This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
WP:NOTNEWS. This section as it stands IS a newspaper.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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'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.” [1]
It has been pointed out that Akin cosponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act, [2] which would have conferred full legal personhood on embryos beginning at fertilization or cloning, as well as bills recognizing only "forcible" rape [3] [4] to narrow access to federal funding for abortions. [5] [6]
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)
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)
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)
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)
Saturday, Oct 20, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390Boston, 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."
−
Now, who is edit warring, William Jockusch? Cwobeel ( talk) 01:02, 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.” [1] [2]
Cwobeel ( talk) 04:02, 22 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.
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.
[3] Humans are not reflex ovulators, and have to ovulate before fertilization can occur.
[4]
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.” [5] [6]
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. [7] Mitt Romney's 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.” [1] [8]
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." [9] [10]
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)
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)
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)
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."
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
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 not WP: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)
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)
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)
There are many sources available to document the response to these comments and should be added. Cwobeel ( talk) 22:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I started a discussion on this at WP:ORN. It can be found here. Casprings ( talk) 00:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [11]
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. [12] A separate 2003 article in the journal Human Nature estimated that rapes are twice as likely to result in pregnancies as consensual sex. [13]
Per WP:COATRACK - this is not Akin's biography page; and per WP:OR (pseudoscience):
Akin is a long time pro-life activist who has served on the board of Missouri Right to Life, [14] participated in and been arrested as part of anti-abortion demonstrations in Missouri and Illinois as far back as 1985, [15] and sponsored or co-sponsored three anti-abortion bills in the House. [14] 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 [16] [17] 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." [18]
Akin's August 2012 comments are based on pseudoscientific claims [19] [20] that have been rejected by reproductive health experts. [21] The current scientific consensus is that rape is no less likely to lead to pregnancy than consensual intercourse. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Opponents of abortion have claimed that women have a biological reaction to rape that makes rape victims unlikely to get pregnant, [28] [29] but these claims have been roundly dismissed by professors of obstetrics at Harvard Medical School and the University of North Carolina. [21]
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." [30]
Per WP:COATRACK: Note that I actually replaced some of this text and the refs.
Representative Steve King came to the defense of Rep. Todd Akin, calling the 'legitimate rape' controversy "petty personal attacks". [31] 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". [32] 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.” [33] Multiple sources commented on the similarities with Akin's remarks. [34] [35] The comment produced condemnation from multiple sources. [36] [37]
(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. [38]
(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. [39]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 over weight. Arzel ( talk) 15:30, 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)
What the hell does Ron Paul have to do with this? Arzel ( talk) 19:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Removed per the above; no controversy was noted resulting from Paul's comments. Killer Chihuahua 19:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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." [40] McMahon's phrase "emergency rape" proved controversial and was commented on by the media. [41] [42]
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
pseudo
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).[Akin's] claim—a pseudo-scientific fiction that has long been advanced by some pro-life activists who want to outlaw abortion for rape victims—was denounced by the Republican establishment
NYT-21-08-2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: replacement character in |title=
at position 21 (
help)
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. [1] [2] [3] [4]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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.
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. [5] [6]
culp-ressler
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).maddowshow
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).faultlines
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).neverthought
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Two Questions for the RFC. 1. Does the text belong. 2. If it does, what amount of text.
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)
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. [1] He continued to state that he "delivered lots of babies" and "[knew] about these things" [2] Gingrey also said he didn’t find anything wrong with distinguishing “legitimate rape” from non-legitimate rape, which he defined as a false accusation. [3] 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." [4] His office released a statement that said, "In my attempt to provide context as to what I presumed they meant, my position was misconstrued.” [1]
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, [5] and apologized for the "inartful" remarks. [6] [7]
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?
The following images were removed for the rational below. This was found based off a FA review, found here.
If you can help fix the problem please do so. The images are posted below. Casprings ( talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
I went ahead and started a discussion at WP:ORN. That discussion can be found, here. Casprings ( talk) 18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Casprings ( talk) 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Date | August 19, 2012 | - November 6, 2012
---|---|
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)
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.
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 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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
Two pervious discusions took place on the background section of this article.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Another incident to mention. The remarks are directly tied to similar remarks by Todd Akin:
Brangifer ( talk) 05:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Comment An important discusion on this subject takes place here. Casprings ( talk) 20:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
Discussion started on these redirects at
here.
Casprings (
talk) 23:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
cirilli
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).partlyright
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).underfire
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Gingrey speaks
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No Gotcha
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).rape remark
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).backlash
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
WP:NOTNEWS. This section as it stands IS a newspaper.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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'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.” [1]
It has been pointed out that Akin cosponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act, [2] which would have conferred full legal personhood on embryos beginning at fertilization or cloning, as well as bills recognizing only "forcible" rape [3] [4] to narrow access to federal funding for abortions. [5] [6]
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)
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)
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)
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)
Saturday, Oct 20, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390Boston, 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."
−
Now, who is edit warring, William Jockusch? Cwobeel ( talk) 01:02, 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.” [1] [2]
Cwobeel ( talk) 04:02, 22 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.
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.
[3] Humans are not reflex ovulators, and have to ovulate before fertilization can occur.
[4]
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.” [5] [6]
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. [7] Mitt Romney's 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.” [1] [8]
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." [9] [10]
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)
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)
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)
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."
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
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 not WP: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)
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)
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)
There are many sources available to document the response to these comments and should be added. Cwobeel ( talk) 22:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I started a discussion on this at WP:ORN. It can be found here. Casprings ( talk) 00:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [11]
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. [12] A separate 2003 article in the journal Human Nature estimated that rapes are twice as likely to result in pregnancies as consensual sex. [13]
Per WP:COATRACK - this is not Akin's biography page; and per WP:OR (pseudoscience):
Akin is a long time pro-life activist who has served on the board of Missouri Right to Life, [14] participated in and been arrested as part of anti-abortion demonstrations in Missouri and Illinois as far back as 1985, [15] and sponsored or co-sponsored three anti-abortion bills in the House. [14] 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 [16] [17] 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." [18]
Akin's August 2012 comments are based on pseudoscientific claims [19] [20] that have been rejected by reproductive health experts. [21] The current scientific consensus is that rape is no less likely to lead to pregnancy than consensual intercourse. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Opponents of abortion have claimed that women have a biological reaction to rape that makes rape victims unlikely to get pregnant, [28] [29] but these claims have been roundly dismissed by professors of obstetrics at Harvard Medical School and the University of North Carolina. [21]
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." [30]
Per WP:COATRACK: Note that I actually replaced some of this text and the refs.
Representative Steve King came to the defense of Rep. Todd Akin, calling the 'legitimate rape' controversy "petty personal attacks". [31] 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". [32] 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.” [33] Multiple sources commented on the similarities with Akin's remarks. [34] [35] The comment produced condemnation from multiple sources. [36] [37]
(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. [38]
(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. [39]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 over weight. Arzel ( talk) 15:30, 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)
What the hell does Ron Paul have to do with this? Arzel ( talk) 19:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Removed per the above; no controversy was noted resulting from Paul's comments. Killer Chihuahua 19:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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." [40] McMahon's phrase "emergency rape" proved controversial and was commented on by the media. [41] [42]
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
pseudo
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).[Akin's] claim—a pseudo-scientific fiction that has long been advanced by some pro-life activists who want to outlaw abortion for rape victims—was denounced by the Republican establishment
NYT-21-08-2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: replacement character in |title=
at position 21 (
help)
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. [1] [2] [3] [4]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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.
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. [5] [6]
culp-ressler
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).maddowshow
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).faultlines
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).neverthought
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Two Questions for the RFC. 1. Does the text belong. 2. If it does, what amount of text.
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)
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. [1] He continued to state that he "delivered lots of babies" and "[knew] about these things" [2] Gingrey also said he didn’t find anything wrong with distinguishing “legitimate rape” from non-legitimate rape, which he defined as a false accusation. [3] 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." [4] His office released a statement that said, "In my attempt to provide context as to what I presumed they meant, my position was misconstrued.” [1]
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, [5] and apologized for the "inartful" remarks. [6] [7]
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?
The following images were removed for the rational below. This was found based off a FA review, found here.
If you can help fix the problem please do so. The images are posted below. Casprings ( talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
I went ahead and started a discussion at WP:ORN. That discussion can be found, here. Casprings ( talk) 18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Casprings ( talk) 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Date | August 19, 2012 | - November 6, 2012
---|---|
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)
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.
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 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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
Two pervious discusions took place on the background section of this article.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Another incident to mention. The remarks are directly tied to similar remarks by Todd Akin:
Brangifer ( talk) 05:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Comment An important discusion on this subject takes place here. Casprings ( talk) 20:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
Discussion started on these redirects at
here.
Casprings (
talk) 23:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
cirilli
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).partlyright
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).underfire
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Gingrey speaks
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No Gotcha
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).rape remark
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).backlash
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).