma. Meanwhile, feel free to find the republican rebuttals to all of this in reliable sources and add it to the article in due measure. But, you can't simply impose artificial constraints on the subject because you feel it treats republicans unfairly. That would be the opposite of NPOV. - MrX 22:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC

X, if you and Roscelese want the subject of this article to be "political initiatives" rather than the moniker that SOME folks have given to those initiatives, then why are you using that ABSURDLY partisan and biased description of those initiatives as your freaking title? Is that what an encyclopedia is supposed to do? Can you give us some examples from, say, Brittanica? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, and especially WP:POVTITLE provide guidance: "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." Invoking 'Britannica' has to be the Wikipedia equivalent of Godwin.;) - MrX 22:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And your neutral, reliable, third party sources that directly refer to these "initiatives" as a "war against women" would be where? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC) By the way, here is how the opening sentences of each paragraph in the lead begin: "War on women is an expression . . ." "While used in other contexts, and prior to 2010, it became a common message." "The phrase and the concept have been criticized. . " Gee, I wonder how anyone got the idea that the article was supposed to be about the expression rather than about those ghastly "Republican initiatives."!!??

proposals to resolve scope & NPOV problems

Scope is becoming a problem that gives rise to a perception of nonneutrality. While if sources are generally not neutral but are accurately reflected in the article then the article is neutral, the perception of nonneutrality is understandable given the disagreement on scope that leads to different kinds of POV being considered. A split would solve the perception problem and would likely result in both articles being more focused. I think at least two editors raised a possibility of moving the article to a more specific title.

I propose to move (rename) this article to War on Women (U.S. Republican); to edit the war on women redirect ("women" not capitalized) into an article, at least a stub, for all other war(s) on women; to move non-Republican content from the present (renamed) article into the new article; to (re-)add the content on porn as part of the war on women to the non-Republican article (it's sourced and nontrivial, especially in radical feminism); to add a hatnote to the non-Republican article referencing the Republican article and vice-versa; to turn War on Women (two capitals) into a disambiguator; and to add redirects for war on women (U.S. Republican) ("women" not capitalized) and for titles without periods (War on Women (US Republican) and war on women (US Republican)). I'll wait a week for any response.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My response is that I don't believe this radical reorganization is a good idea. Our sources do not divide the subject up this way, so we shouldn't, either. MilesMoney (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A similar proposal, Talk:War on Women/Archive 2#Requested move, failed to gain consensus. Personally, I would be in favor of the disambiguation/scope containment for this article, but would reserve judgement about a similarly-named article. I think it could confuse readers, and I'm not sure that it would be notable. In any case, if you're serious about this, you should formalize it into an RfC, because unstructured discussions tend to rabidly digress. - MrX 20:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I withdraw my proposals and don't plan to create an RfC. Thanks for linking the proposal from about a year ago. Sources are separable (Dworkin's definitely and Faludi's maybe and others can be considered), the proposal is hardly "radical", and non-Republican warring is notable, but I don't want to reopen the already-settled decision. However, I like the idea in that discussion of "adding an 'Other uses' section". Also, an editor in that discussion noted antedating and we should consider adding earlier sources on the origin of the term, although perusing them leaves me unsure that it is a distinct term as early as 1787. And there's mention in that discussion of some of the Taliban's activity as constituting a war on women; if it's sourceable as such, it should be added to other uses. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC) (Added boldfacing & on Taliban: 21:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC))

@Nick - I see that you've withdrawn your proposal, but I think settling "What is this article about" (discussion above) has the potential to address your concerns in a more methodical manner.--24.239.249.127 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

does HuffPost belong?

(I had posted this but it unexplainedly disappeared, I assume by error, so I'm restoring it. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)) I thought the Huffington Post is not considered a reliable source, because it is almost all blogs. Are the HuffPost citations exceptions, am I wrong on the general point, or are they inappropriate? Nick Levinson (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It is generally considered a reliable source. They are a news aggregator, they host various blogs, and they have journalists. Blogs can frequently be used as sources. Reliable sourcing is not black and white; there are degrees of reliability. - MrX 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is generally considered a "liberal" source, though. I'm relatively new here, and I am teachable, so I ask: Does that matter?--24.239.249.127 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think along the lines that all sources have bias. It's our job to use conservative and liberal sources as the basis for information (fact & opinion) and write and present the content neutrally. It's important that we recognize what is an opinion (a pov) and make sure to attribute the viewpoints and provide balance where needed. So as a source, I'm fine with HuffPo - it's often how we write content based on such sources that becomes a challenge. Morphh ^(talk) 14:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

PPACA war on women?

Several sources that have taken note of comments made in the recent GOP weekly address:

"The Affordable Care Act is an example of a “war on women,” Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., said Saturday in the Republicans’ weekly address."Source: Charlotte Observer[12]

Other sources: [13][14][15]. If this story has any momentum, it may be worth adding a sentence or two to the article. It would be interesting if the GOP started co-opting this term to try to win back women voters.- MrX 14:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Right has long said Democratic policies have been harmful to women (as well as to black Americans and families). Conservative talk radio hosts, I think, have accused the perceived Democratic Illuminati of intentionally and methodically doing damage. I'm not surprised to see them firing back the "war on women" expression.(24.239.249.127 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC))