Talk:Sandra Fluke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

REGARDING DELETION

TALK THERE ABOUT THE PAGE, NOT HERE.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandra_Fluke Paintedxbird (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep the Article

Fluke's work as an activist, and a witness before Congress might be enough in and of itself to merit an article. I also do not think that this issue is going away anytime soon. For this reason, I think this article should be kept. JR00576 (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This article should be intergrated into the Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy (or whatever it ends up being called.) There wasn't an article about her *before* this controversy. I'm for deleting it/integrating it into the event article. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because have you been reading the news? Rather big story currently. Mrs. Fluke is on multiple news outlets and it has relative importance. <replace these words with your reason>. — Casprings (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

delete it

in 30 days no one will know who this non-entity is. Her notoriety is entirely based on being insulted by Rush Limbaugh. Her 15 minutes is up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.102.186.183 (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep it simple. This person may be vying for publicity, but a biography isn't warranted. Nor is it complying with Wikipedia standards/requirements. Zanlok (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The appropriateness of having an article is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke. Feel free to make your opinion known there, but realize that policy based opinions and rationale are weighed more than those reasons not based on policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please delete-covered in the controversy article. Lancemoody (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This ridiculous article could at least tell us how to pronounce this woman's name, but fails to do even that. Delete it. 76.106.172.133 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed

However, if it is not deleted, then there should be a mention of democratic mouth pieces like Bill Maher describing republicans as cunts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.82.8.0 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

The article is factual and informative. Anyone wanting to know the controversy between Sandra Fluke and Mr. Limbaugh will be so informed. It should not be deleted for political reasons. Irassassin (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The appropriateness of having an article is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke. Feel free to make your opinion known there, but realize that policy based opinions and rationale are weighed more than those reasons not based on policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The information Sandra supplies, and others, that birth control protection costs #3,000 per year is a fabrication, and her view points are not informational but biased. The new healthcare law already allows doctor visits for prescriptions, and government programs plus Planned Parenthood supply free contraceptives, if not abortions. CVS will supply birth control pills at less than $20 per month, and Target and Walgreens at $9, This has been widely reported and can be confirmed by calling any of these pharmacies. This, in itself, precludes consideration of anything Sandra Fluke offers as anything but false opinions. Dwayneagain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwayneagain (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the frequent removal of factual information, such as the context of the remarks by Rush Limbaugh, the factual inaccuracies of the Fluke testimony, even the subject and agenda of the Committee, and why she was an inappropriate witness all make this article of dubious use. This however does NOT argue for deletion, as false information can be corrected in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

DELETE

This is clearly not a notable person. WP:1E She has a major role in a minor event, and that is the only thing for which she is notable. Therefore, not notable. This article should be deleted.

Shouldn't that be WP:1E? RussNelson (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Issues related to Congressional Testimony

Just to throw out the repeated issues that are being argued as an edit war, and are better discussed on the talk page.

First, use of the term "Congressional Testimony". Are you referring to her non-testimony, or to the speech she gave, which is being criticized. Use of the term as a subject heading is very confusing, because normally, it means something very specific, particularly the term "testimony", which implies it is part of a Congressional proceeding (which her speech was not) and an official oath of some kind, which was also not administered. Need to find some more neutral but more accurate term for what this was.

Second, confusion when referring to the Issa hearing between the terms "hearing" and "panel". The hearing is the whole set of speeches and written testimony, plus the questions, cross-examination, and supplemental information submitted. Panel is just who sits at the witness table together at one time within the hearing. Hard to come up with a wording to describe that the incessant statements that no women were at the hearing (demonstrably false) or that no women were invited (also factually false) are wrong, but avoiding the rebuttal that a PANEL of the hearing had no women. They aren't the same thing. Suggestions?

Third, Subject of the (Issa) Congressional Hearing. First, no debate that Ms Fluke's speech/testimony/whatever was solely about advocating for free contraception. Agreed. Problem is, there is an edit war changing the subject of the Congressional Hearing back and forth, which is unhelpful. Edit war on Wikipedia exactly reflects the spin war in Washington. We need an editor more diplomatic than me, and even then, the edit warriors may not give up. The Issa Congressional hearing had a title and a subject and an agenda; these things are agreed upon and published in advance. That needs to be in the Wikipedia article, because it is fact, and verifieable. It was strictly constructed to address the conscience clause and to identify what it should be and where universal contraception mandates would infringe on religious liberty, and the published witnesses from both Republican and Democrats reflected that. Changing the subject from what it was to what Democrats after the fact wanted it to be by edit wars is bad, but the statement "This hearing was seen as one concerning religious freedoms by Republican members and one concerning Women's health by Democratic members." is even worse. It's like saying "some commentators stated that Ms. Fluke must have sex [with men] 5 times a day and others disagreed. The issue is unresolved". Don't get me wrong, the fact that the day after, every Democrat began referring to the Issa hearing as about contraception IS relevant, and should be included, but so should the fact of what the Hearing's topic actually was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

KEEP THE ARTICLE

This is a person who was thrust into the limelight for her role in a national issue debate. This article should not be deleted. Whether or not this will be someone who achieves more in the future, she has made a mark in today's culture. Njdemocrat (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The appropriateness of having an article is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke. Feel free to make your opinion known there, but realize that policy based opinions and rationale are weighed more than those reasons not based on policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE SERVES ITS PURPOSE

Partisan politics completely aside, I ran across mention of the controversy around Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke and had no idea what they were talking about. I searched on the web and was happy to find what appears to be a reasoned, factual article about her testimony and Limbaugh's statements on Wikipedia. That was exactly what I wanted, from a source I consider generally quite trustworthy. If there are content errors, then by all means let's fix them, but I'm sure I'm not the only person trying to find out what this is about, and I'd rather folks came here than to some random, highly biased web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.111.35 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• keep Sandra Fluke was already a notable activist in her own right before the Limbaugh episode..... she meets WP's notability criteria to have her own article. The controversy article should be redirected here and have its own section. LateNiteFluker (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Limbaugh quotes are misleading

These make it sound like Limbaugh actually claimed those things about her in seriousness, when in fact they were jokes based on the math involved in her ridiculous claim she needed $1,000 a year for contraception (1000 condoms a year would obviously mean she was having a lot of sex) which is not even noted here. Suggest some context be given so this reads less like a Planned Parenthood memo and more like a neutral Wikipedia article. -- That doesn't even begin to make sense, since condoms are not prescribed medication which is the issue being debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.184.231 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, it might be worth noting here somewhere that her age was widely given as 23 in the media, which was not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.196.80 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

you should try educating yourself on what actually occurred at the hearing, rather than just filling your head with limbaugh's ignorance. she wouldn't even be eligible for the insurance coverage she's advocating and she only referenced her friend who lost an ovary due to cysts. he wasn't joking, and you're just frantically rationalising. at any rate this place isn't a forum it's only about content issues. wikipedia only publishes claims that can be attributed. since no reliable sources claim it's a joke, it won't appear as such on the page. it's not for editors to provide their own "context". that's original research which is prohibited. Paintedxbird (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

She was not talking about ovarian cysts, she was talking about contraception. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing. Actually, the source material itself (you know, HIS SHOW, not unreliable Media Matters that you're citing) clearly indicates he said this humorously (he actually SAYS "I'm being facetious.") and in relation to the $3,000 comment. You are deceptively editing and should be banned from this topic.

Full quote:

You know, folks, millions of women enjoy sex in the back of a car. You have some women that can't afford a car. What are we to do? What is our solution to women who prefer sex in the backseat of a car but can't afford a car? I've run some numbers here. Did you notice in that sound bite Sheila Jackson Lee or Maria Cantwell or one of them talked about the strength that Sandra Fluke had to go before Congress, which is amazing. She's having so much sex it's amazing she can still walk, but she made it up there. It takes a lot of courage to ask for something free, folks. Takes a lot of strength to ask for freebies, doesn't it? I'm being facetious. You know what the solution is here, why doesn't Georgetown lower their tuition?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.196.80 (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This was obviously a reference to his earlier comment (same transcript):

But Fluke presented research to the committee: four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception. Have you heard of anything more ridiculous? This is flat-out thievery. It's outright ridiculous that taxpayers should pay for the personal sexual desires and habits of everybody, including women, at Georgetown Law. Fluke reported: "Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.196.80 (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh goody, there's already been a call for edit warring on DU. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002377308#post2 That should help with the objectivity!

Great job, liberal editors! Another well written wikipedia article with no bias or political agenda. I would say that I'm being facetious so as to clarify the context of my statements but that would, it seems, make no difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.58.217 (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

no one cares about your views, this isn't a forum. wikipedia publishes things that are verifiable by quality sources. synthesis is not allowed. no original research. Paintedxbird (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think- at the very least- the article should make it clear that some of Limbaugh's comments were interpreted by some as intended to be facetious. That's how I interpreted them, and I have no pro-Limbaugh bias. Emeraldflames (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

like i said, wikipedia is about verifiability, not advocacy. you need to cite a reliable source for a claim and it must be relevant to sandra fluke, rather than just concerning interpretations of the comments for it to be on this page. Paintedxbird (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what advocacy has to do with anything. Limbaugh said that he was joking. That would seem to me to be both verifiable and quite relevant to the matter at hand. Advocacy would be stating that he *was* joking, not that he claimed that he was joking. Emeraldflames (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There are those dead-set on editing this article in a way that favors one side of the issue over another. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to know what, if anything, can be done about it. I just know that the way the article reads right now, it is meant to be favorable to a certain ideology. If you look at their user page it's pretty clear what that ideology is. :o Oh well. Emeraldflames (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I give up -- despite a dozen edits and the EXPLICIT STATEMENTS by Rush that his remarks are intended humorously, critical context and links to THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPTS continue to be vandalized, and I don't have all day to edit war. You win lefties, Wikipedia and the truth lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.196.80 (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This entry helped me

I was asked to sign a petition about the treatment of Ms. Fluke. As I was only cursorily informed, I did a web search to learn more before I signed. I read the Wikipedia entry first because I have found its articles informative and well written.

This entry concisely provided me more info than I have seen anywhere else. And that seems to me completely in line with Wikipedia's purpose. I urge you to retain it.

Harry Hamil (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Harry Hamil

This article should be merged with a larger article, perhaps as suggested to become a section in the article on Rush L. Naturally, this article will attract spin doctors  :) http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002377308 “I don’t know how many wikipedia editors are out there, but I want to enlist you in helping to edit the article on Sandra Fluke. Help me add materiel that is helpful to her and shows how hurtful these attacks are. Wiki is a site people who don’t know what is going on will google to get the low down on what is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.95.226.40 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Harry Hamil, above -- I needed quick, relatively unbiased information, as much as was reasonable, all in one place. So I came to Wikipedia. Have this discussion again in a year. The test of time will indicate if this entry should stay, go, or be rolled into something else. But for the time being, it is pertinent, helpful, and in keeping with W'pedia's raison d'etre. Keep It. Clg0107 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability works the other way. IF within a year there exists content to show established and continued notability THEN we have an article. 17:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Contraception isn't just for sex

The use of female contraception in the form of hormonal medication can also be advised by a physician for medical reasons unrelated to sexual activity - for example, to help manage conditions such as Menorrhagia. The cost to someone with low income could be significant. This is not mentioned in the article but it is relevant, since that aspect has been ignored by all public commentators.

RESPONSE; yes, but non-contraceptive use of female hormones is covered both by Georgetown and all Catholic and private health insurance plans. Treatment for a non-contraceptive medical issue would not necessarily be subject to the zero copay, since it is prescribed just like any other prescription drug. There is no problem with non-contraceptive use of female hormones, which is why the inclusion in Ms. Fluke's testimony is odd.

There is also a dubious paragraph asserting that a truer title for Ms Fluke is "madam" or "pimp", strongly suggesting both POV issues and vandalism. I would remove the paragraph but since the article is subject to discussion with regard to deletion I shall leave it to the discretion of admins. AncientBrit (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

True, many medical syndromes can be treated with female hormones and are unrelated to contraception. The problem with Fluke's testimony is that almost all non-contraceptive uses of female hormones for legitimate medical use are in fact included in Georgetown's student medical insurance, and in the insurance plans of all Catholic institutions. The syndrome she cited, Polycystic ovary syndrome, is one of the few not always covered by Georgetown, but due to the questionable benefits of the treatment, not any moral opposition. PCOS is an overproduction of male hormones by women, and usually results in reversible sterility. It is a genetic condition, exacerbated by obesity, and not caused by oral contraceptives. Some of the symptoms can be treated with female hormones, especially male pattern hair growth and infrequent periods, but the medical necessity of these benefits is minor, while the side effects are significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This may be neither here nor there, but should Georgetown University's insurance department decide the best treatment for PCOS, or should that perhaps be left to the doctors treating the illness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.0.144 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely with the above. Treatment of PCOS, which can be a serious medical condition, should be left between patient and doctor. Problem is, Ms. Fluke's account of a friend's treatment is full of medically inaccurate testimony about causes, effects and the role of female hormones. PCOS is not caused by or prevented by female hormones, as Ms. Fluke states. PCOS does not cause obesity, obesity exacerbates the symptoms of PCOS, and that is why the most common treatment is diet and exercise. While the pain associated with PCOS resembles that found in other ovarian syndromes, female hormones have no effect on the pain, nor do they cause cysts to grow, as claimed by Ms. Fluke. Treatment for extreme cases of PCOS, ones which do not respond to diet and exercise, involve a cocktail of prescription drugs, female hormones being only a small and optional part. Inclusion of female hormones does not help in the primary cause, it in fact somewhat interferes with treatment, but is sometimes done to control two minor symptoms, namely facial hair and infrequent periods. Since Ms. Fluke states that the friend is gay and fertility is not an issue, female hormones are simply to suppress facial hair, and would have significant side effets. It also seems inconsistent that the medically necessary treatments, which would result in significant co-pays, are not an issue, while the relatively cheap co-pay for the optional female hormones would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The reality is all insurance companies have policies on prescription drugs they will cover. A doctor writes a prescription for a certain type of medicine and the insurance company mandates a generic or alternate drug. This is a practice that isn't specific to contraception for medical purposes, but is prevalent in the treatment of many different medical problems. Since contraception is generally covered for medical purposes, one is led to wonder about the purpose of Ms. Fluke's testimony, especially since what she is publicly advocating is already in place and the issue at hand is religious freedom. 12.109.196.244 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political commentary and analysis (see WP:SOAP). The article talk pages are for discussion directly related to how to improve this article. Comments falling out of that realm will be removed per the talk page guidelines. (see WP:TPG). -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The wiki entry is being repeatedly vandalized. The discussion here is directed towards making the article better by outlining the issues that need to be addressed in assessing the testimony. Part of that is judging whether her anecdotes describing "friends'" maladies are plausible and fit the clinical profiles of the syndromes she alleges are being maltreated as a result of the conscience clause. A full debate on the wiki article page, which is supposed to just have facts, without comment, is unhelpful, but that is in fact what the talk page is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Positive Law vs. Natural Law

I'm afraid this section just needs to go. Its style and tone are entirely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. It reads like an opinion piece and draws far too many conclusions. Bald evaluations like "The label is erroneous or false," have no place in an objective encyclopedia article. This is not the forum to advocate or express personal judgments, however well-reasoned. Start a blog.

Grifter84 (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

On-Line Campaigns Against Rush Limbaugh's Show

Do I even need to explain why an endorsement of and link to an advocacy group are inappropriate for the main body of a Wikipedia article?

Grifter84 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

except there's no link to the pledge, it was reported in the news as a reaction to limbaugh. so it's notable. Paintedxbird (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Being reported in the news because of promotion in Wikipedia WP:SOAP , which is supposed to be banned 16:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk)

Needs work

The article needs to link to and summarise Fluke's testimony. One of the points that is being overlooked is that the testimony states that the Georgetown uni insurance is unsubsidised. Nowhere in her testimony is there any reference to her own situation. Limbaugh's remarks about who pays for what, and about Flukes sexual life are given undue weight, especially given their invented nature. Trishm (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Completely correct. What she said is what she said. To me, this underscores why it's important to have this article under Fluke's name; it is about what she said [not to Congress but to the House Democrats who invited her to speak] and what Mr. Limbaugh said about it; it's only indirectly, therefore, about Mr. Limbaugh, though obviously his involvement is what makes the matter topical and newsworthy. Why are people searching for and reading this article in Wikipedia? It's to get the facts on the table: who said what, and should I sign the petition that's going around, and how do I answer my upset wife or mother or talk intelligently at the water cooler or over the fence with neighbors? If the $3000 cost per annum for contraceptives that she mentioned needs explanation [and I think it does] then that should be pursued to establish context and factual basis; clearly she meant it, but if Mr. Limbaugh wants to make facetious remarks about it, that's a separate topic for discussion which only makes sense in the context of what she actually said and, to the extent it's known, what she meant by what she said [not, how he represented what she said]. Let's get the facts established first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acbar8 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Issues related to Biography

Her main claim to fame is the flap over Rush Limbaugh's "slut" remarks. Bipartisan sources called his remarks a personal attack (the White House and the Washington Times agreeing for once).

Another issue is her reported age. Weren't people saying she was 23 years old for a few days? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is uncertain who released the wrong age, Ms. Fluke or Democrat members of the Committee, so there is a legitimate dispute. She has been very active in the New York feminist activist scene for over a decade. More concerning is her various claims to represent Catholics, founding and leading Catholic Students for Women's Health, then later admitting that she is not Catholic.209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Another item worth including in the citations is her article advocating that "gender reassignment" surgery be covered by employer health plans or the employers should be sued for discrimination. This can be seen in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law. The title of the article is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal's 2011 Annual Review. Link: https://articleworks.cadmus.com/geolaw/zsw00311.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.95.226.40 (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A little searching of the Google wayback machine suggests the discrepancy about her age was from the sketchy biographical information the Democrat members released when she was proposed as a last minute replacement, and never from Fluke herself. Probably not worthy of inclusion, no evidence of intent to mislead, but probably reflects the fact that no-one, including the Congressman suggesting her as a speaker, knew who she was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

NPR quote

The only criticism of Fluke's testimony in the article is Rush Limbaugh's mean spirited, personal attacks. To show that there is a more civil way to criticize Fluke's testimony, I added the following to the article:

NPR reported, "Fluke's testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.'s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills—the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen—for $9 per month. 'That's the price without insurance,' the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar."

But someone else erased it, and commented, "Her claimed cost is not mentioned in the article, nor does this real add to it."

First of all, her claimed cost was mentioned in her testimony, and she said that it was a burden on college students. This NPR piece shows that she was mistaken.

Secondly, to claim that this "does not add" to the article is mistaken. We can't let the Limbaugh criticism be the only criticism. We need some civil criticism that doesn't wage personal attacks.

I think the NPR quote should be put back into the article.

What do others think about this?

Friendly Freeper (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're correct. Put it back in. Blake Burba (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it back in, and I also added a quote from her testimony about what she claimed that birth control actually cost. Friendly Freeper (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point of "neutrality" is that we don't side with the Republicans who say Rush made some good points, and we don't side with the Democrats who still think he's a big fat idiot. We describe the controversy and let readers decide.

It's a good article if partisans on either side can say, yes, you've described our side correctly and haven't made the other side look better. --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is by Weekly Standard, not NPR. This is about Fluke, not the cost of contraception nor does one article raise the importance level of being included. The article is clearly one sided, as birth control pills cost a range. It is estimated between 15 and 50 dollars. I suggest we put in a link to the pills. Casprings (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The only reason that Fluke is notable in the first place is because of her testimony about the cost of contraception. Therefore, it's notable that she was mistaken about the cost. The article was published at the NPR website. Yes, it was originally written by the Weekly Standard, but NPR published it at their website. Friendly Freeper (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One story from the Weekly Standard on the cost of some brand/or type of contraception at some target does nto prove she was mistaken about the cost. There are different types of contraception and they range in price. Moreover, her cost estimate is not the primary reason for her being notable. If you think that Rush's comments are taken out of context, why not add the context that would make it fair for him? Casprings (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Limbaugh's comments were taken out of context. My point is that, in addition to Limbaugh's comments, the article should cite additional criticism of Fluke's statements, in order to show that it is possible to disagree with Fluke, without using personal attacks and namecalling. The Weekly Standard column is an excellent example of how to disagree with Fluke in a polite and civil manner. The fact that the Weekly Standard column was published at the NPR website gives it an increased level of notability. Friendly Freeper (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that she was wrong in her testimony. She stated the upper bound of the cost, and this is criticized by giving the lower bound? Not every one can tolerate every brand. It is not ok to say that because a cheap contraceptive exists, that this is all everybody needs. Clearly not her friend with the cyst issue.Trishm (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I believe insurance companies should pay for all medical expenses if we are not going to have Medicare for All (like they do in civilized countries). However, if there is something to be argued about the content of her testimony, then there is a better forum than this entry (which should be kept). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdemocrat (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Blqah Blah Blah, civilized countries single payer blah blah blah. Yeah, in Canada you die waiting for a kidney, in less civilized countries (like america, apparently) you do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.77.114 (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary style proposal

How about a breakout article, somewhere like Fluke-Limbaugh flap, just to describe this "breaking news" incident?

I don't think Sandra Fluke is notable, but the incident is encyclopedia-worthy. The exact same information should go in the Rush Limbaugh article, even if the Sandra Fluke article is deleted - or better yet, reduced to a redirect to Rush Limbaugh#Sandra Fluke Comments. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that an incident page would be unjust, given that the only thing it would be about is that she was called names by Limbaugh. It also seems unjust to put her on the page of Limbaugh. Given the persistence and amount of the media coverage, I would suggest that she is notable. Plus there is the issue that her testimony was national news weeks before Rush commented on it. Casprings (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Sandra-Fluke Free Use.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sandra-Fluke Free Use.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sandra-Fluke Free Use.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

At the very least rename

Sandra Fluke would never have a WP article if it weren't for the controversy. I think at best this should be deleted entirely and only on Limbaugh's page, and at worst, at least rename the article to include "controversy" in its name. - Xcal68 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, let's think of a good name for the controversy:

1. Limbaugh-Fluke Flap (my first idea, but the alliteration may annoy someone)
2. Sandra Fluke controversy (bland, but let's everyone know it's not a BLP article)
3. 2012 birth control coverage controversy

Pick one, or suggest something else. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd lean toward 1, since Limbaugh is why there's a perceived controversy in the first place. But, as you suggest, I'm not sure about the alliteration. :) - Xcal68 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A better name might be "2012 birth control coverage controversy." Limbaugh is the reason why there's namecalling and personal attacks. But the issue of whether or not the government should require insurance companies to cover birth control was a real controversy long before Limbaugh ever made his comments. Some people just want the government to stay out of the bedroom, and this is something that has been debated about for decades. Others argue that just as car insurance doesn't pay for routine things like oil changes, health insurance shouldn't pay for birth control. There's also the argument that since fertility is not a disease, birth control is not a form of health care. By no means was Limbaugh the one who turned this into a controversy. Friendly Freeper (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I'll start the article split at #1 and then move it (myself) to #2, because that's what folks at AfD want. FF can then move it to #3.

Any reason not to start right away? (Please review Wikipedia:Summary style before branding this a "POV fork", or better yet see my WP:splitting of Park51 with the Park51 controversy breakout). --

2012 birth control coverage controversy is getting warmer, but it assumes you know which country it's talking about, and assumes you know it means insurance coverage mandates. I'd wait until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke closes before doing anything; you'd moot much of that discussion. And in a week or two, this event will have shaken out better and we'll be better able to know what to call it. Until then, we can confidently say that Sandra Fluke's name is Sandra Fluke, so it's a good article title for now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If my previous suggestion wasn't clear enough, we could call it 2012 U.S. birth control insurance coverage mandate controversy, although this new suggestion seems a bit long. Friendly Freeper (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I Really don't see the need for a breakout article. If the story does die tomorrow there is no need for two articles and I really think it should be a bio, not an incident. Casprings (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

THe Limbaugh-Fluke Flap is the best if you are going to do it. These other names are kind of long. Casprings (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Just Keep The Article on her.. No Change needed

With all the suggestions on merging/renaming, I thought we put a section on just keeping the page. Wiki notes notable people as persistent news coverage. Fluke has been in the news since Feb 16. for multiple events (Denied testimony, testified before the Democratic members, Rush's Comments). To me, this is persistent coverage and goes beyond one event. Even if it is one event, she is due an article if the persone is "notable", which is again measured by persistent news coverage. Beyond that, she has been an advocate for different issues for years, which is why she was picked to testify. I think the page is fine like it is, in other so words Casprings (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with keeping the article name as Sandra Fluke. My comment in the above section for a suggested new name was based on if the article were to be renamed, what should that name be. I didn't mean to imply that I favored changing the name per se. Friendly Freeper (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Without prejudice to keeping the article, I kept the controversy (see Limbaugh-Fluke flap) and summarized the issue in a small section in Sandra Fluke: Media flap with Rush Limbaugh. Of course, nothing is written in stone, and I may have been too WP:BOLD to do this while AfD was still going on.

I just hate to see committees deciding the fate of articles while everyone else has to wait helplessly for a decision. This way, the information is preserved whether they keep SF or delete it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Testimony denied

"Testified" should be changed to "spoke"

"Sandra Kay Fluke (born April 17, 1981) is an American feminist and activist enrolled at Georgetown University Law Center[1][2][3] who testified before Democratic members of the House of Representatives on why she believed free contraception is generally essential."

"She was later[9] invited to testify on February 23 to House Democratic members,[10] and submitted written testimony"

Did she actually testify or speak before house democratic members?? Also in the opening of article it saya she "testified" but she was denied to "Testify". So she was able to speak before democratic House members at a press conference. Opening line with "Testified" in it should be changed to "spoke".Jbieber2001 (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The forum for her remarks was held in a Congressional office, and made to look like Congressional Testimony, but was not in front of any Congressional committee. Four Democrat members were in attendance, press, and the members of Ms. Fluke's student group. There was no oath, no cross-examination, no questions, and it was not entered into the Congressional Record. Technically, it was IN Congress, you can call any statement "testimony", but no, it was not what is understood as Congressional Testimony, and should not link to anything that implies it is. 12:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Was it denied because her name was submitted too late? Or:

In a letter released by Issa's staff, “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights but instead about the administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.” [1]

And was it a "refusal to have a woman" or what? We need more detail about HER, and less about Rush. The media flap over his inflammatory remarks can go in a separate article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Several women spoke at the hearing, but it was split into two sessions. They spoke after intermission, the first speakers in the morning were men. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your point about the reasons for excluding her. As is often the case, we're getting differing reports - often from the same source! As I indicated earlier, the Post has, "Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chaired the hearing, said the minority party had submitted her name too late to be considered (Democrats contest this)." I'll concede that Issa (or his 'office') might give differing reasons for her exclusion, but I was just going with the Post ref. Wikipelli ^Talk 16:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a contradiction in reports of why she was excluded. She was a last minute (technically last hour - Democrats submitted her name an hour before the start of the hearing) proposed speaker after the only speaker the Democrats had submitted for inclusion cancelled. Apparently no-one knew who she was and there were several mistakes in the sketchy biographical information given. At the time of the meeting, she didn't appear qualified, nor did she seem to have any story relevant to the subject of the hearing. The fact that at the time the Democrats hadn't submitted or know enough information to tell if she was qualified at the time and whether the day after the hearing people knew enough to know she wasn't an appropriate witness aren't contradictory, so, NO, this isn't a sufficient controversy for inclusion in the article. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that more important in a bio of the Georgetown student, or in 2012 Hearing on religious freedom? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"feminist"

Just a reminder, this is still a WP:BLP so every label must be sourced to an immediate inline citation when so requested. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

saying what? she's described as a women's rights activist loads of times. here's one: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/04/usa-contraception-limbaugh-idUSL2E8E400820120304?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563 are you seriously saying someone gets a BA in feminist, gender and sexuality studies and interns at NOW isn't a feminist? Paintedxbird (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

where the hell is the controversy here? how is anyone questioning this after reading her career? Paintedxbird (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it the first term to describe her? I've mostly seen her called a law student. She isn't known primarily as either a "feminist" or an "activist"...she's a law student. Given that feminist and activist are the type of terminology often used to discredit people's opinions (like "community organiser" is used disparagingly by some on the right for Obama) I think it's safer to use the more neutral - and more common - terms to describe her, especially in the lead. Guettarda (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I'll change it to women's rights activist, that the only thing that's sourced. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

She is a FEMINIST and an women's rights activist. Sorry if that is used to 'discredit' people. You don't get to change the English language, Mr. Liberal. Oh, I'm sorry- Mr. Progressive! See, they

are always trying this... lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.4.80 (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being either one, but it's not the primary way the sources describe her. Please read WP:BLP. Guettarda (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And aside from Limbaugh

Certain other bloggers have enlightened the public with their thoughts on Fluke. There are so many political bloggers that I'm unfamiliar with most of their names, but one Pamela Geller gets a longish article here and so must be taken seriously by some people somewhere. This effusion of hers is devoted to Fluke. In it, we learn that Fluke is a "pig", and "an embarrasment [sic] to decent young women".

My instinct is that this is so silly as not to be worth mentioning, but a search engine shows that it has attracted attention in the blogosphere (which indeed is how I noticed it), though not (yet) in news websites. Thoughts? -- Hoary (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And another one. Cnsnews.com purports to be a news website and is notable enough to have its own article here. On 27 February, without any mention of Limbaugh, it posted a story by one Craig Bannister titled "Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate". (I'd have assumed that this title was from The Onion, but no.) Bannister's piece too has attracted some attention, as shown by googling his name with hers.

Indeed there seems to be a netherworld of relevant "punditry" with Onion-reminiscent titles. For example, "Since We Can’t Call Sandra Fluke a ‘Slut,’ Would ‘Lying Liberal Bitch’ Be OK?", by one Robert Stacy McCain, another name that was new to me but a Wikipedia-notable blogger.

How much of these critical insights merit a mention? -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

None directly. And WP:BLP would suggest that you shouldnt even be doing so on the talk page. If there are third party sources talking about how she is being dragged through the mud of the blog-o-slime, then they might merit a mention. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is an essential element the fact that her name is being damaged. If there is anyone with reasonable notablity saying it, I would put those comments. Otherwise, a realiable news source that comments on it would be fine. Casprings (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments.

Really, I have mixed feelings about this. The comments to which I've linked ... how shall I phrase this politely? ... seem neither perceptive nor enlightening. Perhaps this is a minus (or perhaps it's just my value judgement, which of course should be ignored). Each comment is said either by somebody who has an article here or on a website that has an article here. That looks like a plus. OTOH such effusions from such sources are routine: dozens if not hundreds are churned out daily. A minus. Yet each has brought comments from elsewhere in the blogo/invectivosphere. A plus. But little or nothing in newspapers. A minus. On balance I'd tend to leave it unless/until a mainstream ("lamestream"?) source writes it up. Yet the fact is that Fluke became much better known thanks to contumely about her and the reaction to this, and the article does a disservice to its readers if it suggests either that Limbaugh was alone at the start or that (aside from anonymous posters to message forums, utterly humdrum bloggers, etc) this no longer continues.

Pen, yes, I feel a little queasy even quoting the stuff above. I am aware that "BLP" considerations apply to talk pages as well as articles. In the future, if I think it's necessary to cite that kind of page, I'll try to avoid also quoting it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but since she is a Paris Hilton type celebrity (famous for being famous), and included BECAUSE of news buzz, not accomplishments, the volume of nasty anti-Fluke columns and blogs is at least as notable and include-able as anything else about her. Conversely, writing about social media campaigns is PROMOTION, not news, since it only will be notable if in the future it causes some dramatic action. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, person in Massachusetts. If to you Fluke is indeed merely a celeb, then I can only infer that you are remarkably interested in mere celebs. Note that the great majority of events thought worthy of coverage in WP do not obviously cause dramatic actions. -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC) After 209.6.69.227 tampered with this comment of mine (in this edit), I'm restoring it. Hoary (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. Sandra Fluke as an individual has no accomplishments. I have argued that including a Wikipedia article IS justified, because the original media event has spawned other media events, and this has become a notable topic. The topic is the Political Media Strategy, though, not her personally, so campaigns to vandalize the page are news that should be included, negative columns should be included, and the fact of the media coverage is all legit. The Social Media campaigns as a Political tool is probably legit, but only if they work. Added in this edit by 209.6.69.227 on 15:41, 8 March 2012.

OK, PERSONAL ATTACKS on editors like Hoary just did have no place in Wikipedia. Trying to publicly post an editors personal info, which has no place on a talk page just because you don't like the edits SERIOUSLY NOT COOL. 14:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 (talk)

Page needed

I sincerely think Fluke needs a page. There is a reference to Glenn Beck's attack in the "Controversy" article and there are several cartoons relating to her testimony that are not mentioned, and honestly, aren't relevant to Limbaugh. I think collecting all the commentary regarding her testimony would make sense at this point, instead of just filing it under the controversy page. Added by 108.68.122.5 at 08:41, 10 March 2012.

Invective from the right

In this edit, I added:

Other, less prominent right-wing pundits made similar attacks on Fluke: [[Pamela Geller]] called Fluke a "pig", and "an embarrasment [sic] to decent young women";<ref>Pamela Geller, "[http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/03/fraud-flukes-obama-endorsed-ows-vaj.html Fraud Fluke's Obama-endorsed vagina]", Atlas Shrugs, 6 March 2012. Accessed 29 June 2012.</ref> and [[Robert Stacy McCain]] wondered whether it would be permissible to call Fluke a "lying liberal bitch".<ref>Robert Stacy McCain, "[http://theothermccain.com/2012/03/04/since-we-cant-call-sandra-fluke-a-slut-would-lying-liberal-bitch-be-ok/ Since We Can’t Call Sandra Fluke a ‘Slut,’ Would ‘Lying Liberal Bitch’ Be OK?]", The Other McCain, March 4, 2012. Accessed 29 June 2012.</ref>

and I changed the title from the rather odd Rush Limbaugh controversy with Fluke (which strangely suggested that there was some controversy jointly caused by Limbaugh and Fluke) to Invective from the right

This seems to have disturbed some editors.

1. 21:42, 30 June 2012: 76.75.95.58 changed the title back, with the edit summary it will take a lot more than rush and some unknowns to push the heavily POV "Invective from the right"
2. 21:47, 30 June 2012: 76.75.95.58 removed the paragraph, with the edit summary utterly irrelevant to the controversy
3. Casprings restored both.
4. 03:01, 1 July 2012: Xcal68 changed the title to "Rush Limbaugh controversy with Fluke", with the edit summary then create a heading title about her with pushing unfounded POV
5. 03:05, 1 July 2012: Xcal68 removed the paragraph, with the edit summary I understand you're only trying to flesh this article out, but try to do it with actual notable events instead of unknown trivia
6. Casprings restored heading and text.

Comments:

• 1. (i) Some unknowns: I had indeed never heard of either Geller or McCain. But each has an article in Wikipedia. (Admittedly, one of the pair appears to be written by somebody who is remarkably close to the biographee.) I tentatively infer that both writers have some notability.
• 1. (ii) I don't understand how "Invective from the right" is heavily POV. (A) I'd been thinking of titling this "Trash talk from the right"; would that have been better? Or is each too strong: are "pig" and "lying bitch" better termed "critical commentary", perhaps? (B) Or is it perhaps that Limbaugh, Geller and McCain are not from the right but are instead "conservative"?
• 2. A neat trick: First retitle a section to exclude one part of it, and then exclude that part on the grounds that it's irrelevant to the title. Trickiness aside, it's not even truthful. Consider the mere title of one of these two pieces: Since We Can’t Call Sandra Fluke a ‘Slut,’ Would ‘Lying Liberal Bitch’ Be OK? The very title announces its relevance to the Limbaugh brouhaha.
• 4. On unfounded POV in the title: Perhaps Xcal68 would care to suggest a title that he or she thinks is POV-free.
• 5. On unknown trivia: Yes, I think that the matter of which names are used for somebody by an AM radio jock or blogger is indeed pretty trivial. However, it seems to have become newsworthy in Fluke's case. Agreed, Google hit counts don't show all that much, but I think we can agree that a five-figure number is pretty high, even considering "reblogging" and other mindless echoing. And Google gives a five-figure number for the combination of "sandra fluke" (in quotes) and "pamela geller" (again in quotes), and another five-figure number for the combination of "sandra fluke" (in quotes) and "robert stacy mccain" (again in quotes). If this is trivia (a charge with which I partly agree), it is not unknown trivia.

Hoary (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Invective from the right is far too vague to use when the section is really only about Limbaugh. "From the right" is mixing in a huge group of people, while the section is only singling out 1 main person, and a couple no-ones. It is extremely POVish to blanket large groups with statements from a few people. At the very least, change the title to Invective from Limbaugh or something more precise. - Xcal68 (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

First, if Geller and McCain are nobodies, should they have articles? (Or, does the fact that they have articles perhaps suggest that they're not nobodies?) Secondly, if one says that invective comes from such-and-such a direction, should the reader infer that it comes from the majority of people in that direction? -- Hoary (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

" if one says that invective comes from such-and-such a direction, should the reader infer that it comes from the majority of people in that direction?" Exactly the problem right there. It implies this is how an entire group feels when, in fact, Limbaugh was also largely criticize from the right, as well. What is the problem, exactly, with a more precise section title? I'm not understanding the objection to that. - Xcal68 (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your idiolect of English is very dissimilar to mine, in which (say) "noise from young people" (in a particular context) doesn't suggest that the majority of young people in that context (let alone elsewhere) are noisy, still less that the entirety of the set "young people" is noisy. ¶ Yes, yes, precise section titles are fine. So what precise title is it going to be? Geller and McCain may for all I know merit obscurity, but they do have articles here and the fact that the slurs by each have generated tens of thousands of Ghits shows that these slurs are not obscure. I see no reason to exclude what they said. If you don't exclude what they said, the title shouldn't imply that all this stuff was from Limbaugh. Would you prefer Invective from elements in the right, or Invective from certain right-wing pundits, or similar? ¶ Meanwhile, I haven't heard of contumely about Fluke emanating from the left; have you? -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your example (young people), is that it ignores the surrounding context. While some on the right did criticize Limbaugh, the issue was still somewhat partisan. To center out "right" in the title heading seems partisan itself, and loaded with POV. - 74.205.176.202 (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but although I have read this comment three times, I still do not understand it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind if it is named something else. I do like the idea of the title and content expanding beyond Fluke and Limbaugh. Casprings (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In this edit of 6 July, Roscelese removed the material again, with the edit summary yeah, no. I don't understand this edit summary. There may be a very good reason to remove this material, but if so I'd like to know what this reason is. -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't speak for Roscelese, but agree with the edit. Random name-calling is seldom notable, nor does it add much to the encyclopedic nature of an article. The Limbaugh rants are the exception, since they became the focus for all media coverage, and extended Fluke's 15 minutes several-fold. Would also add that the sole seeming purpose to the non-Limbaugh quotes is to justify making the Limbaugh sexist remark section not include Limbaugh's name. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have pointed out above that the comments by Geller and McCain (however silly and/or inherently ignorable they might be) attracted some media coverage. If this is correct, then it's not correct to say that Limbaugh's rants "became the focus for all media coverage". -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Limbaugh slut remarks are arguably the most significant event in Sandra Fluke's life thus far; perfectly OK to include them. The second you expand a section to include other commentary, your highly selective choice of only those which also had questionable word choices and ignoring the voluminous substantive criticism makes the section WP:UNDUE. The section heading also fails by WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, as the editorial juxtaposition is done so to make a conclusion the facts do not support; that all criticism of Fluke was mere "Invective". --209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

To describe invective as invective doesn't imply that there was not also intelligently phrased, substantive criticism. You say that the latter was voluminous; would you care to cite some? -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

sneaking in fringe material under the radar

In this edit,

<ref>Andrew Bair, "[http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/14/pro-abortion-activist-sandra-fluke-endorses-obama/ Pro-Abortion Activist Sandra Fluke Endorses Obama]", Lifenews.com, June 14, 2012. Accessed 29 June 2012.</ref>

is removed, with the comment no sneaking in fringe material under the radar.

It was me that added it, so I suppose I can add "sneaker-in of fringe material under the radar" to my list of honors.

Yes, it's fringe material. I'd thought it possibly noteworthy that some fringe right-wing organ thought this noteworthy. Did I do wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If the object were to comment on the fringe's reception of the event, we'd need a reliable source that commented on the fringe's reception. You seem to be suggesting that lifenews is being used here as a primary source, but use of primary sources (especially in an article like this where so many reliable secondary sources are available) creates WP:OR problems. I'm glad you didn't try and put it in text though! It's just that the use of extremely low-quality sources should be discouraged even if the material is not contentious. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, a certain, vocal demographic seems to like to dismiss as "lamestream" the sources that you and I think of as pretty decent or better. I thought that this fringe coverage of Fluke might be noteworthy here. Perhaps I was wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A bit US centric?

"she came to national attention" and "was invited by Democrats".

Nowhere is it mentioned that this person is noteworthy mainly in the US.

• Good point, I tweaked it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we sure she is a Democrat?

While I am about 99.999999% sure she is, is she on the record saying she is? She hasn't ran for office. That being the case, should we affiliate her with the Democratic party, if she hasn't said she is a member? Casprings (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Unless there is a source saying she is a Democrat, the article should not say she is. Astounding numbers of Republican women support women's rights (go figure!), they just aren't in elected office.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Relevant? I came here tonight seeking details for a comment elsewhere about her speech at the 2010 Democratic Convention in Charlotte, NC. I find the biased harassment and petty commentary here, one of the low-points of my entire Wikipedia experiences. Whatever. Sandra Fluke IS a public figure, deserving of a decent bio-article with Wiki-Quality information, not more petty slander. Reference to the 9/5/12 Democratic Convention speech should be added. HalFonts (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The article said that she was a Democrat. It seems very likely that she is. However, without direct evidence for it, the assertion should go. Simple as that. Yes, much of the content of this talk page is indeed tedious. (For more low points, look at the talk pages of other figures in US politics.) What is currently the latest version has a paragraph on the speech. If you think you can improve this or some other part of the article, please do so. -- Hoary (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)