Talk:Rape and pregnancy statement controversies in the 2012 United States elections/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Political impact

WP:NOTNEWS. This section as it stands IS a newspaper.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. That GOP Senators have called for Akin to withdraw from the race is relevant here as is his opponent's response to the comments. Wikipedia is not prevented from covering the same events as newspapers by WP:NOTNEWS. The recentism tag is also inapplicable here as this story is about a current event and therefore should be slanted towards current events. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 01:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Step by Step News Article

This article might be a good place to start to expand the article. It provides a detailed blow by blow of the event. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rep-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-statement-and-reaction.html Casprings (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

John Willke

Some material from here may be illustrative of the "science" behind Akin comments, and may be useful for this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pro-life-doctor-john-willke-linked-akin-forcible-rape-claims-endorsed-romney-2007-article-1.1141021 Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, can someone help rename J._C._Willke to John C. Willke? I don't know how to do that Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked up the 1985 book mentioned in the NYT article were Willke supposedly said this, but the only book I can find by a "John Willke" in 1985 was about nuclear reactors. Can someone clarify what the article was talking about?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, it appears that two of Dr. Willkes books - Handbook of Abortion and Abortion questions and answers, which have a number of editions in many years, had versions come out that year. These were all under the name "J.C. Willkes". Can anyone find a copy and see what he is talking about?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See the John C. Willke article. I found the ISBN numbers and an excerpt. Cwobeel (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Missouri voters not upset with Akin

Looks like Missouri voters are fine with Akin. The liberals and the main stream media are going to have to stop gloating over the gotcha.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/21/ppp-poll-todd-akin-isnt-dead-yet/>True Observer (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that social conservative voters are quite happy with Akin. Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, just demean a whole group of people William Jockusch (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And the election was called fairly early - for Claire McCaskill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.24.152 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of material

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Akin_rape_and_pregnancy_controversy&diff=508507021&oldid=508502453

I'd ask ‎William Jockusch to explain why he deleted material that is relevant and properly sourced. Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what has been deleted: Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney's 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.”

It has been pointed out that Akin cosponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which would have conferred full legal personhood on embryos beginning at fertilization or cloning, as well as bills recognizing only "forcible" rape to narrow access to federal funding for abortions.

In my view this is a clear POV edit. I supported adding it back. Casprings (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

They seem ridiculously Pointy in their wording; not 100% sure on whether they should be added back - but the wording should be improved. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Simple -- the restoration of the material misidentified the previous edit deleting it as vandalism. However, if you read WP:Vandalism, it is abundantly clear that the prior deletion does not fit the criteria. In fact, WP:Vandalism specifically excludes edits like the prior deletion. Such editing practices should not be tolerated.William Jockusch (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how a deletion of content without discussion is anything but vandalism. In particular when the editor is not signed in. Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" . The paragraph about BLP does not apply here, as the material is verifiable and sourced to reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk)

From WP:Vandalism Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. In light of this, are you still contending that the edit was vandalism?William Jockusch (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, if you want to argue for the Romney point, please separate the discussions.William Jockusch (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am discussing BOTH your removals. I have no indication from you about why you deleted both. The burden is on you to explain the deletions, as you deleted them and both sentences are sourced to reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing that is upsetting is that there is lack of respect for the effort made by others to improve the article by researching and adding properly sourced information. If you think these edits are pointy or that need to be better worded, please do so. But deleting them outright with a mere edit summary is in no way conducive to collaboration. Cwobeel (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No lack of respect is intended. I am sure your efforts were in good faith and well-meaning. William Jockusch (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lack of respect is what you are doing with your actions. Deleting content in the middle of a debate? That is called edit warring. Cwobeel (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The material deleted is not unambiguously "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced". Please discuss here and gain consensus, and stop edit warring. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Political Bias is Not Acceptable on Wikipedia

I hold no sympathy whatsoever for the Republican Party. But it is clearly obvious that some left-leaning contributors are attempting to milk this incident. Does Wikipedia have an article devoted to Maxine Waters' gaffe threatening to "socialize" and "take over" oil companies for charging too much for gasoline? Or what about Joe Biden saying how capitalism would "put y'all back in chains", to an African-American audience? There are plenty of examples of stupidity on your side of the aisle, too, and you seem content to allow those to slide.

Regardless of your political views, it is of the utmost importance that favoritism never enter journalism. Until articles exist regarding the incidents mentioned prior, you are guilty of blatant hypocrisy, and all independently-minded readers will hold you in the deepest contempt for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.111.240 (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I understand your point but I think this article is quite informative. Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief - you cannot be serious. It's bad enough that Wikipedia has Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy without having Joe Biden Wall Street chains controversy and Maxine Waters gasoline overcharging controversy to go with it. At least that Palin woman actually resigned all those years ago but, well, where does this actually end? How much further can it go? Is Wikipedia soon going to have an entry detailing a U.S. politician's bowel movements during a trip to the toilet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.241 (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

not to mention the enormous gaffe that was the "Paul Ryan" budget. 68.37.254.48 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as this article stands up to all relevant Wikipedia policies, I see no evidence for political bias. If you're accusing Wikipedia of political favoritism you must not understand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website for political journalism. Content is user-driven, and volunteers are not assigned to fields as in journalism, they contribute on subjects they are interested in. Thus it would impossible to impose such balancing requirements as you suggest, but right-leaning contributors are more than welcome to create such articles as you've suggested, again, so long as they follow policy. There is no overseeing entity for Wikipedia that is allowing politically beneficial articles for one party and blocking the creation of them from the other. Any perceived imbalance in political articles would be due to users simply not creating them, as is their right.If you believe these articles should exist, then WP:SOFIXIT and create them.

Unlike this legitimate news story, In the Biden "controversy" example, there has been no retraction, there has been and will be no statement issued by the Vice President that he "misspoke," and what Akin stated was a belief that could not stand as valid due to biological/scientific fact as evidence to the contrary . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.131.15 (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest you take a quick peek at WP:NOTABILITY if you're fearing the creation of a Politician Bowel Movement article. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia soon going to have an entry detailing a U.S. politician's bowel movements during a trip to the toilet?

If there are thousands of newspaper articles dedicated to the topic, as there are to this one, then I would have no problem with such an article. — goethean ॐ 19:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The current debate within the US about abortion rights, and the role of religious convictions rather than accepted scientific opinion in shaping national policy on the matter, is of great interest to all sorts of people outside the US with no particular stake in the outcome of the US electoral process. As currently framed, the article does provide what seems like a straightforward picture of the controversy; Akin's revelatory statement is in no way comparable to the average politician's gaffe. VEBott (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney coatrack

A user appears to believe that a past interaction between Mitt Romney and an individual named Willke is somehow relevant to the controversy. I'm sure the user believes this in good faith; however, Romney/Willke from years ago is not relevant to the Akin idiocy. Furthermore, this is a violation of WP:Coatrack. William Jockusch (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It provides background information that is important for Willke and the Article. Casprings (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's face it, every politician is going to have had some sort of involvement with a less-than-scrupulous person. This little bit of 'information' does not relate to the controversy at all and thus should not be included. Toa Nidhiki05 00:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda" is verbatim from the 2007 Romney campaign about Willke, who is one of the "sources" for the theories about rape espoused by Akin as reported by the sources provided. That is useful and encyclopedic context, I believe. Cwobeel (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Other sources providing the same context:

* http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-doctor-behind-todd-akins-rape-theory-was-a-romney-surrogate-in-2007-20120821,0,80862.story

* http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/romney-endorsed-by-praised-dr-john-willke-leading-proponent-of-idea-that-rape-lowers-pregnancy-risk/261358/

Cwobeel (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is from the waback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20071227112415/http:/www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Endorsement_Willke Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Saturday, Oct 20, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390

Boston, MA – Today, Dr. John Willke, a founder of the Pro Life Movement, endorsed Governor Mitt Romney and his campaign for our nation's highest office. Dr. Willke is a leading voice within the pro-life community and will be an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.

"Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life. Every decision he made as Governor was on the side of life. I know he will be the strong pro-life President we need in the White House," said Dr. Willke. "Governor Romney is the only candidate who can lead our pro-life and pro-family conservative movement to victory in 2008."

Welcoming Dr. Willke's announcement, Governor Romney said, "I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country. He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies. Policies that include more than appointing judges who will follow the law but also opposing taxpayer funded abortion and partial birth abortion. I look forward to working with Dr. Willke and welcome him to Romney for President."

And how does that relate to Todd Akin's comments, the idea behind the article? You have sources linking Wilke to supporting the 2007 Romney campaign and the 2007 Romney campaign recognizing him and Wilke to Akin, but how do they link Akin's comment to Romney? Further, how is it notable to this encyclopedia, and how is it notable to include this in background? The mention is entirely random and in similar fashion to conservative arguments linking Obama to terrorist Bill Ayers It simply isn't notable to include on this page - it is little more than a political 'Gotcha!' moment by the media trying to link an incredibly stupid and unscientific comment to the Romney campaign. Toa Nidhiki05 00:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

−

It relates to it as reported by reputable sources. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." Now, this is my opinion: This is not a gotcha moment, not at all. These ideas permeate the thinking of many in the conservative movement, who honestly believe that life begins at conception. In that thinking, many ideas that purports to support that belief with science, has been embraced by them some overtly (like Akin), others not so publicly. Again: just my opinion. Cwobeel (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources can say something and it not be included in the article because context is needed. There is no context for this statement in the background section, no need for it and it fails to serve an encyclopedic purpose at all. Toa Nidhiki05 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"There is no context for this statement" are you serious? The context is established very well by the sources provided. This is unacceptable that solidly source material is deleted while having this discussion! Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The fact that this guy endorsed the Romney campaign and the acknowledged him has nothing to do with Akin's comment. At all. It is random trivia that is out of place in both the background section and the page. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, who is edit warring, William Jockusch? Cwobeel (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm to improve Wikipedia is delightful; your quickness to accuse less so. My edits are allowed by exception number 7 under WP:3RRNO. I'm sure you believe in good faith that it is appropriate to use Akin's idiocy to attack Republicans in general and Mitt Romney in particular, and my attempts to enforce WP in this regard must be quite annoying to you; warm regards. William Jockusch (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That is what is called Ad hominem. I would have preferred that you substantiate your arguments about why this material is not relevant. WP:3RRNO: care to explain why this applies? Cwobeel (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:3RRNO: "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Cwobeel (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I did consider it, but due to the BLP issues involved and the time-sensitive nature of the issue [as this is at the peak of the media cycle], I believe reverting is the more appropriate course. If the 3RR folks want to correct me, I'll find that an interesting discussion of it's own right. In regards to the irrelevance, I have already explained that but will humor those who appear to want to do so again. The fact that Todd Akin said some idiotic things is not a reason to bring up times in the past when others have said similar idiotic things. Warm regards. William Jockusch (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Idiotic or not, that is not for us to judge. The fact is that these opinion have been widely reported in relation to Akin;'s comments and that is why it is relevant. Cwobeel (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with William Jockusch on the WP:COATRACKing of Romney's 2007 campaign. It's not particularly relevant to understanding who Wilke is. There could be a mention of Wilke's views on rape and pregnancy on a Romney's 2007 campaign article if it exists, but in the context of Todd Akin's controversy, it doesn't seem relevant that Wilke was considered an "important surrogate"(whatever that means) for Romney's campaign. I do believe the rest of the content that is being edit warred over should remain in the article. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Todd_Akin_rape_and_pregnancy_controversy Cwobeel (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Todd_Akin_rape_and_pregnancy_controversy . I have restored all that content with the exception of the sentence about Mitt Romney. I think it is worth mentioning and not a coat-rack, but bringing this up for further discussion.:

Mitt Romney's 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.”

Cwobeel (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not just a Romney coatrack. It's simply a spurious effort to keep the whole "War on Women" meme alive. The article is poorly written and has serious NPOV problems, which is why I'm about to stick a tag on it. Belchfire-TALK 06:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I would love to hear what are the serious problems you describe so that we can resolve them. Adding a tag without providing a substantive rationale is not helpful Cwobeel (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link: WP:COATRACK I hope that helps. Belchfire-TALK 00:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I read that nicely written essay, but I still fail to understand how this applies to this statement. Could you explain? Cwobeel (talk)

i.e. "A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." How this applies to this article? Cwobeel (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This continues: Cwobeel (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9493653/US-election-Mitt-Romney-met-Todd-Akin-doctor-Jack-Willke-during-2012-campaign.html

Mr Romney and Paul Ryan, his running mate, have denounced Mr Akin's remarks. Dr Willke has been given no role in Mr Romney’s 2012 campaign and aides stress that the candidate disagrees with his theory on rape.

However, Dr Willke told The Daily Telegraph that he did meet Mr Romney during a presidential primary campaign stop in the doctor's home city of Cincinnati, Ohio, in October last year. Local news reports at the time noted that the candidate held “private meetings” during the visit.

“He told me ‘thank you for your support – we agree on almost everything, and if I am elected President I will make some major pro-life pronouncements’,” Dr Willke said in a telephone interview on Tuesday.

Background Section

I think the information about other support for Akin's view is WP:REL. I think that this belongs in the background section. Please discuss. Casprings (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit in question is the following:

In a 1972 article, Dr. Fred Mecklenburg argued that pregnancy is unlikely from rape. That article has influenced two generations of anti-abortion activists with the hope to build a medical case to ban all abortions without any exception. The article uses a flawed argument, claiming experiments in Nazi death camps had shown women are less likely to ovulate after trauma. Humans are not reflex ovulators, and have to ovulate before fertilization can occur.

Pennsylvania state Republican representative Stephen Freind was one the the first legislators making the argument that rape prevents pregnancy, arguing in 1988 that the odds of a pregnancy resulting from rape were “one in millions and millions and millions.”

Another early proponent of this view is John C. Willke, a former president of the National Right to Life Committee and a general practitioner with obstetric training, who articulated this view in a book published in 1985 and in a 1999 article, and in an interview on August 20: "This is a traumatic thing — she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight. She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.” These assertions were disputed by a number of gynecology professors. Mitt Romney's 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.”

In 1995, Republican Henry Aldridge, a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives, made the following remarks to the House Appropriations Committee during a debate to eliminate a state abortion fund for poor women: "The facts show that people who are raped — who are truly raped — the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."

I think this is highly WP:ROC. It shows that the comments are not made in a vacuum and previous high profile individuals have supported the view. Casprings (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is WP:Coatrack for reasons already explained. Cheers. William Jockusch (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As clearly stated in WP:WINAC background information is fine. "It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require."

The fact that Akin is among many public figures that said similar views is important. While we can certainly cut down on the amount of text, something should be included. Casprings (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, since we have all these paragraphs for the "pregnancy" part of the quote, how about including Whoopi Goldberg's statement that whatever Polanski did was "not rape-rape" -- as background to the "legitimate" part of the quote. It's background, isn't it? Relevant to part of the quote, no? By the logic of the above posters, it is therefore relevant.William Jockusch (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that follows from what editors have said above. They are only including political figures. Whoopi Goldberg is only a media figure, albeit an EGOTer, and her opinions do not have the same potential to affect policy as Aldridge's and Freind's. If you can find a Democratic state representative who espouses the same views on rape and pregnancy, as you mention on the BLP noticeboard, that would be perfectly reasonable for addition. Jonathanfu (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancient law of England -- woman cannot conceive if she does not consent

Britton, in stating the law on rape in section De Apels de Homicides, writes that "With regard to an appeal of rape, our pleasure is, that every woman, whether virgin or not, shall have a right to sue vengeance for the felony by appeal in the county court within forty days, but after that time she shall lose her suit; in which case, if the defendant confesses the fact, but says that the woman at the same time conceived by him, and can prove it, then our will is that it be adjudged no felony, because no woman can conceive if she does not consent." Text available here.

Seems to me the Akin controversey raises an interesting question for evolutionary biologists. A mechanism that would prevent conception in cases of forcible rape would seem to serve a useful purpose by preventing conception when the woman is violated by an undesirable. There is no research I have seen that would even begin to pass muster at evaluating that hypothesis. The research cited in the article does not even come close, and further, is incorrectly presented as a rebuttal to Akin's remarks, an error that the author of this article may wish to correct. Akin was specifically referring to a subset of rapes he terms "legitimate", which apparently means forcible knife-to-the-throat cases, and the research does not distinguish such circumstances. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.140.139 (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Chuck.Anesi (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the Akin controversy raises an interesting question for evolutionary biologists.

Not really. Natural evolutionary processes don't "care" whether something is undesirable for society. They "care" whether it is desirable for the species. There's nothing about the continued lineage of rapists that is undesirable for the species. — goethean ॐ 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There are such ideas out there. Read: Sociobiological_theories_of_rape Cwobeel (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Group selection is generally regarded not very highly by biologists nowadays so talking about what is good for the species doesn't make much sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the universal Democratic response to this?

To read this article one would think that other than President Obama's saying that "rape is rape", there was no Democratic reaction at all, which of course is totally absurd. Why is there no section chronicling the virtually universal response that Democrats had for these statements? Tvoz/talk 15:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will object if you put something in. But the fact that political opponents would criticize him in a near universal fashion in this context shouldn't be surprising. That's all the more the case given that when most Democrats are strongly pro-choice and have been trying to push the notion of a Republican "war on women" this election cycle. Having a detailed discussion of predictable respones may not be that useful. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that "trying to push" is an accurate (or at least unbiased) description, but in any case the recent edit merging the material into "Political impact" satisfies my concern for the moment. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Willke / Akin

More on Willke and Akin: "Akin's decision to release the letter from Dr. Jack Willke, founder of the International Right to Life Federation, sends a mixed message from the GOP congressman, who has apologized repeatedly for having said "legitimate rape" rarely leads to pregnancy."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-todd-akin-touts-support-from-man-who-popularized-theories-on-rape-20120821,0,6626759.story

"The pro-life movement and I unequivocally stand with Rep. Akin. How could we not?" Willke wrote in the letter. "Rep. Akin will make the U.S. Senate a safer place for the most vulnerable in our nation.

"It's time for Republican leaders to rise to the level of Rep. Akin's principle and courage and stand with him and the Republican platform that stands for the protection of every human life."

A mention of this should be added. Cwobeel (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Dr Willke has told The Daily Telegraph that he met Romney during a campaign stop in Cincinatti, during the current campaign. Quote "He told me ‘thank you for your support – we agree on almost everything, and if I am elected President I will make some major pro-life pronouncements’."

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9493653/US-election-Mitt-Romney-met-Todd-Akin-doctor-Jack-Willke-during-2012-campaign.html

--TS 04:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Remarks ripple globally

Nice article on the reaction by some overseas commentators to this story at the CNN website. Mention could be made in this article perhaps?. Or it could even be useful to those trying to save the article from deletion? -219.89.40.209 (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We could include a section on "International reaction". I will work on this over the next few days. Cwobeel (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

New article name

The recent move of the article to Todd Akin's 2012 comments on rape-induced pregnancy is a little confusing, considering the controversy is about the fact that his comments were that rape cannot induce pregnancy. Are there any contenders for a more accurate / less confusing name? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither the old one nor this one seem like a great fit. Maybe just "... comments on rape and pregnancy"? a13ean (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to the previous title Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy, which is also the title that the AfD is under. -- The Anome (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as inaccurate or confusing as this exact terminology is used in several sources: [1] [2][ [3]. He made comments that rape-induced pregnancies are "rare", not that they don't exist and it is clearly the focus of the controversy over the comments. Certainly it is miles better than "rape and pregnancy controversy" as it clearly defines the subject. "Rape and pregnancy controversy" could mean any number of things.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please undo this move? The previous name was there for a while and if you want to change it, make a proposal here and discuss first. I would do it myself but better if you do it. 20:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy" has major BLP issues with a straight reading implying that Akin has come connection to a rape. There needs to be something about "Comments" or else the more obvious and NOTNEWS answer of a redirect and merge. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This pretty much sums up my main reasons for the name change.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss, then. What is the BLP issue? Can you clarify? Also note that the article is being already discussed for deletion or merge. Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation because a straight reading of Akin rape controversy leads the reader to believe that the controvery is about an actual rape committed by a living person and not just merely stupid comments about rape. The title needs to convey that the article and controversy is about words and not acts -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point. Thank you. But "comments on rape-induced pregnancy" is completely out of the question as it does not describe the article, and no one as referred to it that way in the sources we have. We need to look for something better than that. Cwobeel (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just "Legitimate rape controversy" or "Todd Akin rape comments" (used a lot in press titles) Cwobeel (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Except it is clearly as much about the comments about rape causing pregnancy as it is about his use of the term "legitimate rape" and we have more than enough sources to attest to that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So, what do you propose? Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Todd Akin "legitimate rape" controversy? -- The Anome (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Except there are also plenty of sources that focus on the scientific claim about women having some biological mechanism that makes pregnancy from rape less likely.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That is pseudoscience, and described in Pregnancy from rape. Here we are describing the controversy of the remarks made by a Akin. Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes were are describing that, and said claim about pregnancy from rape is another focus of the controversy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree this article title is highly problematic and should be changed per BLP to include the word comment, i.e. Todd Akin rape comment controversy. Technically, the comment was more about abortion than pregnancy, the issue of abortion in cases of rape (which he opposes). Jokestress (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How about "Todd Akin rape comment controversy"? Ha, great minds think alike. I agree with "Todd Akin rape comment controversy". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Still sort of confusing and I think the failure to mention pregnancy is kind of a problem, since that was a pretty important part of the controversy, even getting a substantial write-up in Popular Science.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Todd Akin rape pregnancy claim"? Or "...comment" or "...controversy"? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the current article name. If Akin had merely declared "I don't think women should be able to get an abortion even in case of rape," he might have been labelled an extremist, but would not have attracted such unique attention, as many people hold such views. The media firestorm centers around the ignorance of his pseudoscientific implications that rape rarely results in pregnancy and that the female body can identify and respond to rape. As such I think some mention of pregnancy in the title is valuable. Dcoetzee 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

pov - the lead sentence buries the actual salient parts of the controversy - the DENIAL of rape induced pregancy and the use of the phrase "legitimate" rape

The lead sentence that DA keeps reverting to "Todd Akin's comments on rape-induced pregnancy during the 2012 United States Senate election in Missouri have been the subject of considerable controversy." is an unaceptable POV phrasing because it is misleading buries the actual basis of the controversy. If his comments had only been about "rape-induced pregnancy ", there would be no controversy. But instead, the comments were a DENIAL of rape induced pregancy and the use of the phrase "legitimate" rape. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't denying the existence of rape-induced pregnancy, but saying it was rare as one can see from reading the quote provided in the very first section of the article. His used of the term "legitimate rape" is part of the controversy yes, and it is mentioned in the lede in the very next sentence. There is no reason why it should be in boldface since the comment is not included in either title for this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we please stop splitting hairs? What he said is pretty obvious by now, and it should not be a problem finding a summary for it. Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether someone denied the existence of rape-induced pregnancies or simply said they were rare is not "splitting hairs", but is instead a very important distinction. It is particularly important when it concerns an article on a living person.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What we have there says exactly that: "[...] comments including the the claim that women who are victims of "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant", so we are good Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And until the name issue gets straightened out, worrying about details of the lead is moot. i created this section before the rapidfire series of moves. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"rape is rape" ?

Lost, somewhere in the controversy, is regard for another type of rape -- statutory rape -- in which minors engage in sexual relations (imagine!) while they are below the age of consent. Keeping this concept, e.g., that other kind of rape, out of the article is .... --S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it in any way relevant to Akin's remarks? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

?? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Akins talked about "legitimate rape" and Ryan said "rape is rape". Is the article so hide-bound that statutory rape -- that other type of rape -- is omitted? No. Let the readers click on the link, then they can decide. But perhaps Types of rape should be added as a useful link in consideration of Ryan's comment. --S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We could also link date rape/acquaintance rape, which sources seem to think far more likely to be the sort of rape Akin finds illegitimate. Singling out statutory rape (which, by the way, the sources by and large do not do) seems like an attempt to excuse Akin's comments through original analysis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Other rape "gaffes"

We've subsequently seen a number of other politicians make "gaffes" about rape, most recently Tom Smith, Bob Casey's challenger in Pennsylvania. What do editors to this article think of adding this sort of material to the political impact section? The sources are saying that it's unlikely that these politicians would be in the position to make such "gaffes" - wouldn't be asked these questions - if not for the Akin affair. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't really have an opinion on that, but if it does get included, I would just hope that we are all focused on avoiding coatracking. Dreambeaver(talk) 23:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about whether they should be included either, but I'd question characterizing statements such as Tom Smith's as gaffes. (And Roscelese I see you put "gaffes" in quotes, so maybe you feel the same way.) Comments like the Tom Smith statement may be Kinsley gaffes, but they're not classic gaffes in the sense of a politician awkwardly misspeaking. Based on the Wikipedia article, it looks like Tom Smith was just stating his views on abortion. Some/many people may disagree with him, but that doesn't make his statement a gaffe -- it just makes it controversial. Sue Gardner (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

general practitioner with obstetric training John C. Willke

I know a NY Times article lists him as such, but are there any records available out there that can give a better idea than this vague statement? As I understand it, all MDs undergo various levels of training in every specialty, and things like residencies and fellowships are much more significant training. Does his description as is give some very slight undue weight to Willke's medical background? I've been looking for better records, but the best I have managed is a fairly odd looking website that says Willke did a internal medicine residency at Good Samaritan Hospital, and says nothing of any OB/GYN fellowships or board certifications. I don't believe he practices anymore, so I've had no luck scrounging up some data from his former hospitals.

If we can find some RS to support or not support Willke having significant OB training, that'd be best, but if not, should that bit be removed? Jonathanfu (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. As you said, obstetric training is standard for doctors, so emphasizing it would be strange. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, going to remove it unless someone objects. Jonathanfu (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

science committee membership?

does he still work on the science committee? There's probably no specific way to be kicked off the committee once assigned right? 71.234.13.90 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the DCCC has tried to make this move and there have been opinions suggesting this (Margaret Martonosi, Wired, etc.), but it's nothing really notable -- not worth mentioning on this page. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

WTF is this doing on wikipedia?

Seriously are the admins now 1005 left wing kobbers these days? This article should have been speedily deleted withing 24 hours of inception. This place is becoming such a joke.Whatzinaname (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This controversy most likely cost Akin a senate seat, and has been the subject of multiple news articles. That's why it's here. Czolgolz (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this page might be too current-events focused, but there was already a thread about it all. The consensus seemed to be to keep it until we can gauge the lasting impact of these comments. It got a lot of media coverage and was a potential swing district in an election year. Who knows what consensus will be when January rolls around -- I plan on being involved in that discussion then. But until the next thread, I'm just trying to make sure that the political commentary here is at a minimum. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was so liberal, You didn't build that wouldn't exist. I am thinking of initiating new AfDs on both articles after the election. We need things to settle down first. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The header on You didn't build that alerts users that the article is considered biased and may be deleted. This article has no such header despite generating the same complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.73.139 (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is it here? Many stripes of political activists have been able to utilize Wikipedia as a public platform for their election year silliness because Wikipedia's policies and practices are more designed to support the open "anyone can edit" ethos which ends up trumping (at least temporarily) the quality control and encyclopedic focus of the project. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that after the election people will be more open to addressing things that seem current events focused. A current Google News search for Akin doesn't really bring much other than articles about the race. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Marital rape

When I first heard about this controversy, I thought he was referring to the concept of marital rape, because historically marital rape was not illegal and was in fact considered legitimate in most cultures until the middle of the 20th century. And even nowadays marital rape is still not illegal in Muslim countries such as Morocco and Afghanistan. The concept of marital rape could possibly be talked about in the article as a side-issue though. 199.21.182.31 (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has brought up the idea of "marital rape", so that would be WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections Casprings (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Was moved as a result of AfD discussion found here . However, will do another move request with 2012 Republican rape comment controversies to determine what real consensus is.

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy → 2012 Election (US) Republican party's comments about rape – I suggest it it time to integrate the diverse comments on rape by Republican politicians during the 2012 cycle. There is a clear theme and the media has often reported them together in their analysis The Todd Akin page can form the backbone of the new page, but the page should also include Richard Mourdock comments, Roger Rivard's "rape so easy" comments, and Linda McMahon's "emergency rape". Multiple sources discuss these sources together and the page would have one very clear connection. It would not have a WP:COATRACK problem for those reasons. Casprings (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note The suggested title for the new article may need some work. If you agree (or disagree) with the proposal, please suggest a new title, if you have a better idea.Casprings (talk)

Survey

• Support merge/move (though proposed title is clumsy). Refocusing the article on the GOP rape comments as a whole, as a phenomenon, allows us to take a longer-term and less day-by-day, news-y view of the event and its effect on the election, and to prefer the commentary of analysts to most of the "reactions" from either side. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge Wider subject and better coverage. As for a parent article, I would suggest Pregnancy from rape which currently covers historical perspectives on the subject. Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support; how about Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections? It's long but descriptive. Powers ^T 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Still seems like a campaign strategy that will blow over and isn't all that related. Voting that all of these comments should be on the pages of their respective candidates (depending on notability) and the races they played a factor in. Dreambeaver(talk) 21:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support could all be included in one article. I'm not sure I like the proposed name, however, because the disambiguation isn't needed and because it makes it seems as though the comments were made by candidates themselves. Something along the lines of 2012 Republican candidates' rape comments would be better. Hot Stop (Edits) 16:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Sure. I strongly support LtPowers's proposed title. "2012 Republican candidates' rape comments" is too much of a generalization. dci | TALK 17:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• I don't oppose the move. Yes, the proposed title is awkward. It does seem like there are reliable sources linking these events together (although I'm not familiar with all four of them). That seems to lend support to linking them. Other articles like Todd Akin could remain in summary style (or be rewritten in better summary style) if they were linked to the akin or whichever politician part of this moved article. Perhaps the less sensational title would mean the articles attracted less unwanted attention. The problematic parts of this article are definitely the narrative parts of it which would presumably be de-emphasized in the moved and expanded article. But the article about the other rape gaffe in Indiana was deleted, so I'm not sure about the propriety of sort of quasi-resurrecting it here.AgnosticAphid talk 17:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, support, an integrated article makes sense --- there are beginning to be lots of media stories linking all the comments. As time passes and journalists move out of horse-race mode, it looks like the comments are beginning to be understood less as isolated gaffes and more as an indicator that there's a streak of strong social conservatism inside the Republican party that's hurting electability. See this or this. So a single article makes sense, and it should probably be a child of War on Women. (And maybe Tom Smith should be in it too.) Sue Gardner (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support proposal. -- KTC (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title if the intent is present cases like Akin's as if they were representative of the Republican platform (which mentions rape only once - in support of mandatory prison sentencing for those convicted of it). Neutral if a title like LtPowers' option is chosen instead. Kilopi (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support the idea of creating an article discussing all these ridiculous Republican rape-related gaffes. However, the Todd Akin controversy is particularly notable, and the article is so extensive that I'm not sure how well it would fit into a broader article. I suggest creating a broader article, but summarizing the Akin controversy in the broader article, while leaving the original article intact as a subarticle. Everyking (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. How can classifying gaffes according to party be anything other than partisan? These people are state assemblymen and state treasurers, not exactly key positions in the party. If a gaffe had a notable effect on a particular election, it can be addressed in the article that deals with the relevant election. Kauffner (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kauffner. The name is too broad and to vague. Hekerui (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. If nothing else, I'd say the present title is a bit (too) clumsy. "Todd Akin comment controversy" in lieu of anything different? (Or are there more than one notably controversial comments made by Todd Akin? "Todd Akin comment controversy (2012)"?) 213.246.91.158 (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – The comments were made by an individual, not the entire GOP! The proposed title is factually untrue. Senator2029 “let's talk” 21:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support principle, oppose non-NPOV name. Yes, we should expand this article to include the various other rape/pregnancy/abortion-related controversies in this US election cycle, but the proposed title, in addition to being clumsy, pushes the POV that the Republican Party is responsible for these controversies, rather than the individual people that made the comments. If they are all Republicans, then consider mentioning it in the article, but not in the title. I'd prefer LtPowers' suggestion (Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections) or Agnosticaphid's alternate option (Rape and abortion controversies in the 2012 United States elections). RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Interesting proposal. I think the potential article as described sounds like a child article for a parent article that doesnt yet exist of the 2012 US election coverage. If the parent article did exist, I would probably support a spinout of the "rape" content and would certainly support the merger of this article and the Murdoch rape comment article into one of them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Why do you think it would be a child of an article on coverage, rather than a child of the election article itself (and possibly War on Women)? I know Wikipedia is not good at covering current events in an encyclopedic and historically-oriented fashion (believe me, I edit in the Israel/Palestine topic area), but I'd hope that after some time has passed, we'd be able to write about influences in the election; these comments, and the focus they drew to the Republicans' extreme positions on social issues, are relevant per analysis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • i was not aware that United States elections, 2012 existed; but i still think that these fit into encyclopedia coverage more at a "meta" level than at a "which seats are up for grabs" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Good idea. I certainly like it better than keeping the article as it is. I may support it if the AfD closes as not delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'm still not a fan. It just strikes me as the Wiki community saying, "These people were wrong, let's point them out all at once on a single article." And while they might have been, it's not our place. Also I see a problem with WP:UNDUE. I would support a merge in to either their own articles or the appropriate election articles. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 19:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like WP:UNDUE is more of a problem if we merge these things back into the politicians' articles. I don't think it's fair to Mr Akin to have an article about his entire political life be dominated by discussion of comments in one Senate race. AgnosticAphid talk 19:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats a "problem" that can and should be addressed by/at the individual politician's article where the actual important information is weeded out from the hot air of the chattering class. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's some aspect of this article that you think is needlessly repetitive or superfluous or ill-sourced, I think it's just as much of a problem here as it would be there. There may be a great deal of detail here, but that's not actually a problem, it's a reason not to merge the stuff back into the politicians' articles where it would appear to have undue weight given its length.AgnosticAphid talk 21:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Name

It seems that consensus seems to be moving towards creating an integrated article. With that being the case, I think a new section on the name is needed. Out of the name suggested, I think 2012 Republican candidates' rape comments is the best. Casprings (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's long but I'd go with LtPowers' suggestion of Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections if RM succeeds. KTC (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• The apostrophe strikes me as unencyclopedic in this context. Powers ^T 17:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can agree with that. What about Republican rape controversies. Much shorterCasprings (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it seems a bit POV to call out Republicans specifically. And I'd also be concerned that the scope of that title was too broad for the actual topic we're trying to cover. Powers ^T 21:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree it sounds NPOV. However, looking at it logically, it is king of justified to name Republicans specifically. Republicans are one of the elements that unify the article. All the comments come from members of the GOP. Casprings (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Long comment ahead: forgive me! I think the essential elements for the title include the words Republican, rape, 2012 and controversies, plus possibly abortion. So I would suggest something like 2012 Republican rape and abortion comment controversies or 2012 Republican rape comment controversies, with the former excluding Rivard from scope.

• Comment (or similar) is necessary to make it clear that the controversies were not about Republican rapes or abortions. It was words not deeds that were controversial.
• You could make a case for having the word pregnancy in the title, but I think that's a bit of a red herring: pregnancy was a key component of the Akin controversy because of the pseudoscience aspect, but it was not actually the central issue of that or any of the other controversies.
• The core context was really abortion/reproductive rights: all of the comments except Rivard's occurred in the context of the politicians being asked about their position on the legality of abortion. In my view, it would make sense therefore that the article title also include the word abortion, because the people making the comments were candidates for legislative positions and in that role were being asked their positions on abortion (in the case of McMahon, access to emergency contraception). Including McMahon in scope perhaps argues for "reproductive rights" instead of "abortion," but I think the slight over-simplification effect of using "abortion" for the title is likely justified by it being shorter.
• If abortion were part of the title, that would exclude Rivard, whose comments took place after he was asked a question about a specific sexual assault prosecution: neither pregnancy nor abortion were at issue there.
• Republican is essential because, as Casprings says, all the controversies were related to comments made by Republican candidates, and because a big part of the controversies' significance is their effect on the outcome of the campaign and the future role of social conservatism in the Republican party.
• 2012 is essential because there have been earlier similar controversies that would not be in scope for this article, and there will be controversies in future that will be out of scope. The context is really the 2012 campaign. Sue Gardner (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  My vote is for 2012 Republican rape comment controversies. The first is because it is shorter. Second, I don't think Rivard's comments should be excluded because they have been linked in the media. If we are going to have an article about these comments during the 2012 election cycle, it makes no sense to me to exclude Rivard's comments. Casprings (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  I think 2012 Republican rape comment controversies is good as well. (There were other controversies related to abortion that were not about rape, eg. Joe Walsh's claim that abortion was never necessary to save a woman's life, and Rivard's comment was not related to abortion.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  I continue to oppose use of the word "Republican" in the title. It needlessly politicizes the issue and is entirely superfluous (there are no other 2012 rape comments in the U.S. election cycle). As well, I don't understand why you would want to exclude comments that are about abortion and not rape; aren't these all usually lumped together by the media sources? Powers ^T 19:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can buy that logic also. Plus I agree that we shouldn't want to exclude comments when the media linked them. How about 2012 US Election Women Issues Controversies Is that closer to NPOV and working? Casprings (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• That seems to me like War on Women by another name! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. 2012 Republican rape comment controversies seems like a good title for the integrated article. -- The Anome (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Republican rape comment" - terrible name, as we've seen countless Republicans including the presidential nominee Romney condemn the statements. Hekerui (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, Hekerui. Looking at some of the other comments below, something like 2012 U.S. election rape and abortion controversies would be better. -- The Anome (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• 2012 US election rape comments - it really is immaterial whether they were made by any particular party, but it is important to identify the country. Apteva (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• I support this nameCasprings (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• On second thought, it is hard to get around the fact that they are all Republicans. I mean, it does seem like whitewashing a name. Casprings (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - In addition to being a complicated and wordy title, it associates the comments of individual candidates with the overall party at too great of a level.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Name for new article created out of Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy → 2012 Election (US) Republican party's comments about rape

I am placing the rfc here to get some different voices in this discussion. The request is to give an article based on the multiple comments during the 2012 election cycle a NPOV name. I would ask anyone who reviews this to look at this discussion and provide their thoughts on a name. Casprings (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you either create a new article that is what you allege is the Republican Party Platform on Rape, and defend it there, taking what you deem necessary from this or other Articles, or copy and userfy this article on your personal page so that you may create your new article, if you have no intention of creating it unless this Article is deleted/transferred to the appropriate Election campaign article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

* No one has mentioned that it was part of the Republican Party platform. Casprings (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections is the most neutral. Adding "Republican" to the title isn't strictly necessary and none of the ways of incorporating it strike me as encyclopedic. AgnosticAphid talk 19:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I would also support Rape and abortion controversies in the 2012 United States elections, if other editors agree. AgnosticAphid talk 19:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

One final comment: I think that either of these names would cover an event that only related to either rape or abortion/pregnancy.AgnosticAphid talk 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Agnosticaphid about this. To say it's the Republican party's comments, rather than Republican candidates' comments, is non-neutral POV. In fact, the word "Republican" should be wholly removed so as to avoid blaming the party for the actions and words of a few of its members. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think either one is good and non-POV. If you wanted to cover all the controversies, it might be Rape, abortion and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections. That would allow the article to coverage what WP:RS link together. Casprings (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

edit of lead

I reverted an edit to the final sentence of the lead. There wasn't an edit summary, and I think that the current sentence fairly summarizes the reference, the first sentence of which says "Two Republicans who made widely criticized remarks about abortion and rape lost their Senate elections Tuesday, the result of a massive backlash by female voters in states where Republicans should have won handily." I also don't see a consensus for this change. AgnosticAphid talk 19:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically the fact that they lost is significant, but not interesting. What is interesting is that they made the comments, i.e. had the belief that allowed the comments. This article would still exist even if they had both won. Apteva (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that. There'd certainly be a much stronger argument under WP:EVENT or WP:N for deleting this article if no reliable sources claimed that the comments had a demonstrable impact on the election (or US politics more generally). In my view, what makes the comments encyclopedia-worthy is that they've been the subject of critical commentary, not that they were uttered.AgnosticAphid talk 07:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to the proposed title. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections → 2012 Republican rape comment controversies – A discussion on moving this page from Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy → 2012 Election (US) Republican party's comments about rape was closed quickly because of the AfD discussion here. However the move discussion never really got to real consensus on the the new name for the article. That discussion can be found here. I feel that the current title is needlessly long and clunky. I understand the argument of not being WP:POV by placing the word "Republican" in the title. However, we are whitewashing a bit, aren't we? Wikipedia does notWP:CENSOR. The fact is, they were all Republican who made these commets. As such, doesn't 2012 Republican rape comment controversies provide the reader with something that meets WP:PRECISION Casprings (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the second discussion referred to as "here" has been retitled to "here". Apteva (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Support the precise language identifying who made the controversial comments. I fully agree with Casprings. Just as with the War on Women (which should be entitled The GOP War on Women), these all originated with the GOP. Therefore a vague title is misleading. If anything about the title should be tweaked, it would be to include "pregnancy". -- Brangifer (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There's really no need to be coy about it; the comments were made by Republicans and had great impact on Republican fortunes in the election. The proposed title is shorter and includes in its scope the non-pregnancy-related controversies which reliable sources tie to the ones that were about both. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose at the moment. I feel like adding "Republican" ties the party to the comments or implies an endorsement in a way that's not neutral. I guess to me it seems more like the fact they were all Republicans was sort of a coincidence; it's more that the controversy widely affected Republicans. Also, does the title need to have "United States" in it? AgnosticAphid talk 17:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A NPOV title and a clear definition of the scope. Much better than using partisan terms. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This isn't whitewashing or censoring in any way. The fact is that Casprings' proposed title seems to blame the Republican Party for making comments that were actually made by a few of its members. For example, many prominent Republicans, such as Scott Brown and Mitt Romney, opposed the remarks of their fellow Republicans. We shouldn't pin the blame on all of them, it's not true and it's not NPOV. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. All the comments and controversies had to do with prominent politicians from the Republican Party, and that the subsequent controversy, analysis, and discussion focused on the Republican Party's policies and treatment of women and rape. While this title may not originally reflect an intent to whitewash, some of the opposing comments clearly do. We have to look for naturalness and not to be overly lengthy in a title, and nuances about what Party policies specifically are (the proposed title is ambiguous; it's not "Republicans Love Rape!") can be elucidated in the article itself. Shrigley (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support because the proposed title is more concise, more natural (5,860,000 results on Google versus 3,270,000 for the current title) and more precise. I don't think it taints all Republicans to have the word Republican in the article title -- I think it's obvious the title is referring to multiple but not all Republicans. There is precedent on Wikipedia for using the name of a group in the title of an article about a scandal or controversy in which not every member of the group was involved -- see for example 2006 Republican party scandals, Quiz show scandals, Japanese history textbook controversies and House banking scandal. Sue Gardner (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Sue, you of all people should know that Google result counts are unreliable, especially over about 5 digits. When you get up to seven digits, they're almost completely meaningless. Powers ^T 14:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; the proposed title improperly implies that the controversial statements were a movement or organized campaign by the Republican party. I also don't see why the non-rape pregnancy comments should be excluded from the scope. Powers ^T 14:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There isn't enough backing to justify Republican being in the title. As of now there are only a few that were truly "controversial", and it seems like this opens it up more to WP:COATRACK. Dreambeaver(talk) 21:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The controversy was lopsidedly Republican Party related, per reliable sources. This is an extension topic of the Republican War on Women. No Democratic Party people put their foot in their mouth to create this kind of controversy. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • And note that we don't call it Republican War on Women. Powers ^T 23:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Your point is greatly reduced by the fact that we carry a redirect from that formulation. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't see how. There's a big difference between putting in place a redirect and actually titling the article. Powers ^T 02:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The pregnancy aspect of the comments is directly relevant to identifying the topic; the Republican aspect of it is not as this is not a party platform issue (therefore not precise, as some claim). Someone searching for "Republican rape comments" is probably looking for this article, so I take no issue with a redirect with a similar title. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The mouths of two second-tier leaders went off without their minds being in gear. To saddle these comments on the Republican Party is to put a partisan spin on the issue. Kauffner (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The correlation between the makers of these statements and their political party does not equate endorsement, and adding "Republican" to the title gives it a non-neutral weight. VQuakr (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons I express below under the RFC header. Lord Roem (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly meets PRECISION. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose "Republican rape comment controversies" seems too much of a content fork. Wikipedia articles shouldn't act as coatracks to compile negative things on things you oppose as such, but stick to things that are notable topics without being a fork. --Pudeo' 18:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment something is wrong with this page... the last requested move seems to have closed off an active RFC, which is also a requested move... and then there's this third requested move... -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Someone has fixed the RFC problem -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. The result of the AfD for this page on 18 November was "The result was merge to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 and/or Todd Akin". Apteva (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"...or such other articles as may be created in the future." A complete quote would be more helpful.[4]AgnosticAphid talk 05:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

the whole quote is useful. That said you are always welcome to challenge this article, just as any other article. It was however created because of the closing statement.Casprings (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• On the Requested moves page, the alternative "2012 Republican rape comment controversies" is given; I'd certainly not support that as it could be read as (for instance) "Controversies over comments about the rapes Republicans committed or suffered in 2012". I don't think that's what's intended. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Is the title "Republican..." a synthesis? Is it referred to by the media as a "Republican" thing? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections → 2012 Republican rape comment controversies

This is an RfC to get more comments on the move request, Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections → 2012 Republican rape comment controversies. Currently, the numbers of editors who support it are about even with the number of editors opposed. On one side, editors generally find the name Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections long and clunky and see no point of not making it shorter. Also, to them, the use of Republicans is fine because all the comments came from Republicans and the article is primarily about the total and individual effects of those comments on Republicans and the Republican party. Basically, they point to WP:CENSOR. On the other hand, the editors opposed think the wording of the title is highly POV. That by changing the we are creating a page that attaches all Republicans to the comments. Your inputs and thoughts would be very helpful. Thank you in advance. Casprings (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

See #Requested move 2 above. Apteva (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep current name. Current title is clunky, but the proposed is perhaps even more confusing, and I don't see any pressing need to mention the Republican bit in the title. I'm still unconvinced that the first name change should have taken place, given the relative levels of attention attached to the various comments. a13ean (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete the whole thing Why this merits an article of its own behooves me :-) as they used to say! There's a tendency in Wikipedia to raise up pseudo-articles out of proper ones, creating mountains out of molehills. This aspect of the 2012 presidential election is indeed notable but its level of notability merits simply a mention (granted, an extended one) in the article about the election itself - and that's it! For God's sake, every election has such "hot", ephemeral, purely "politicking" issues! Let's not indulge the authors of talking-points memos. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep current name. And it continues. The current name is the most neutral and balanced we're gonna' get. "Rape and pregnancy controversy" is both an accurate description of what's being discussed while at the same time not embedding any partisan angst one way or the other. I don't see the value of adding "Republican" in the title or why the current title is not sufficient. Dearly hoping this dispute does not drag on, I urge we Keep the status quo. --Lord Roem (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Change to another name. Seems like this is mainly about two guys, Akin and Mourdock. So tarring the whole Republican Party seems inapt. I would rename the article to something like "Abortion in rape cases as a 2012 election issue". That would give readers vastly more info than the current or proposed title. Or do we want this article to cover every pregnancy-related controversy in the 2012 elections, including abortion controversy, contraceptive controversy, love child controversy, etc, etc, etc?63.119.36.186 (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Move to 2012 U.S. rape comment controversies It is not necessary to use the term "Republican" when most Republicans have opposed Akin, Mourdock, etc. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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

"Reagan Republicans"

The article seems to be in a rather good shape in terms of sourcing. But I am curious about one item concerning "Reagan Republicans": "Jennifer Mason said that Akin's position "is an integral part of the Republican Party platform, the same position that was held by President Ronald Reagan" and that "[we] are left with Reagan Republicans, who agree with the Republican Party platform on abortion..."

Is this a reference to a specific faction within the Republican Party, or an attempt to connect anti-abortion campaigners to Ronald Reagan? Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The anti-abortion (without any special exceptions) stance has been in the GOP Party platform since the 1970s. Guy1890 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Overall response needs expansion

There are many sources available to document the response to these comments and should be added. Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Many sources available. Casprings (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack Page

This article is becoming an attack page. It is quite clear that editors are trying to tar every Republican possible as being involved in a controversy, even when they clearly are not. Case in point, Steve King. Kind did not defend Akin's comments regarding rape. King stated that he had not personally known of a situation of which Akin was describing, yet Casprings is hell bent on trying to imply that King was defending Akin's comments. This kind of crap has got to stop. WP is not the place to push your personal political activism. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Casprings is finding instances of the controversy in news articles, not inventing same. What part of "Steve King defends Akin" and "Steve King: Rape remarks out of context" don't you understand? King is certainly defending Akin though he did so without defending Akin's position on rape. King's own position is that he hasn't "personally" heard of pregnancy happening through incest or rape; a preposterous ignorance that was noted by New York Magazine in the article "Congressman Steve King Has Never Heard of Someone Getting Pregnant Through Statutory Rape or Incest". This stuff is out there in the media, not invented by Casprings.

Arzel, your own reactionary activism is obvious. You accusing Casprings of activism is outrageous. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a lie. King did not defend Akin's rape statements. That is a BLP violation. You are pushing a clear POV in order to push this ongoing activism on WP. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing has been added that is outside of the articles scope and sourced. If the problem is with the article, I suggest you take it to WP:AfD. However, how an article that clearly meets WP:N is deleted, I am not sure. Casprings (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The WP:OR is the premise for this article, and that premise, namely that Rape was some sort of widely supported Republican election theme, is what makes it an attack page, and (as a completely new article) subject to its first AfD. The Democrat campaign strategy of hammering a divisive wedge regardless of how much pretzel logic was needed is already covered (or should be, if that Article ever resolved its major editing and NPOV problems)in the article on the slogan "War on Women". --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that it was a campaign theme. However, the events concerning rape and pregnancy certainly had an effect on the election, at least according to WP:RS’s that include Karl Rove. You are certainly welcome to take it to WP:Afd. Casprings (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets look at the Jim Buchy section. It was using Think Progress, Rachel Maddow's blog, and Al Jazera. This is a perfect example of non-reliable sources and clearly biased sources giving undue weight and violating BLP at the same time. There is absolutely no evidence that this was a controversy in the least. Those that insist that it is tells you everything you need to know about their motivations behind this article. Arzel (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• You claim that the sources are non-reliable and that they are biased. First, Al Jazera is considered a WP:RS (Here and here are two discussions on it). Think progress is less clear, but it leans towards being a general WP:RS. One discussion I found on it was here. One important note in that conversation was, "Think Progress is less clear. According to the About page[5], they have a staff of credentialed editors and writers, including the author of this post." As far as Rachel Maddow's website, there are no previous conversations on it that I can find. However, it is part of MSNBC, which is a WP:RS.

Lets then look at what WP:RS Per, WP:RS,"the reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." What am I trying to show here? One, that the event happened. Two, that it was controversial. Given that is what I am trying to show, these sources more then meet WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In what alternate reality is TP a reliable source? Also, maybe you could elabortate what the controversy is here, because it is not in the section. Arzel (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• If you still think there is a problem, the place to take it is the WP:RSN . In my opinion, they all qualify to be used in this case under WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera CAN be considered a WP:RS in context, but should be used carefully. Maddow and TP can in no way be considered reliable for anything but their own opinions. Therein lies the problem. Al-Jazeera merely conducted an interview, and is a source for the fact that the interview took place and that he said "I don't know". True, but of no conceivable notability. Further I believe A-J's editorial position on abortion centers around "behead or not". The overwrought diatribes, and the cries of "controversy", based on claims that what he said was some secret code all come from attack blogs which you cited. There is no WP:RS that actually certifies that this is a controversy, hence no real controversy. You could cite that Maddow and TP attacked someone for innocuous comments, as long as you attributed, but it still wouldn't meet any other WP:BLP standard, let alone WP:UNDUE. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets looks at the Steve King section. It makes a synthesis arguement by stating he is a political ally of Akin (not in source) and then takes his quote out of context (while not including his response). It also claims that King caim to Akin's defense regarding Akin's statements (this is a lie). Now if Casprings and Binkersnet think that WP whould be used to make false statements against living people then they should go do something else. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually King did come out and defend Akin. It is also in the source that he is a political alley of Akin. See reporting from The Hill

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) bucked others in his party on Tuesday, defending Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) as a "strong Christian man with a wonderful family."

Akin has faced a firestorm of criticism from fellow Republicans, who have ripped his recent comments that women rarely get pregnant from "legitimate rape," with a number of them, including Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas), strongly suggesting Akin should drop out of the race for Missouri's Senate seat. Akin has so far refused to exit the race.

But King, a close friend and ally of Akin's who campaigned for him during the primary, stood by Akin's side. He told a local television station that he didn't want to give his thoughts on Akin's specific remark because he hadn't heard it in context, but attacked those who were blasting Akin as focused on "petty personal attacks."

Casprings (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

King defended Akin as a person, he did not defend the remarks. Seriously, your bias is beyond the pale. Arzel (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack the problem, not the person. That is a point that is valid and should be added in a NPOV way. He didn't want to give specific comments on Akin's remarks because he had not seen the context. Casprings (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That King expressed the sentiment that Akin, in spite of whatever he said, was a friend and a good person, could be included in the Akin section. HOWEVER, the synthesis is in creating a section concerning King. You are saying in WP's voice that saying someone has a "wonderful family" is a "King rape controversy", and no reasonable person could take that away form what he said. A clear WP:BLP violation. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Malarkey. There is no synthesis here. King made comments about Akin, and those comments were seen as revealing King's massive ignorance on the topic of pregnancy in rape. His ignorance added to the general atmosphere of some prominent Republican politicians' denial of the seriousness of rape. King was part of the controversy. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I called you ignorant it would be a personal attack, so why do you feel the need to call King ignorant? Also after reading the full context of his comment you would see that he is not ignorant. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Steve King is not a Wikipedia editor. WP:NPA applies only to editor interactions within Wikipedia. Furthermore, Steve King is a politician; politicians are considered fair game for such mild epithets as "ignorant". I read his full comments in context which is why I consider the man massively ignorant. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I went ahead and started a discussion at WP:RSN, here.

Working on the Page and making it NPOV

I think the first thing to work on is organization. I think that the organization should be Akin, Murdock, a new others section which will include all the other comments, and then overall reactions. While not chronological, it does fit the level of WP:N that each of the events had. Also, there is plenty of expanding that could happen in the overall reaction section. Casprings (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's quite unnecessary for the article to be organized by person, and was going to come here and suggest the same. Some comments, Akin's especially, were simply more significant and impacting than others. To deal with the chronological issue, I would actually suggest a more "narrative" structure; that way, we'd be able to see more clearly (for instance) that sources link Smith's comments to Akin's because the controversy around Akin led Republican positions on rape to be on interviewers' minds. That would run the risk of getting news-y, with the sort of blow-by-blow day-by-day that really isn't helpful, but we could address that in part by gutting the Reactions, which aren't encyclopedic at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Some of the other comments come directly from reporters asking questions on Akin. That said, I think the most urgent thing is to expand the overall reaction, because of the AfD. Following that, we should work on an outline and decide what parts need to be cut. Casprings (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a first attempt to restructure. I think you are right on the narrative. I will work on Akin's sections, trim it down and start to move other comments up to that section (If they fit). Casprings (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I started cutting out reactions; removing some of the pile-on could help with the perceived neutrality issues. I was on the fence about removing McCaskill's response, so if anyone wants to restore it, I won't object; the poorly-sourced reactions from activist groups, Piers Morgan comments, threats from fellow Republicans that didn't come to fruition, etc. should remain out of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The other thing I was thinking was the background section should be moved out of the Akin and placed at the start of the article. It is the background for all these commentsCasprings (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

just read it again. Perhaps not. However there should perhaps be a background section that show that these comments did not come from thin air and they have a long history in the pro-life movement.Casprings (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It'd have to be succinct and come from sources that specifically link the background to the recent controversies. That's not the case with all of the new additions. I also think it should probably remain in Akin's section if it's specifically rebutting or contextualizing Akin's claims, as these things are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

yeah you are prob right. I had to leave my computer right after that edit(using my cell now). Will fix it when I get back if it isn't done. Casprings (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

as plan to bring the article more encyclopedic I endorse the above concepts. good luck, its going to be a helluva job though.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Especially when editors like yourself only work to make it even less netural by removing sourced information showing that Obama's percentage of Women votes is down from 2008 putting the basic claim behind this entire article into question. Arzel (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Clear WP:OR. Need to find a secondary source and place that in. No one will have a problem with that. Casprings (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What in the hell are you takling about? The Atlantic is a secondary source. Arzel (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I Don't Like It

You know it is going to be really hard to improve this page if the protectorate is going to censor information like this from the page by making ridiculous claims of OR and Synthesis of Material. This is a fact. When the final votes were tallied the percentage of women vote recieved by Obama was less in 2012 (55% - 44%) than it was in 2008 (56% - 43%) source

Now I realize that this goes against the meme that is being put forth in this article, but I find it unbelievably hypocritical for these editors to claim that not mentioning these events is WP:CENSOR while being unwilling to state known facts. Now is there a better reason than WP:IDONTLIKEIT or is this just a propaganda article? Arzel (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It sure is a fact. It is also a fact that gold prices have been rising recently and that several species of whiptail lizards are parthenogenetic. We don't include either of those facts in this article because no provided secondary sources have used them in their analysis of these events. Without corroboration from outside analysts, including that fact is textbook synthesis. And you're right. I don't like synthesis. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 14:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your source blames white women who voted for Romney more than they did Obama. The source makes it clear that Black and Latino women voters were the tidal wave that put Obama back in office. Black and Latino women voted for Obama in greatly lopsided percentages.

We cannot misrepresent the source by taking a single statistic out of context. The full story is told, or not at all. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Clear WP:synthesisCasprings (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

How in the hell is it synthesis to state a simple fact which you are trying to use to promote your point of view? The lack of good faith on the both of you is simply stagering. Arzel (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Since neither of you have a valid reason I put it back in. Arzel (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a valid reason: it's faulty. The final count of the election is not yet known, as most states are still counting ballots. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, there isn't such a thing as a "final count" for gender gap. Male ballots are indistinguishable from female ballots once they're dropped in the ballot box so all you have to go on is polling data (with their associated margins of error which may well make the reported difference statistically insignificant). Kilopi (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that is a moot point. THe real argument is WP:SYNCasprings (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Look, I didn't add the original statistic trying to make a correlation between the exit polling for the 2012 election, that was done by other editors. I simply added from The Atlantic that Obama's exit polling went down compared to 2008. The main editors of this article are trying to imply that these events caused a result in the election, using the 2012 exit polls as evidence. It is disingenious to not include the 2008 statistics, especially when reliable sources specifically discount that these events caused an increase in the Women vote as the initial statement would imply. Arzel (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I secondary source needs to use that in the argument you are trying to make. Otherwise it is WP:SYN. On a side note, the argument is weak. You claim to be a statistician. You should know that a the statistic doesn't prove that this didn't have any effect. The President received less votes in general and multiple factors affect voting. The one percent drop could have been caused by multiple things and might have been more or less if these controversies were not present. In other words, there could have been multiple causal mechanisms. Moreover, you have to add the fact that there were significantly less exit polls in this election and they covered significantly less states. While all of that is really non-relavent to wikipedia, it might explain why no WP:RS has used this one percent drop as evidence that this didn't matter. It is a rather weak argument. That said, to be included, it needs to be used by a WP:RS to construct the argument you are trying to construct. Casprings (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one trying to show a cause and effect, however you clearly are trying to show a cause and effect. That is the only reason you are including the 2012 numbers. You clearly do not understand statistics if you think that a lower total vote count would be enough to show a statistically different effect between 2008 and 2012 when we are talking about tens of millions of votes. Furthermore statistics are never used to prove that something did not have any effect. The null hypothesis in a statistical test is that there is an effect. You test to see whether there is statistical evidence that the effect exists. All you can say as a statistician is that the null hypothesis is rejected and there is no evidence of the effect, or the null hypothesis is accepted at a given confidence level. By including the 2012 polling results, like you already are, you are implying that there was an effect. Maybe there was, maybe there was not, but just using the 2012 polling results you certainly cannot say that there was.

Did you know that in 2004 Bush got 48% of the women vote and Kerry got 51%? I don't remember Abortion being a primary concern in 2008, yet Obama increased the women vote to a level not seen since Regan in 1984. Arzel (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Stating "a simple fact which you are trying to use to promote your point of view is literally the definition of synthesis. From WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources... "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." This includes implied arguments, like the one you are attempting to make. You are a Wikipedian; you don't get to make arguments in articles. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 01:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion on this at WP:ORN. It can be found here. Casprings (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

More broadly, none of the sources currently in the article about the effect of this situation on the presidential elections are strong enough to support the statements given, in either direction. We have a "maybe" from Abdullah at CNN, who places the blame more strongly on "binders full of women", contraception, and abortion and we have Hughes' anecdote about her daughter but she doesn't credit Romney's loss to the remarks, but more to economics. I don't think that Mommyish, the source for the "This Week" article constitutes reliable source on politics. I propose that we attempt to gather some better and more definitive sources here on the talk page and hash things out before putting things into the article. I've boldly removed commented out the material related to the presidential election; feel free to revert if you disagree. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 04:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Better sourcing might be the solution to this. If not able to source it better, then leave it out. I will see if I can find some better sources tomorrow. Casprings (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Removing 2008 exit polls was correct. But, for the same exact reasons Arzel's additions are wrong, we should remove Obama's 2012 exit polls. Besides the fact that they are just exit polls, they don't "prove" anything and are used as WP:SYN to imply that these events caused a result in the election in the same manner of Arzel's addition of 2008 exit pool are used as WP:SYN to imply they have had no effect. Quoting Capspring: " You should know that a the statistic doesn't prove that this didn't have any effect." In the same manner a statistic doesn't "prove" the contrary. Cavarrone (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The use of exit polls is very misleading. The section needs to be sourced with WP:RS that provide the reader with commentary. Casprings (talk)|

You are the one that added the information to begin with! At least you admit your original edit was misleading. Arzel (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Did I suggest that all my adds are perfect. Why are you so hostile? Casprings (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Selective Quoting in violation of WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:BLP and WP:NPOV

Another issue that needs to be addressed is the selective quoting of living people in the section headings, such as "the rape thing". I realize this is being done for effect, but it is a violation of NPOV and BLP and does not follow the general guidelines of use of quotes for living people, where you are not allowed to just take a couple of words thus leaving out the context. Arzel (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Removing them. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 23:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Many of them (like Akin, Mourdock, Koster, Rivard) became known more by the quote than their names. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we base this on secondary sources. Akin's comments are known as "legitimate rape" on muliple sourcedCasprings (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright then; I'll admit that I can't find this as being the situation in secondary sources for Smith and Buchy. "Selective quoting" in secondary sources' titles for McMahon with "emergency rape": [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. "Selective quoting" in secondary sources' titles for Rivard with "Some girls rape easy": [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. "Selective quoting" in secondary sources' titles for Koster with "the rape thing": [16], [17], [18], [19], and [20]. There's five each for Rivard, McMahon, and Koster, so I think that justifies going ahead with titles for their sections as I had them. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. Casprings (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I think we need WP:RS. A post on democratic underground isn't that, I don't think.Casprings (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so I'm having trouble finding NPOV sources that use this "selective quoting" in their titles for McMahon/"emergency rape". However, most of what I've already given for Rivard/"Some girls rape easy" and Koster/"the rape thing" is reliable. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the sources, I buy that.Casprings (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My main objection to this is actually stylistic; I can't think of any other articles that use pull quotes like this in headers. It also further locks us into a person-by-person format, rather than a narrative/chronological format. But I don't really have any strong opinions either way. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 21:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess that is the bigger issue. The breaking up of the section by event. Would be better as one section with a narrative format.Casprings (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe we tried that, and it turned into a disjointed mess, which is why I broke them back up by event. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested section

Hey! Thanks so much for working on this article, everyone! It is a hard one! I was wondering about adding a "History" or "Background" or "Context" section. Right now the article is very detailed and dives right into the details of the campaigns, but to properly understand why these issues came up at all in 2012, one really needs some context, such as the rise of evangelical politics in the US, the rise of the Tea Party, etc. What does everyone think about a few paragraphs to give readers some context for these events? Wadewitz (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The only worry I would have is a problem with WP:SYN. I think if you consider that when writing the section, it would be very helpful to the article. Context is essential to the article, and it should be added. Casprings (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed text

The following text is removed because it is either repetitive or contravenes WP:NPOV, WP:OR or another policy. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Akin was not the first to make such claims, but was perhaps one of the most prominent.

OR and synthesis - who pointed to these studies? See also WP:Coatrack:

Related news articles cited a 1996 article in an obstetrics and gynecology journal, which found that 5% of women who were raped became pregnant, which equaled about 32,000 pregnancies each year in the US alone. A separate 2003 article in the journal Human Nature estimated that rapes are twice as likely to result in pregnancies as consensual sex.

Per WP:COATRACK - this is not Akin's biography page; and per WP:OR (pseudoscience):

• Background

Akin is a long time pro-life activist who has served on the board of Missouri Right to Life, participated in and been arrested as part of anti-abortion demonstrations in Missouri and Illinois as far back as 1985, and sponsored or co-sponsored three anti-abortion bills in the House. Specifically, he cosponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act which would have conferred full legal personhood on embryos beginning at fertilization or cloning. He was also an original cosponsor of bills recognizing only "forcible" rape to narrow access to federal funding for abortions. Under the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, as introduced, "victims of statutory rape ... would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And ... 'forcible rape' ... seems certain to exclude ... cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity."

Akin's August 2012 comments are based on pseudoscientific claims that have been rejected by reproductive health experts. The current scientific consensus is that rape is no less likely to lead to pregnancy than consensual intercourse. Opponents of abortion have claimed that women have a biological reaction to rape that makes rape victims unlikely to get pregnant, but these claims have been roundly dismissed by professors of obstetrics at Harvard Medical School and the University of North Carolina.

• Todd Akin and "legitimate rape"
  • Political impact

Removed/rewritten because of misused and out-of-context quotations:

According to Charles Babington of the Associated Press, the incident highlighted the long-running tension between the "business-oriented fiscal conservatives" and the "social conservatives, who play big roles in swing states". According to Babington, social conservatives were angered by the criticism directed at Akin by "establishment" Republicans such as Mitt Romney. In the wake of Romney's and other Republican leaders calls for Akin to quit the senate race, socially conservative Republican Mike Huckabee, for example, called the National Republican Senatorial Committee "union goons."

• • Steve King

Per WP:COATRACK: Note that I actually replaced some of this text and the refs.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Representative Steve King came to the defense of Rep. Todd Akin, calling the 'legitimate rape' controversy "petty personal attacks". King is a political ally of Akin who also supports the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which would ban federal funding of abortions except in cases of what the bill calls "forcible rape". This would remove the coverage from Medicaid that covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest. In an interview with a local TV Station, King denied ever personally hearing about anyone getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest, saying: “Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way, and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.” Multiple sources commented on the similarities with Akin's remarks. The comment produced condemnation from multiple sources.

• • Roger Rivard

(seems a bit pointless telling readers that a planned rally went ahead despite his comments):

As of October 12, the Washburn County Republican Party was planning on holding a rally for Rivard and other Republican candidates.

• Wider impact

(This was commented out - leaving here because the ref may be useful).

Also, the multiple comments were credited for aiding in the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Nav Box

I think this article would benefit from a NAVbox. I opened this section to talk about general organization of the box. Casprings (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Rep. Phil Gingrey Comments

I think representative Phil Gingery comments belong in wider impact section. He was responding to both Akin and Mourdock. As such, his comments were part of the wider impact of this controversy. Casprings (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I do note they are now in the Akin reaction heading. However, the comments were about Akin and Mourdock. Shouldn't they therefore be in the wider impact section? Casprings (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, "wider impact" is about the comments' impact, while reactions to comments, like Gingrey's reactions to Akin, belong in the reactions section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here´s a possibly useful source on Gingreys comments: http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jan/16/phil-gingrey/gingrey-defense-akins-rape-comments-misses-mark/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Walsh

These comments fit the article because (1) they deal with "rape, pregnancy, contraception, abortion, and related topics" and (2) Walsh's comments have been compared in reliable sources to comments made by Akin [21], [22], [23], and [24]. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with adding it back. Just need the connection to be clear. No WP:Coatrack. Casprings (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article is currently undergoing a peer review. Many suggested revisions to the article can be found here. Please review that page before reverting any recent changes and talk about it here. THanks. Casprings (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

typo in quotation?

The quotation "The just don’t want to have a baby! " appears to have a typo in the original source; surely "they" is meant here. Can another source be found to confirm the error? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably my fault, I might have ballsed it up during the copy-edit; feel free to fix it, my keyboard can't spell! :-D Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I see this article is still of POV pushing attack. I removed again the headings in violation of WP:MOS. The partial quoting of a living person is a violation of not only MOS but also a BLP violation. The Background section is still written like a research paper in an attempt to link previous events to this particular issue. Some of the sections are vastly overweight. Arzel (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not overthrow perviously discussed consensus without actually citing a policy reason and gaining consensus. I will post on the relevant notice boards to gain outside views on the problems you brought up. Casprings (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Background section is cited almost entirely to post-Akin sources (and some of the non-post sources are ones that seem to make the individuals look better, like where it says they apologized). We could trim it, but it's not a fundamental NPOV issue the way you claim - the sources treat it as background to the 2012 events, so we do the same. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll post a section that deomonstrates original research that is in the current section. Mecklenburg published an article in 1972 entitled "The Indications for Induced Abortion: A Physician's Perspective" in which he advanced three reasons for the putative near absence of pregnancy in instances of rape.[8] The source assumes the basis for Akins POV is this article, yet this article presents this information as a factual history for the reasons why Akin et al made the comments they have made. This is a clear case of Opinion being used as factual point to push a specific point of view. Thus OR. There is no evidence, outside of Opinion that anything in the background section has anything remotely connected to these issues. I'll forgive that many WP editors are not familiar with writing research papers, but WP is not the place to write your research paper. Arzel (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A general question on the Neutral Point of view of the article has been posted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Discussion can be found here. Casprings (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked a question as to rather quoting in the subheadings is a BLP violation at the WP:BLPN. Direct link is here. Casprings (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC) I would note that there is already a decent concensus on the background section. That can be found on this talk page or at the WP:ORN. Direct link can be found here. Casprings (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul

What the hell does Ron Paul have to do with this? Arzel (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul should only be included if there is a source which explicitly connects him to a controversy over his remark on rape. — goethean 19:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say absolutely nothing. It looks like he answered a question, there was no actual controversy surrounding it, and it was added here because it contained the words "rape" and "abortion". Dreambeaver(talk) 19:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not true and it is also not assuming good faith. What Ron Paul said was stupid and reprehensible, and caused some media coverage at the time. However, it should only be included in the article if a source which documents the controversy can be cited. — goethean 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed per the above; no controversy was noted resulting from Paul's comments. KillerChihuahua 19:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on neutrality of article

Two questions concerning this RFC. 1. Is the article written from a neutral point of view. See WP:NPV for policy. 2. If it isn't, how can the page be neutral. I think of some importance in this article is also WP:CENSOR. Thank you to all that answer. The article needs some outside eyes to look at this. Casprings (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• If the main issue in question is the nature of the section headings, then I don't see a POV problem. The writing of the article in general seems quite neutral and dispassionate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• "I think of some importance in this article is also WP:CENSOR." I don't know what you mean by that. Otherwise, given all the eyes on it last couple months, it's hard to imagine it is not "quite neutral and dispassionate". CarolMooreDC 20:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with CarolMooreDC; many eyes fix errors. If it's the title or header that you have a problem with, then discuss that. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• After stepping away from this article for awhile for a number of factors, I certainly believe it is much more neutral than when I left it. It may not be entirely perfect, but the tag at the top of the article ought to be removed. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• So long as editors continue to violate WP:MOSQUOTE with the inane arguement that you can have concensus to violate guidelines, this article will never be netural. The use of dramatic headings by pulling of partial quotes of living people in order to attack those living people is a clear violation of BLP. I have yet to see a single rational argument for their inclusion in this manner for the headings. Some of them are quite blatent in their attempt to attack as well. Most annoying is the attempt by several WP editors to continue to attack living people through WP even after the 2012 campaign has completed. The additional use of Original Research in the Background section is just as problematic. Arzel (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You can have consensus to violate guidelines. They're guidelines, not rules; you can violate them if you can get agreement that there's a good enough reason to violate them, which is to say, if you have consensus.

That being said, there are also BLP considerations and you can't have consensus to violate BLP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The title of the article is misleading. There seems to be only one controversy which is Right to life. How is this article not a content fork? USchick (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• The way I read it is that there are multiple controversies (Missouri, Indiana, etc.) that many observers have stiched together into a single narrative (or controversy). The overall title seems acceptable to me, though I would remove the quotes for Roger Rivard and John Koster at the minimum. NW (Talk) 05:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• The current form of the headers makes sense to me. These comments were commonly excerpted in exactly this way by any number of reliable sources because that was the controversial part. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• It seems this article is basically now the 2012 election version of "zoological conspiracy theories" in that it has devolved into a coatrack of loosely connected material that now serves pretty much as a way of denigrating Republicans. Agree that the comments from Rivard and Koster should be removed as being of trivial relevance. Inclusion should be based on whether comments during the election were significantly tied to the broader pattern. Anything that ties it into the broader pattern because of a single comment in a source or two should be excluded. That also means McMahon should be removed unless there are numerous sources discussing her connection to this pattern in a significant fashion. Right now there is only a single source that makes a trivial connection in the beginning of the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

Her section is sourced to two ThinkProgress pieces and a Jezebel source that links to the ThinkProgress piece. Partisan blogs aren't RS for something like this, but before I removed it I want to bring it up here. Dreambeaver(talk) 16:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not against it. I would however note that Mother Jones mentions it her defeat here. Mother Jones is WP:RS. Casprings (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC).

Fair. Although it does mention her in the sense that she said something about rape, I'd say that it doesn't really make it a controversy. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't disagree with the removal. I did a quick look at a google search for "Linda McMahon" and "Emergency Rape". Results can be found here. There are mostly blog entries and not news articles. Does that mean the section cannot be support by WP:RS? I doubt it. With enough effort, I bet one could find the cites needed. I may do that in the future or you could do that before you removed the text. That said, I am fine with the removal. However, if you do remove the section, please check the article for other mentions. I know she is mentioned in the wider impact section. Casprings (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and remove the text and place it below. If someone can improve it, then it will be here for them. I think that is the best means to deal with it.Casprings (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Good call. That definitely sounds like the best course of action. Dreambeaver(talk) 01:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I also added the Buchy text. It really wasn't much of a national story. Again, the text is here if it should be added back or improved. Casprings (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed Text

Linda McMahon

Linda McMahon (R-CT)

During a debate on October 15th, 2012 at New London, Connecticut the Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon from Connecticut was asked about her comments that Catholic-run hospitals should be allowed to deny emergency contraception to rape victims. McMahon said, "It was really an issue about a Catholic church being forced to offer those pills if the person came in in an emergency rape. That was my response to it. I absolutely think that we should avail women who come in with rape victims the opportunity to have those morning after pills or the treatment that they should get." McMahon's phrase "emergency rape" proved controversial and was commented on by the media.

Jim Buchy

Republican State Representative Jim Buchy from Ohio gave an interview with Al Jazeera. The reporter asked Buchy why he thought some women may want an abortion. He replied, "Well, there’s probably a lot of—I’m not a woman so I’m thinking, if I’m a woman, why would I want to get—some of it has to do with economics. A lot has to do with economics. I don’t know, I have never—It’s a question I have never thought about." These comments were criticized by the national media, including the Rachel Maddow Show.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TotallyNotEtreo (talk · contribs) 18:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This review is ongoing. If you have any suggestions or input, please feel free to let me know. TotallyNotEtreo 18:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial Checks

• Citations Needed - 0
• Cleanup Banners - 0
• Neutral - Yes, although more information on Republican point of view could be included.
• Copyright - Appears to be in good order
• Unable to quick-fail this article

Assessment of the Article

The article is well written, its prose concise and coherent. It is written largely independently, however more could be done to illustrate the Republican Party's viewpoint on Todd Akin's comments, and the following comments from Mourdock, Buchy, Rivard etc. Its 130+ sources are reliable and reputable, and none of the claims are awaiting citation. It is very broad, covering controversies from many Republican party members and affiliates, and stays on-topic very well. It also contains plenty of images and meets the condition of being free from edit wars, as per the Good Article Criteria. It is for these reasons that I am pleased to confirm that Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 has passed my review, and is now a good article.

Joe Salazar Comments

User:Toa Nidhiki05 has added the following text in the wider impact.

On February 18, 2013, a Democrat in the Colorado State House of Representatives, Joe Salazar, generated controversy during a floor debate over a bill that would ban concealed-carry in colleges. Salazar argued that women would not be left defenseless against attackers by the bill, arguing that "boxes... safe zones... [and] whistles" would serve a similar function because "you just don’t know who you’re going to be shooting at". He also stated "you don’t know, if you feel like you’re going to be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble, and when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop around that somebody". Conservatives sharply criticized Salazar for the comments, interpreting them as him saying that a woman might know not if she is being raped and arguing the comments were similar to Akin's rape comments. Salazar apologized for the comments.

Two Questions for the RFC. 1. Does the text belong. 2. If it does, what amount of text.

• My thoughts are that it is WP:Coatrack. It has nothing to do with the wider impact of all the comments, so it doesn't belong in the wider impact section. Moreover, he was commenting on gun control, not any of the comments, so it doesn't belong anywhere else in the article. Casprings (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Off topic. There was no election involved. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• First off, thanks for starting this - I agree 100% with this move, discussion is warranted. Now, I support on the first and think a small amount is warranted. The main reason this belongs is it shows the long-term impact of Akin's comments - any controversial comments about rape by males are now associated with Akin. While the comments were relating to gun control, they also concerned rape - Salazar asserted that women might not know if they are being raped and might not be trigger-happy in shooting people who they consider to be raping them. The controversy was not about guns, as the Washington Times ("Another male politician has waded into trouble with comments about rape, and this time he’s a Democrat.") notes. Further, the comparison was immediately made to Akin by conservatives/Republicans, per both the Washington Times and Denver Post. A whole lot of text isn't warranted (it could easily be summed up in 2-4 sentences), but it does deserve note due to the media coverage and comparison to Akin's remarks (covered pretty well by this HuffPo article). I disagree with the idea this should not be included due to it not being part of the elections - the impact of Akin's comments extends fare beyond elections into personal views and future rape comments. Thus, the impact section is an idea place to cover it. Toa Nidhiki05 16:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• The general point is that every time someone mentions rape and does so in a way that is dumb (for lack of a better word) way, it will be compared to Akin and other's comments. That general point, could be added to the wider impact. However, one would need a secondary source to add it. While certainly a little WP:crystalballing from myself, I think in the future such a source will be there because this won't go away. That said, including indivual comments does not make sense to me. It is not about the wider impact of these events nor is it related to the comments of that anyone made that are covered in this article. It's a dumb comment that was compared to Akin's comment. That, in and of itself, doesn't warrent inclusion in the article. That is my view, at least. Casprings (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. We should leave small-potatoes comments like Salazar's out of the article until they can be mentioned collectively in context with Akin's. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good point, if it is not a Republican it is not worth including in this article. </sarc> Arzel (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Casprings's idea of including a generalized point about post-election comments being compared to Akin's is a good one. The issue with including Salazar is that the more incidents we add, especially post-election (though not exclusively - I was iffy about including McMahon and I never even heard about the Buchy incident), the further we stray from the actual topic. If you question my bona fides, check out my most recent edits to the article - severely trimming a section on offensive post-election comments from a Republican and moving it out of its own prominent section. We shouldn't continue adding new events - new analysis yes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• This is rich. Casprings bitched about the Buchy section being included even though the sourcing was very suspect from the beginning. But now in order to keep this Democrat out he/she is suddenly ready to get rid of it. It would be funny if not so hypocritical. Arzel (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Concensus is going in the direction of keeping him out rather I removed Buchy or not. I am more then willing to remove material for good reason, as I did with the titles. Making attacks on me doesn't give you a good argument. Casprings (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think you can make a consensus judgement when four people have commented are a deadlocked 2-2. It isn't a vote, so that doesn't really matter but more discussion is warranted. I think a generalized section would be good, but Salazar should certainly be named. There is media coverage and it does link it directly to Akin's comments as a part of political reality. Toa Nidhiki05 03:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with more discussion. I was responding to user:Arzel statement about my motivation for removing Buchy. That said, lets wait and see what others think with the RfC. Outside voices are important here, I think. Casprings (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Apart from the specific issue, it is wise to have a reasonable time limit for what directly concerns the topic, as the article specifically refers to "controversies in 2012 elections", not to general "rape and pregnancy" controversities. Everything that goes over this temporal limit but, in one way or another, is directly linked to the issue IMHO should be mentioned in an apposite, separate, reasonably-sized section that refers in its title to "post-election": in that context the mention of Alazar and others would be appropriate, otherwise no. Cavarrone (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• I would like to include this, but, as Cavarrone said, the article is about election-year controversies, not all "rape and pregnancy" controversies. However, we could include Salazar (and anyone else with similar post-election comments) in a "post-election" section as long as the comments have been linked back to the election, as Salazar's have. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  I buy this. We could also include comments by Rep. Phil Gingrey. One could develop a main section and two well sources sub-sections. Casprings (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I modified the article based on the suggestion of having a post election section. See what you think. Casprings (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Salazar's comments have nothing to do with the 2012 election and are thus not appropriate to this article. — goethean 16:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I think

    It has everything to do with the aftermath of the statements and election as well as their impact on future political discourse and jargon. It is entirely appropriate because it shows their far-reaching impact beyond the 2012 election and into future political reality. Toa Nidhiki05 16:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

    • The section does not need to have sub-sections and needs to be trimmed to not give undue weight to something that goes over the main topic. Regarding my suggestion above, I have not said that was sufficent put the Salazar and Gingrey sections below the title "post-election", I said we could have a section that ″mentions″ all these post-election controversities in a ″reasonably-sized″ section. Otherwise, if the article is moving to give the same exact space to all the controversities both before and after the elections, I strongly support a change of title (as suggested below) and a different structure of the article. Especially as I am pretty sure we'll have other similar controversities in the future. Cavarrone (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well done now. Cavarrone (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Since it's becoming clear that these controversies are not limited to elections, perhaps we should move the article to something like Rhetorical rape and pregnancy controversies in United States politics? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree. The main thrust of the article, is directly tied to the election. Casprings (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't belong - the Colorado issue was about guns and possibly shooting someone (a person who may or may not be a potential rapist). The controversies about rape in the 2012 election concerned pregnancy, God's will, etc. Including it would amount to posting most anything even remotely related to rape into this article.207.155.79.106 (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Does not belong. 2. See 1. In fact this entire article is ridiculous and has zero encyclopedic value. WP:NOTSOAPBOX Patriot1010 (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC on post election comment section

The section on post election comments was added as a result of a dispute to add Phil Gingrey comments to the article. The discussion in that RfC is above. The current text of the section is:

Several comments after the election were compared to the comments made during the election cycle. One example is that, in an appearance before Rep Phil Gingrey, who is also an OB-GYN, said Akin's comments were "partly right" when he said women's bodies can avoid pregnancy in cases of rape. He continued to state that he "delivered lots of babies" and "[knew] about these things" Gingrey also said he didn’t find anything wrong with distinguishing “legitimate rape” from non-legitimate rape, which he defined as a false accusation. Gingrey also said, commenting on former Indiana Republican Richard Mourdock's unsuccessful U.S. Senate bid, “Mourdock basically said ‘Look, if there is conception in the aftermath of a rape, that’s still a child, and it’s a child of God, essentially." His office released a statement that said, "In my attempt to provide context as to what I presumed they meant, my position was misconstrued.”

Another example is a Democrat in the Colorado State House of Representatives, Joe Salazar, generated controversy during a floor debate over a bill that would ban concealed-carry in Colorado colleges. Salazar argued that there were other measures to keep students safe. He said, "call boxes... safe zones... [and] whistles" would serve a similar functions. He continued,"you don’t know, if you feel like you’re going to be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble, and when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop around that somebody". Conservatives and Republicans sharply criticized Salazar for the comments, interpreting them as meaning a woman might know not if she is being raped, and argued the comments were similar to Akin's 'legitimate rape' comments. Salazar responded by stating he was trying to express the opinion that an armed woman on a college campus could feel threatened, potentially misjudge someone's intentions, and shoot at them in error, and apologized for the "inartful" remarks.

This RfC has two questions. 1. First, should this be included in the article or should the article only include comments during the election cycle and any comments or analysis directly on those comments. 2. If the section should be there, what should the scope be?

Images removed

The following images were removed for the rational below. This was found based off a FA review, found here.

• File:Todd_Akin,_official_109th_Congress_photo.jpg: source link returns error
• File:Roscoe_Bartlett,_Official_Portrait,_111th_Congress.jpg: source link returns error
• File:Rep_Joe_Walsh.jpg: source link wouldn't load when tried.

If you can help fix the problem please do so. The images are posted below. Casprings (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)

Joe Walsh (R-IL)

The photo of Akin can be found here. I honestly can't tell if this is copyrighted by AFP or if it's PD.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The one for Bartlett can be found here. It says "Collection of the U.S. House of Representatives, Photography Collection". Not sure if that means PD. As for Walsj, here's an archived version of the original source, which doesn't state the copyright status of the photo. This biography site , similar to the one for Bartlett, kinda does.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This might be a good replacement for the Akin photo if necessary.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I know that orginal public works (i.e. offical photographs of officals) are free use, no matter what a company says. I have no idea. Maybe we should take this to WP:CP.Casprings (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The replacement works perfectly. I am going to upload it into wiki commons and try to find the others. Casprings (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I updated to new sources for both the Walsh and Roscoe pictures. The Akin picture is in a move request on the commons because I uploaded with a file name the same as on the english wikipedia. That should be fixed soon. Thanks to FutureTrillionaire for the help in this. Casprings (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think this is now resolved. Casprings (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Attempts at FA have now violated NPOV

Not that the recent attempts at making this article a FA are not good faith, but some of the changes are now violating NPOV and adding in original research. Much is trying to be made to prove that this had some effect on the election, vis a vie the women's vote. To this point the sourced fact that Obama's vote % of the total women's vote actually went down in 2012 has now been removed after previous NPOV discussion. As a result I have returned the tag. Please do wander off into un-provable opinion being presented as fact. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You've already made this statistically unsound claim contra the sources, back in 2012, and failed to gain consensus in your favor. I believe I explained this to you at the time, but here it is again: Neither users here nor the sources are arguing that these controversies led Obama to gain a larger share of women's votes than he had in 2008. What is being stated is that these controversies caused him to have a majority of women's votes, with 2008's statistics quite unrelated. Imagine, as an illustration, that more women liked Romney's economic and international policies than McCain's, and that Romney would have won the majority of women had these incidents not happened. It's unlikely, but does it help you understand that percentages relative to 2008 and absolute percentages in 2012 are separate issues? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I refreshed my memory of the sources and my above comment wasn't quite accurate. The CNN source, for instance, points out that Obama's strong lead with women helped balance out losses in other demographics, and also that in particular swing states (recall the electoral college!) he did indeed have a larger percentage of women supporters than in 2008. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The original wording included the various statistics. Let me be clear, we had a NPOV presentation until Casprings removed that wording and rewrote the lead to imply that this event resulted in Obama recieving an overwhelming percentage of the women vote. However, we have many reliable source that discuss the women vote that not only do not make this conclusion, but also note that Obama in fact recieved a lower percentage of the women vote in 2012 than in 2008. It is quite disingenous to try to turn what is opinion not backed up by any statistics as a factaul statement. We cannot use WP to promote what is really little more than a research paper. I suggest if editors wish to promote the view that this event caused in whole or in part Obama's election, they write this up as a research paper and submit it to the appropriate journal for publication. Arzel (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, your failure to understand the statistics isn't going to justify a POV or OR tag. Did you even read my explanation? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Since I have peer reviewed publications in the field of statistics I will have to accept that it is you that does not understand statistics. Arzel (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• A few points. First, I would ask that Arzel doesn't derail this WP:FA review. In my opinion, he has shown a WP:Battle mentality, and that can be shown both in his edits on the article and his comments on the talk page. Most recently, it was shown in the placement of a NPOV tag on the article, when there was a clear consensus that the article was neutral. I would ask that the article either pass or fail based the article, not a content disputes that come from the FA review itself. Second, on his general point, several WP:RS have speculated that the various comments had some effect on the election. To me, providing one statement that the President won the election provides context to their statements. It isn't meant prove rather it did or didn't have an effect. I agree with Cryptic C62. Finally, a conversation on this is taking place at the article's FA candidates page that relates to this. Casprings (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  I would as that Casprings not try to use WP to promote a personal activist agenda. We had a relatively neutral statement which you have changed to again promote your personal agendga. I find it ironic that you accuse me of a battleground mentality, when you are clearly using WP to fight ideological battles. Arzel (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and started a discussion at WP:ORN. That discussion can be found, here.Casprings (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Saw this on NORN. I'd say that "overwhelmingly" was potentially problematic, since that word isn't in the body of the article, and calling 55-45 "overwhelming" (while it reflects usage in that context) varies a bit from the more common English usage of the word. Removing the word solved the problem (though it left the wording a bit awkward). It looks to me like the problem has been resolved. Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To me a big problem is that this statistic is still being used in the "Wider Aspect" section as a conclusion that this indeed was a factor in the female vote. Yet, we have RS's that show that the female vote was lower for Obama in 2012 than it was in 2008. That conclusion cannot be made or implied without violating both NPOV and OR. Arzel (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• No one is making a statistical causal claim nor could anyone ever make that claim, at least based on this one election. To determine rather the hypothesis of, "Did the comments effect the women's vote is impossible" would be impossible given that this is one case and there is little means to measure and quantify this controversy. However, that is NOT what is being argued.

Instead, what is being stated is that multiple WP:RS have made that claim. With that being the case, providing a small blurb about the number of women who voted for the President is perfectly acceptable. While it is certainly true no one can claim that the effect is "proved", your point on the fact that he received less women's vote is also of little use. The President received less votes then in 2008. There are multiple reasons that effect voting and simply because he received less votes does not mean that the controversy did have a positive effect on the votes he did receive. The fact that multiple sources have suggested it did, makes it relevant to include in the article, per Wikipedia policy.Casprings (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Silly inclusion of infobox

Casprings (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

Date	August 19, 2012 (2012-08-19) - November 6, 2012 (2012-11-06)
Location	United States
Participants	Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Steve King, Roscoe Bartlett, Tom Smith, Roger Rivard, Joe Walsh, John Koster
Outcome	The controversy was credited by multiple sources as a principal factor in the defeat of Todd Akin and Richard Murdock in their respective U.S. Senate races. It may have affected various other races, including the Presidential race.

Both the concept of including an infobox for this article and its specific handling here come across as juvenile; rather like something one might expect in a junior high social studies project. The politicians should not be listed as "participants" as if this were an article about a seminar. The "location" category and the beginning and ending dates are unnecessary, as the article title tells the reader where and when these controversies took place. The "result" category is also unnecessary because the same information is in the last two sentences of the fairly brief lead section. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that there should be no infobox here. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I would make a few points. First, perhaps we shouldn't be using insults on actions, such as juvenile. Second, per WP:infobox, the basic benefits are as follows.

• A quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout
• Emission of machine readable metadata
  • Infoboxes about people, places, buildings, organisations, products, species and dated events (battles, sports fixtures, record releases, etc) and more emit microformats; see Wikipedia:microformats
  • Data is made available to third party tools such as DBpedia and Freebase
  • Forthcoming integration with Wikidata

Yes, the information is certainly covered in the article. However, the point is to give a quick summery in a consistent format. The format used was the historical events infobox, as such the term participant was used. I find this term neutral. An infobox offers many benefits, and I do not see the problem with including it.Casprings (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually softened my wording from "is juvenile" to "comes across as juvenile." If you find the truth insulting, I'm sorry. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The only reason there is a navbox is because it was suggested by another editor, here. I have no problem removing the NAV box if there is a consensus to do so. That said, I am not sure how a nav box "comes acros as juvenile." It's not insulting, just not well connected with logic or reality. Casprings (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox is unnecessary. Infoboxes work well for articles with a lot of articles with a lot of information that can be easily categorized, such as battles and animal species. However, that's not the case here.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Removed info box because opinion is currently that it should be removed. If other editors which to continue the discussion, the info box that used to be in the article is to the right.Casprings (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I find that the infobox in question could use some work but isn't inherently inappropriate or bad. It seems like it could be tweaked to be helpful and better serve the summary purpose of having an infobox, and I would support such an infobox. I don't really know much about infoboxes or templates (can the row headings even be modified?), but here are my thoughts; your mileage may vary:

  (1) "Participants" implies that there was some kind of single actual event which isn't the case here. Perhaps "Involving" or "Involved" or "Politicians Concerned" or something would be better.

  (2) The "Location" and "Date" rows are redundant and unhelpful. US is in the title, and so is the fact that it was in 2012; while it's true that the particular dates aren't in the title I'm not sure how interesting or meaningful those dates are in just a brief summary.

  (3) Personally I would change "Result" to "Effects" or something similar, and I would rewrite the text to say something briefer, like, "Principal factor in the defeat of republican congressional [?] politicians. Potential effect on other races, including the Presidential race." AgnosticAphid talk 22:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree something. However, part of the utility of info boxes is that they are supposed to be uniform in design. Casprings (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC on other Comments Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to keep both sections. —Darkwind (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

---

It was argued that some of the comments in the other controversy sections should be excluded. In particular, it was argued that "comments from Rivard and Koster should be removed as being of trivial relevance." I would argue that the sections are well sourced and should be included. I am asking for community input into this. The basic question is: What sections of the other comment section, if any, should be removed? Why? Two relevant discussion on this are here and here. Thanks in advance. Casprings (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep both. Koster's section establishes notoriety and relevance, but Rivard's should work better to do so. According to Rivard's wikipedia article, his comments caused national controversy. This should be stated and cited. If other editors have a big problem with including Rivard's comments, because he was a state assemblyman, then I can understand that. However, the scope was not established as being limited to federal elections. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both. The range of sources makes it clear that both Koster and Rivard's received national attention, and in the specific context of rape comments in that election cycle. A paragraph for each seems reasonable to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both. I agree with the above two comments. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both. Mentions are sourced, of noted impact, and bring respectable breadth to the coverage. Re: "non-neutral coatrack"—I wouldn't take (in particular, those) disparaging comments to heart, especially without any organized claim or effort to quote objectionable phrasing. (Updated one of your reference links.) czar · · 08:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this a real topic?

This article was brought to my attention at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Proposed decision. I can't help but wonder if "Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012" is a real topic, or the product of WP:OR and WP:SYN from primary sources cobbled together to create a topic that doesn't actually exist. IOW, I'm not sure that this article passes WP:GNG. Can someone more familiar to this Wikipedia article point me to a few articles from reliable sources about this topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• This conversation may reveal some of the logic behind the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_the_2012_United_States_elections. The rational behind the article and the justification for keeping is there.Casprings (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, but the discussion you linked to seems to be primarily about WP:NPOV. My concern is not neutrality, but whether or not this is an actual topic that meets WP:GNG. Notability can be demonstrated by providing reliable sources about this topic in general.
• Note, to keep this discussion in one place, I am going to close the other discussions and refer everyone to here. Please give me a few minutes to do this. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, per WP:EFFECT, I would say it meets and exceeds that standard. I think that is demonstrated by multiple sources within the article. I also think the WP:AfD did deal with the issue of WP:GNG, if you read through the discussion. That said, that is my opinion and I think one that runs with consensus. But, it is always up to challenge at WP:AfD.

• That's fine. If it exceeds the WP:GNG, then this should be easy to prove by pointing us to a few articles from reliable sources about this topic in general. I just took a look at the first 5 or 6 sources, and most seem to be primary sources cobbled together to form an article. But there were two articles which do connect different incidents together. Is that enough to justify meeting WP:GNG? Probably not. That's why I am asking that editors familiar with this article provide such sources. I'd rather that we work this out through talk page discussion before proceeding to AfD. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Akin and Mourdocks defeats tied to this 2. Same as above, but with Rivard 3. Mentions Akin, Mourdock, Smith, Koster 4. Mentions Akin, Murdock, Rivard, Koster 5. GOP looks for ways to stop the rape comments " It all boils down to whether or not the Republican Party thinks this is a problem,” she said. “If they want to make inroads with women, then they need to subject every one of their candidates to sensitivity training — not to mention reality training.” Shows WP:EFFECT. 6.GOP pollster: Stop talking about rape I think that shows that there is enough WP:EFFECT from rape comments in the 2012 election to justify an article under WP:GNG. But would be happy to find further sources that are more what you are looking for.Casprings (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Did you actually read the various AfD's? There is a lot of discussion about WP:EFFECT. And I don't even think that NPOV problems are a valid rationale for deletion under WP:PROBLEM. Do we really need to have the same discussion all over again? At least you could respond to the previous comments about how there's sources that demonstrate this is a "real topic". AgnosticAphid talk 06:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• First, there is only one AfD concerning this Article, and the SOLE reason for its continued existence is the belief by the closing admin that NPOV, which includes WP:OR and WP:SYN (and WP:POVTRAP and WP:BLP) is ALWAYS an ineligible ground for deletion, a somewhat dubious assertion. Almost all of this article is not reporting on an legitimate issue, but promoting a thesis, as are sections of this article individually. The complication the original poster alludes to is a legitimate one, and has been brought up several times by multiple editors, and never adequately addressed. There is something of a problem here, in that the thesis, which could be summarized as "he's just like Akin", or "you are pro-rape" WAS in fact the kind of partisan spin narrative advanced several times by Democrats or Democrat challengers in various races. Was the Democrat narrative picked up on, and reported as such, yes. Was it notable, in the sense that there was an actual non-trivial issue involved in any of these; no. Were any of these sub-narratives connected other than Democrat attempts to smear by association? Not really (Roscelese has brought up the valid point that as a result of the relentless Democrat spin, the questions asked by legitimate reporters and in debates was influenced). Except for Akin, which came out of the blue, and was both bizarre ( WP:FRINGE )and INHERENTLY controversial, basically the "debate" in all instances cited was WHETHER what a pol said was controversial, or whether the opponents claim of "controversy" had any basis. Therefore, the WP issue is existence, not editing.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Need to add the point made multiple times that the effort to link and create a narrative that the Republican party was anti-woman, pro-rape, anti-health, etc all falls under the umbrella of the War on Women article, which is SUPPOSED to be about the Democrat slogan and campaign.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. So you admit in your comment above that WP:EFFECT is completely satisfied by the effect these comments had on the election, but you still want to delete the article because...you want to hide information that makes Republicans look bad? you think your own interpretation of events trumps the interpretation made by reliable sources? Do explain. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I give that comment an A for effort as a debate strategy, but no. You are using semantic jiu-jitsu in attempting to reverse causality. The Democratic War on Women strategy was in place at the start of 2012, long before anyone outside of MO heard of Akin. Innocuous statements that relative to all abortions, those needed as a result of rape are rare are not inherently controversial (the same was and has been said by Democrats, with no effect, since it is true) and did not CAUSE national attention. Claims of controversy by Democratic opponents, operatives, and surrogates may have captured attention and diverted focus from what 2011 analysts all were sure should be the issues (economy, deficit, government spending, resurgence of militant Islam, Obamacare), but you are making two claims, at least, that are not valid. First, that any mention (though seemingly unjustifiable exclusions apply to Democrats and major political figures) of rape or pregnancy sets a mudslinging fight apart from the general War on Women strategy, both in narrative and effect, and two, that prefacing every section with a statement in WP's voice that one theory of a debate is correct (either by titling or by, if you will, opening statement) does not violate WP:BLP, either in the form of misattribution, NPOV, or WP:SYN.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@Casprings: Thanks for the articles. Please give me a few days to read through them and respond. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Take your time.Casprings (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Issue with statement concerning Mourdock

I might as well include the issue since Casprings did not.

This has been a problem and in the article for some time. The way Casprings has it worded and has defended vigorously makes a statement which implies a statement Mourdock did not make.

..became embroiled in a similar controversy when he stated that pregnancy from rape was "something God intended".

This clearly implies that Mourdock thinks that God intends that pregancy is the result of a rape. However, that is not what he said. He clearly says that if a pregnancy is the result of a rape then God indended that life to happen.

I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

Frankly I am not even sure why this has to be debated. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I am not sure why anyone coming to this RfC would have a clue what they are supposed to be responding to. How the hell can you expect anyone to give sensible answers when you can't ask an intelligible question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I did an edit to adress your issue. Is that better?Casprings (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Background

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per request at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Given the time that has passed, I don't believe it is appropriate to comment as to what should happen to the content of the article as a consequence of these discussions. Even if a consensus existed at the time, consensus may have changed over the time since.
Before leaving that point, however, I would point to WP:SILENCE, but note the issue has been raised again at FAC. I am also inclined to point to WP:DROPTHESTICK with respect to the recent raising the issue at several fora.
The locust of the discussion is whether the background sections forms a synthesis and frames the topic of the article in an original way (i.e. that it draws the article as a whole into the realm of original thought).
On the broad principle of whether a background section of an article can inappropriately frame an article in an original way, I find the points made by Arzel (across several threads) compelling. From Wikipedia:No original research: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The topic of this article is Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 not Rape and pregnancy generally.
With respect, I don't see a compelling counter argument to Arzel's broad assertion that including material that does not directly relate to the topic of an article (the Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 in this case) is not original research (regardless of whether it exists in this case or not). Comments by Mangoe, FurrySings and Roscelese support the principle raised by Arzel but disagree that the issue exists in this case.
A significant point raised by Casprings and FurrySings is that a background section will naturally draw in issues that are not directly related to the topic of an article (for example, events that took place before the topic of the article). Such a section is helpful to a reader but must be done be done fairly per WP:NPOV and using verifiable resources dealing with the topic of the article (Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 in this case) in order not to be original research. I didn't see evidence in discussion that that is not the case in this instance. Maybe the section in this instance is OR, just no evidence was given to demonstrate that it is so. --RA (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

This section is almost entirely original research. The goal of WP is not to create research papers. This attempt to create a background section in order to validate the subsequent sections is a clear attempt to write a research like paper. Since almost zero of this section relates to the 2012 election process it has absolutely no relevance within this article. Arzel (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing your definition of original research. The section summarises reliable sources on Akin's remarks, placing them in a context of previous statements and positions advanced by anti-abortion activists and Republican politicians. It is not apparent to me how WP:NOR is a valid objection to its inclusion as the background material is derived from reliable sources discussing comments made during the election. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As you're now tagging the section as "synthesis" rather than alleging "original research" as in your above comment, can you substantiate this charge with reference to the sources? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't WP:OR. I also asked for some outside opinions at WP:ORN. Hopefully consensus will be reached quickly.Casprings (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Link to ORN request: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 Background Section. I'll post this link on Arzel's talk page just so that he's aware of it.FiachraByrne (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for the background section, but not along the lines of original research. I think that it is a mistake to assume as a given fact that pregnancy from rape is not so rare. I think the background section should tell the reader how it is not rare, and then continue with the story of which people said it was very rare. Regarding WP:NOR, this is a background section and is helpful to the setup of the topic. I don't think anything should be removed from it; instead I consider it short of information. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It is actually both. Synthesis of Material and Original Research are very closely related. The subject of the article is in relation to the 2012 election. The background is not the background of the 2012 election and the view of rape related pregnacies, it is a research view of the question of rape related pregnacies. I have written enough papers to see the clear research presentation in this section. In a research paper it would be called the lit review aspect of the research. By creating this section you are in effect writing a research paper on the this article. Hence this section is contributing to Original Research. Furthermore you are trying to link previous research to this event which is Synthesis of Material. Simply put, any information included must be relevant to the article and specifically mention the effect regardinh the 2012 election. The big problem the approach being done here is that you, the editor, is framing the background outside of the scope of the article. If Casprings wants to write a research paper, I suggest he/she do it somewhere else, and the get it published in a journal. Arzel (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's telling that you haven't constructed an argument that is pertinent to any existing wikipedian policy, much less to that of original research or synthesis as defined on the relevant policy pages. This is an individual interpretation of what constitutes original research and as such you should seek community consensus before seeking to apply at individual articles.

You've also introduced a distinction between what you think is appropriate for inclusion in the background to a given article without actually defining the basis for that distinction in any meaningful terms (other than your assertion that you are somehow able to identify said distinction having "written enough papers").

That the material is relevant for inclusion in such a section is determined in the first instance by its presence in reliable sources and not by the idiosyncratic interpretation of what is germane as advanced by individual editors. The sources, cited in the section additions, have identified the theories of Mecklenburg and Willke as pertinent to the topic of this article. In terms of improving the article, they make the controversy more rather than less intelligible and provide much needed context for the reader.

The additional statements that the theories of the Mecklenburg and Willke are "medically inaccurate" and without scientific validity is derived from policy relating to WP:FRINGE - as these are demonstrably pseudoscientific medical theories it is necessary for the article to state that fact per WP:FRINGE/PS on the basis of reliable and authoritative medical sources per WP:MEDRS. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Outside observation from WP:NOR board: [25]. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies Back Ground Section

Two pervious discusions took place on the background section of this article.

• Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012/Archive_1#Background
• Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections.2C_2012_Background_Section

In sum, one side thought it had a problem with WP:OR and WP:SYN. The other side thoguht, that the material is relevant and sourced. The question is, is there a problem with WP:OR in the background section and should the background section remain?Casprings (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why discussing this again? I have take a look at previous discussions, and Arzel's arguments were already wholly dismissed. Cavarrone 16:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That is false. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I requested closure on the pervious discussions. It was suggested that I do an RFC.

• What is the question being asked here? The purpose of an RfC is to get input from uninvolved contributors - and you haven't specified here what material is being disputed, or what sources are being cited to support it. Asking vague questions and providing links to previous discussions isn't helpful. Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the statement in an RfC must be "neutral and brief" - the statement above appears to be anything but. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps that is better?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV tags for King and Bartlett

There is a claim about the RfC covering them, but I don't see it. I also agree with the Anon about King, but not really about Bartlett, in terms of inclusion. What's the story I'm missing here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They aren't there. Just to piggyback on your section, since we seem to have cross-edited while I was editing the King critique. Major objectively false statements, the consensus on an Neutrality page was that it was a violation of NPOV to say King "supported" Akin, and that the section should probably be deleted. It now is worse on the issues brought up, and has been tagged with multiple outright fabrications.

"Iowa Republican congressman Steve King supported Akin after Akin made the "legitimate rape" comments.[96]

*Problem - this is utterly outrageous in that the juxtaposition NOW implies he endorsed the remarks, which he explicitly did NOT do. Fabrication and a BLP violation, needs to be expunged.

He said in a television interview that he had never personally heard about anyone getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.

*Problem Utter mis-statement or LIE about what he said. King was asked multiple questions about federal funding of abortion, which he opposes, with some exceptions. King was asked if he opposed federal funding of non-violent underage pregnancy abortions, and he said yes. The interviewer started throwing out possible more extreme circumstances. When asked about the possibility of a 12-year old, who became pregnant due to non-violent, etc. "consensual" sex, he answered that he would "have to think about that one", ie, he would consider allowing federal funding. He DID add that he had never had any personal experience of anyone in THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE, namely, a 12-year old, etc. He never, at any time said what the WP editor who claimed he said, "he had never personally heard about anyone". That is a blatant falsehood. 12 year olds who are not the victims of forcible rape, pedophilia, child abuse, sex slavery or incest but who become consensually pregnant; I doubt most people have personal knowledge of such an instance, it is highly rare, and that is not a controversial observation.

He said, "Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter."[97] King's comments elicited condemnation from multiple sources,[98][99] and others noted their similarity to Akin's remarks.[100][101] King was re-elected.[102]

*Problem actual news source, the only one, is [97], and the abstract correctly says 12-year old, etc. TPM made the libelous claim of what he (DID NOT) said. Bloggers Dan Amira, Steve Benen, Alex Seitz-Wald all report the false accusation that he said "anyone". That is why TPM is NOT WP:RS, and a blogger saying what TPM erroneously (or falsely) said, does not make TPM information any more reliable.

The ENTIRE alleged "controversy" is King saying one thing, an attack blog claiming, falsely, that he said something else, and the false quote being endlessly repeated on attack blogs.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando I would have no problem integrating the section into the Akin section. The section is basically him supporting Akin, so I don't know if it is needed.

@ annoy All these statements are backed up. He did support Akin, which is what the article says.Casprings (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is DELETING the King and Bartlett, due to WP:BLP problems. Without false accusations of what each said there is no controversy. Quoting an attack that is false, in order to publish the false attack and somehow publicize it is flagrantly contrary to WP:BLP. The attack sites (or blogs reporting that the attack sites said something) claimed each did not "sufficiently" condemn Akin; by definition a suspect value judgement, and not really appropriate for inclusion on WP.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a consensus for doing anything with the Bartlett portion. As far as King, he did make a comment that was significant enough to get national coverage. Rather that is integrated into the section on Akin or is placed in his own section is the debate, at least for me. Others may chime in, of course. I see nothing that is false in the section. Casprings (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, I don't see how King's relevant to the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

He is relevant to the topic because he made himself relevant by speaking out in such a manner that he got national attention, and not just in a limited manner. It was all over the news. Suddenly millions of people who had no idea who he was identified him as someone who was in favor of limiting the rights of women. That's why he's relevant. We follow the RS, and it's easy to document. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this article about "limiting rights of women," or of "rape and pregnancy controversies?" Specifically, where is the "rape and pregnancy controversy" in King's statement? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would echo BullRangifer. Now, as to rather the information goes into the Akin section or its own section, that is another debate. I would say the comment, which did deal with rape and pregnancy, could have its own section. I would also think that because the comments are so directly linked to Akin's comments (he was responding to those statements), one could make the argument that it belongs there.Casprings (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a quick line about King echoing support, but I don't see the controversy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the section and added something into the Akin section. Lets see what others think. Casprings (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. No further problem with it as written, aside from the general topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Having a short sentence that King DID speak up for Akin as a person, which is supported, or that he said he should be judged on his legislative record, not some odd phrase is fine, as long as it is clear that he refused to support or repudiate the comments themselves. Continuing to insert, contrary to WP:BLP that he said something he did not, much less inserting it into an unrelated section is NOT OK.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it your position that inclusion of the King quotation constitutes a BLP violation no matter how much additional context to the quotation is supplied in the article? — goethean 15:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see a context within THIS article where non-controversially expressing an age limit for a Romeo-and-Juliet exception to federal funding, by quote, would fit. Can I imagine that that King quote, together with the actual question asked (not the TPM-made-up question) could be included in an appropriate article (not this one)? Absolutely. If, on the other hand, you are talking about including a quote by King ON Akin, as long as it actually states what he said (which the paraphrase does not), THAT and that alone might fit in the Akin section. Of course, this has already been reverted, not improved by none other than yourself.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the actual quote that we can use to compare it to what's being alleged? Might go a long way in solving this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The false TPM attack on King did have an accurate quote of King's RESPONSE, as did the WP:RS, the TV station that conducted the interview, but outright lied about what the question was. Goethean is responding to the legitimate WP:BLP deletion of the section due to insertion of a made-up QUESTION by asking a rhetorical about the ANSWER. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So do you have a source for the accurate question and answer? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

King and Bartlett Section of Other comments Section

There is some question on the neutrality of the Roscoe Bartlett and Steve King section of this article. Those discussions can be found here and here. The basic question of this RfC is to ask what changes (Keep, change, integrate integrate information into other sections, etc) should occur to those sections.Casprings (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• At this point in time, keep Bartlett but ditch King. I can't see how King is related. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• He is relevant to the topic because he made himself relevant by speaking out in such a manner that he got national attention, and not just in a limited manner. It was all over the news. Suddenly millions of people who had no idea who he was identified him as someone who was in favor of limiting the rights of women. That's why he's relevant. We follow the RS, and it's easy to document. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• THe best argument to keep King, is a source like this. It is a WP:RS source and does compare the remark to Akins.Casprings (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agreee THAT is really the best, in fact the only justification; that a blogger posted that TPM (Talking Points Memo) attacked King with a false account of remarks, CLAIMING he said what the WP currently says (in WP's voice) he said. The ACTUAL WP:RS all note that this TPM attack was untrue. This is the sole reason you have to justify the WHOLE King section and it does not even come close to avoiding a WP:BLP violation.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are plenty enough good sources used in the article to justify keeping King and Bartlett. That revisions to the sections might be appropriate is another matter. We can certainly entertain them, but deletion is out of the question.
  The Bartlett section has a VERY long quote. I vote for using an essential part of it in the section and eliminating the box. In fact, we should try to clean up all sections so we don't have boxes. That creates a difference in quoting style (in the same article) which could be construed as singling out some people, and THAT (treating people differently) could be construed as an NPOV violation. We can still keep the quotes, but just use the same format, preferably an ordinary colon indentation. That keeps it all very simple and easy. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't oppose that. I do think the current formatting looks nice in that section.Casprings (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Returning to my previous suggestion about getting rid of the box at Bartlett's section. It's interesting, but serves no real purpose not already covered in the main text. It's unsightly and just draws undue attention to Bartlett, as if his comments were especially bad, and they're no worse, and in fact "less" so than some of the others who have no such box. (They are still offensive, but so be it.) I'd like to get rid of the box. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, quote cut and reformatted. Thoughts? I don't really like the semicolons, but I can live with. Any thoughts on how to formate the quote?Casprings (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 has now removed the material on King, claiming a BLP violation. User:Anonymous209.6 seems to be claiming that King didn't actually say what he is widely and reliably sourced to be quoted as having said. [26] — goethean 20:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Only Anonymous can speak for themselves. However, what King said has been woefully misrepresented from the very beginning. Arzel (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the current wording? I think it is accurate and neutral.Casprings (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not at all neutral. The King quote is correct, but the exposition on what the question is is pure fiction. He answered a VERY, VERY, VERY limited theoretical question, WP editors and some partisan attack sites are claiming the question was one other than what it was. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS thought it was connected. It is sourced.Casprings (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Anonymous209.6 could suggest a more accurate wording. — goethean 02:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could just use his full quote and not try to imply something that he did not say. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Arzel (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ususally would not post the same thing twice, but since Casprings is again using noticeboard attacks rather than addressing issues, feel the need. The quote is an answer to a very, very, very specific theoretical question, Casprings keeps inserting questions that make the response sound controversial, but were NOT the question asked, nor in any context. The local news interviewer and King had a lengthy back and forth that clearly defined what the "that" in his quoted answer referred to, Casprings is substituting something else. An egregious WP:BLP violation. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And the current on King, gives the full details of what he was discussing.Casprings (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Utterly, completely ridiculous. Casprings is presently stating in WP's voice that King said that "I just haven't heard of [Medicaid's coverage for abortions for victims of rape and incest] being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter." That is objectively and libelously false, and contradicted by all actual WP:RS. The FALSE allegation by TPM (an obviously non-WP:RS) that he said "I just haven't heard of [anyone being pregnant from rape] being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter." was spammed to the media and some blogs reported that TPM (attribution, attribution, attribution) had made the false accusation. Repeating provably false attacks is a clear WP:BLP violation. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you suggest a more accurate wording? — goethean 19:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The premise of your question (do you still beat your wifc?-style)is that the non-controversial answer SHOULD be included in this article, and that some change in wording would allow their inclusion. Furthermore, you expect ME to find a wording that would allow them to be included and thereby characterized as controversial. Not constructive.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Trent Franks

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

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

Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not part of the 2012 election cycle. It is also not clear that the incidence of women becoming pregnant from rape, and waiting to report the rape and request an abortion for 6 months is all that common. The twitter blog and email blasts, and even current reports picked up by news organizations do not make clear all the context of the remarks. Pretty stupid politically to venture out on that plank, given the already in place apparatus to attack.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Incident can be included as WP:RS connects it to the 2012 incidents. — goethean 14:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope unrelated to the focus of this article. Arzel (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it completely bizarre, then, that the source explicitly mentions Todd Akin's 2012 senate campaign in connection with this incident? — goethean 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Far be it for me to argue with Arzel (that this article actually HAS focus) or with Gothean's idea that the title should actually be (" x is just like Todd Akin" (Democrat campaign slogan), but we have to argue from the basis of where the article actually IS, and it is allegedly NOT the Todd Akin lookalike page, and allegedly DOES have a focus, on 2012. Franks does not fit on that basis.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No article name change is needed, since the supplied source EXPLICITLY MENTIONS the Franks incident in association, not just with Akin's 2012 Senate campaign but with his 'women problem', which is the topic of this article. — goethean 15:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

How does a comment in June 2013 impact the 2012 elections? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you need assistance in reading the Washington Post article? — goethean 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No need for the personal attacks Goethean. Also this has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 election. Go find a different coatrack for this. Arzel (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not need assistance in reading the article. The question is how something in 2013 impacts 2012. If you can show a relationship in that direction, it fits into this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please return to the talk page for controversial edits

There have been multiple edits in recent days on what editors know or should know are controversial edits. Instead of reverting and changing the article, I would suggest that editors return to the talk page.Casprings (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on including the 2008 percentage of women's vote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is disagreement as to rather to include the percentage of women that voted for Obama in 2008 with the percentage that voted for him in 2012 in the wider impact section. The article is about the 2012 election, so I would argue that this statistic is all that is needed. Moreover, a range of other variables can effect a vote (i.e. less voters voted for Obama overall for a range of issues), and providing them together is a problem with WP:SYN. No secondary sources comment on this comparison, so there is also a problem with WP:OR. Others would argue that it is needed for comparison. That simply placing them side by side is not a problem and allows the reader to come up with their own conclusion. Casprings (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

YES NYT - Obama maintained his proportion of women vote Rutgers - Obama won about the same number of women voters as in 2008. NBC - Women voters supported Obama about the same as in 2008 55% versus 56%. Not all sources specifically state the %'s but there are many that do. As presented in the article; the implication is that Obama's % of women voters is a direct result of the 2012 rape and pregnancy controversies. However, sources do not state that Obama's % of women votes in 2012 increased in 2012 as a result of these incidents. To leave only the 2012 % without any historical information, which is supplied in many sources, presents a false summarization. It is certainly not OR to present the 2008 information as many sources present this information in context. It is a clear violation of OR to not present this information and leave the reader to believe that 2012 was different compared to other years with respect to the % of Women votes. One must really ask why Casprings and Roscelese are so adamant against including this information. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Don't include. Arzel has been pretty persistent about including this but pretty resistent to providing a reliable source that connects it to the article topic. Until that happens, it's not even worth a mention. Even if such a source is found, we can't include it in such a way that we seem to be undermining all the data presently in the article; sources do explain the reason for the discrepancy, and Arzel's already had this explained to him and should know better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided three sources above that explicitly mention this in the context of this election. You seem to be against it for the very reason why this article is nothing more than yours and Casprings attempts at a research paper. ie. "..we can't include it in such a way that we seem to be undermining all the data presently in the article;" If anyone should know better it is editors that continue to be confused about the differences between research papers and WP. It is quite clear what you are doing. Arzel (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I specifically asked you for sources that connect it to the article topic - controversies in the 2012 cycle. The fact that you keep being unable to provide such sources is illustrative. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And I provided three above that make as much of a connection as is currently in the article. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

False - the sources in the article directly attribute Republican vote losses to these controversies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

False - The source relating to Obama's % of women vote in 2012 does not attribute that % to these events. That source also mentions that Obama received 56% of the women vote in 2008. Arzel (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment An important discusion on this subject takes place here. Casprings (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Don't include the controversy and the election results are a great example of Correlation does not imply causation, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Here's the problem: right now, we have a vote share piece in the article already which could be considered synthesis. If the current text is okay to add in, so should the comparison to 2008. If the comparison to '08 is too far, so too is the vote share piece in the article for the same reason. Both of them or neither of them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem with that logic is that WP:RS do mention the women's vote in the context with Akin's comments. For example, here. THe same is not true about the 2008 numbers. Casprings (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The article you cite MENTIONS, and only mentions, both within the same article. As per RCLC, though, the article you cite does NOT state that RaPCiUSe2012 in any way CAUSES the gender gap. The article DOES mention that the gender gap is a longstanding one, including 2008, and DOES make the conclusion that specifics related to so-called "women's issues" in general seem not to have moved voters; the conclusion is that women as a class vote principally on economic issues. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Which is why, if we include that, we should include this and this and this and so on to provide the proper context, or not include it at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• What points would you suggest adding. I didn't see any clear connection to the comment controversy. I think the Atlantic article comes the closes, but I didn't see anything to really add.Casprings (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Don't include - The arguments for inclusion seem to be simple WP:POINT. It's better to stay with what reliable sources explicitly connect to the article's topic, and I haven't seen a convincing case for that yet. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Don't include per the rationale of RightCowLeftCoast. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I came here via the Feedback Request Service that I have signed up for. I am somewhat unconfortable with the phrasing of this RfC as it appears to violate the rule that RfC shall be brief and neutral, not arguing any postions or desired outcome. On the issue, I don't have any specific opionion on whether a comparison to the 2008 should be made (but I agree that such a comparison can only be made in the article if it has been made in a reliable source). I think the article should be slightly changed to reflect that the CNN source for the exit polls numbers also mention other reasons for the Romney women deficit. There is also a close paraphrasing issue with the last sentence of the paragraph. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, clearly not neutral. There is no argument, as the RfC erroneously states, that in an article about the 2012 election WP should INSTEAD write about the 2008 election. That is not what the editors advocating comparative statistics are advocating. Social science uses two primary methods to ascertain effect and intent, which is what is being written about. First, there can be detailed surveying of attitudes, beliefs, and impacts, combined with statistical normalization of the sample population. Second, there can be comparison between populations, in this case testing expectations of subpopulations' voting patterns with what would be expected had certain issues influenced votes, or comparisons between populations and similar elections where issues were different. Pretty much standard methodology. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the comment from user:Iselilja. I tried to clearly state, to the best of my ability, the two different sides of this debate. I would be more than happy to reword the RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

You did clearly state your biased view of the issue, which is why the RfC is flawed. Arzel (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Don't include per Roscelese and RightCowLeftCoast. I see no reason to try and correlate this data and confuse the reader. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You do realize that those two editors are not arguing the same conclusion, at least it does not appear that they are. RCLC is arguing against the inclusion of any of the statistics, while R would appear to be arguing in favor of the 2012 statistics. Arzel (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The RfC is about including the 2008 percentage. The title is, "including the 2008 percentage of women's vote ". The first sentence of the RfC is, "There is disagreement as to rather to include the percentage of women that voted for Obama in 2008 with the percentage that voted for him in 2012 in the wider impact section." It is silly to suggest that they are not arguing over the 2008 data.Casprings (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
      • You must not have read what RCLC wrote. Arzel (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes. What in it makes you think he thinks we shouldn't include the 2012 information, which was mentioned by a WP:RS. Especially when that wasn't the issue here.Casprings (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
          • For the ___ieth time - you cannot ascribe CAUSALITY from the fact of a gender gap to RAPCIUS2012, as has been stated by many editors. That an article shows up on a Google search as having MENTIONED both the gender gap AND RAPCIUS2012 does not mean you can now say one caused the other. If you introduce the fact of the gender gap, you introduce the issue of whether it relates to longstanding electoral trends or is unique to 2012 (which it is not - therefore CANNOT be ascribed as a cause)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - exclusion of non-informative statistics - Several independent editors have remarked that simply stating the existence of a gender gap in the 2012 vote does not indicate any effect of "RaPCiUSe". Indeed, even the primary reference claiming to be WP:RS does not actually claim any causality, but merely mentions that there is was a gender gap, refers to the same point Arzel is making, that the gender gap has been in existence for decades of elections, and pre-dated the Akin remarks, and then lists news stories that Democrats claimed were "women's issues", finally noting that women (as a general class, as referred to) don't actually tend to vote on "women's issues", but on economic ones. Unless a statistic actually teases out an effect of "RaPCiUSe", it really shouldn't be included. It should also be noted that while some sources on election day claimed the gender gap increased in 2012 vs 2008 (including the Politico ref being used - comparative statistics are central to it's mild claim that the women's vote moved), in actual fact, there were declines in the gender gap, even worse if you consider that the primary trend, unexpected increased Black and Latino voting masked that decline.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• By several editors, I would suggest the number is two, on the 2012 numbers. Again, that was not the issue with the RFC. If you want to make that an issue, please start an RFC. Otherwise, I will.Casprings (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please actually read other editors comments. And the WP:RS you refer to.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues are related. You don't need a seperate RfC to remove the 2012 information when several editors have already stated that it doesn't belong even if that was not the primary focus of this RfC. Arzel (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, you wouldn't need comparative statistical analysis on the general women's vote (aka 2008, 2010, etc comparisons) if, as editors are agreeing, if the article didn't have unsupported linkage between gross numbers and causes.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirects to this page

Several users are changing the redirects to this page. I would suggest that we talk about this here and get consensus on changes of the redirects. Casprings (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Those redirects are specific to Todd Akin. The Todd Akin article has a specific section relating to those searches. There is no reason to redirect to this page unless your goal is to promote this page, which is exactly what it appears that you are doing. Furthermore, the Todd Akin page has a seealso to this page for futher information. Why do you feel that they should be redirected to this page and not Todd Akin, when Todd Akin is the primary subject of those searches? As for the number of people, it appears only you feel that they should redirect here. Consensus is currently against you. Arzel (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The redirects in dispute are:

• Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy
• Todd Akin's 2012 comments on rape-induced pregnancy ‎
• Legitimate rape

I would argue that this should be redirected to Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Todd_Akin:_.22legitimate_rape.22. This seems the most logical target of the articles. That target provides the location of the information they looking for. It is a better target than simply Todd Akin .Casprings (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion started on these redirects at here.Casprings (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)