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

Active discussions
Rape and pregnancy statement controversies in the 2012 United States elections was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 27, 2012Articles for deletionKept
January 20, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
January 31, 2013Good article nomineeListed
April 14, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 25, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
June 12, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 31, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 15, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 17, 2014Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 29, 2020Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Delisted good article

About the headline?Edit

Shouldn't it be called "Republican rape and pregnancy controversies, etc....?

Because honestly, these statements all reflect the ideas and speech from Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.212.82 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Todd Akin takes back applogyEdit

He is releasing a book where he defends the comment. This should be intergrated into this article and his bio. See link

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/todd-akin-new-book-108745.html?hp=f2

  DoneRoscelese (talkcontribs) 16:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

CommentEdit

I am looking at the GA review of this article, and it doesn't go into any significant depth. The article appears to be a collection of two controversies under the same subject, made by those who oppose the view points of two GOP candidates during the 2012 election cycle. While I can see how each merit their own article per WP:EVENT, it still reads like an attack page against both individuals. This makes me wonder how this is neutral at all. If I were to reassess this for GA, it would fail on that point alone.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Article placed for reassessment. The link can be found here. Casprings (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether this article should existEdit

It appears to me that most of the sources used here speak particularly about specific comments made, and not about the comments taken together as a whole. The "Wider impact" section is good (though seems to be overstating what the reliable sources are actually saying), but I am wondering whether we are running afoul of WP:SYNTH by having an article that seems to place these comments together, where there is actually relatively little coverage linking them. Thoughts? DoomLexus (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Rape and pregnancy statement controversies in the 2012 United States elections" page.