![]() | 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 |
The controversies continue on this subject, so this page needs to be renamed to Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States Politics or something of the kind. Ir can be useful as there is historical precedences that would be very interesting for readers. Cwobeel ( talk) 14:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed a number of RfC notices from this page. Additionally, formal closures have been declined for a number of discussions.
RFCs are intended to be used as part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. They are not intended to be used as an alternative to ordinary discussion. However important you believe this topic to be, please use RfC sparingly and do not use requests for formal closures as an alternative to arriving at consensus among yourselves.
-- RA ( talk) 20:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I noted that the individuals that have been talked to in-depth in this article are members of the Republican Party (United States). Are there non-Republicans where rape and pregnancy have impacted them? Is the attempt of this article to serve as a attack page, or a neutrally worded take on the subject? As this article discusses living individuals is this article subject to WP:BLP?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I propose that we created a moderated discussion for the remaining disputes on this page. It doesn't seem like these disputes will be resolved, if it is only done through dialogue. I would suggest an uninvolved editor would be of assistance in finding concensus here and resolving any remaining disputes. If there is agreement, I will post a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Casprings ( talk) 16:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
After looking back in the talkpage for the discussion on this issue, I've removed the comments from Salazar about concealed carry and rape. While the focus of the discussion was largely on the suitability of post-election events, a number of users at the time pointed out that the incident was not really related to the article topic; looking at the sources, I concur. (As I pointed out in my edit summary, the Salazar incident was included in our article based on its supposed relation to the Akin incident. We relied on three sources for this: one which did not mention Akin, one which pointed out that the comments were not like Akin's, and one that mentioned only partisans linking the two. This doesn't come up to the level of the other sources we use in this article, in which events are connected by reliable sources in authorial voice.)
I haven't looked into the sources/talk for Gingrey's comments, which were brought up more tangentially in the same discussion. However, I think that if we do decide that a post-election section is now unsuitable but that we wish to retain some specific incidents, we might put them in sections where they are relevant - eg. if we wanted to keep Gingrey, he was directly commenting on Akin and Mourdock, so we might move the material to one or both sections. (Although I do admit it's super awkward to split it.) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Unless there are major objections, I'm going to be doing some trimming of the "other comments" section. As controversial as some of the comments were (and I say "some" because now that I look into Bartlett, it doesn't seem to have created much uproar at all - and it's not about BLP and it's not about whether a question from an activist is valid, but rather about the fact that reliable sources didn't bother much with it - it ought to be removed and I can do that), a number of these guys were set to lose their elections anyway (eg. Walsh to Duckworth), so there's no "effect" there. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
This section has a long list of pieces of evidence and what percentage pregnancy likelihood they determined, but what it needs is a comparison of pregnancy rates of rape with non-rape sex to refute it. The only reason I can see for it not being in the notes is that such a comparison has not been done, which seems very unlikely. 110.32.195.198 ( talk) 08:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
During a FAC review, it was suggest that an explanatory note on the science behind the pregnancy rate and pregnancy should be added.. As such, one was added.. Should the statement be in the article? Casprings ( talk) 02:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
could readAny female capable of ovulation may become pregnant after rape by a fertile male.
Additionally, the sentenceAny female capable of ovulation may become pregnant by a fertile male, including after rape.
could be cited to show that every year this occurs, otherwise it is a general statement without verification that can be removed per WP:BURDEN.Rape causes tens of thousands of women to become pregnant each year.
Here is another source that medical estimates for pregnancy from a one time sexual encounter are 5% . Could include this statistic in the note. http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims . Casprings ( talk) 22:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The information for non-US studies should not be included as this is a US specific issue. What is the rational for including non-US studies. Arzel ( talk) 04:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
See for primary discussion Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Roscoe_Bartlett_.2A.2F_major_BLP_violations_Requires_tag_and.2For_deletion What are the issues, if any, with WP:NOV in the Roscoe Bartlett[edit] Section? Casprings ( talk) 21:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Has someone already mentioned that the Democratic robocalls we cite preceded Bartlett's comments? They're about Bartlett being in the same party as Akin, not about his comments. [1] – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
What are the NPOV issues, if any, with the wider impact section. Casprings ( talk) 23:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Should we include any polling data? This has been under dispute for some time. The previous RfC discussed whether the 2008 results (which showed the same or greater percentage of Women Vote in 2008) should be included. Several editors ended up discussing whether any poll data should be included as a means to prove that these events had an effect on the 2012 election. Arzel ( talk) 01:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Endorse Source after source have connected this issue to the women's vote. Many of those sources have also used the 2012 exit polls. This provides information to the reader in a WP:NPOV way. It is backed up by WP:RS and is WP:NPOV. Also, we have already had one RfC on the subject. The consensus is there. Casprings ( talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Not supportable The traditional gender gap (which is all we are talking about) was part of many elections, not just 2008. Discussion of the traditional gender gap vis-a-vis the issues in the 2012 election has to explain why the gender gap moved ever so slightly in favor of Republicans. One has basically two reasonable explanations, first, that the issues discussed had no global effect, or second, (credit Roscelese) that there was an incipient stampede of women voters toward Republicans that was halted by the Democrat's obsession with rape. None of your refs make the case. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Endorse: without the proper context, including only the 2012 data is misleading. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 13:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Endorse The best option for talk of the longstanding gender gap. Sloppy commentary that the gender gap is new and/or related to "rape issues" have to be followed with the generally good statistical evidence that they didn't. Best just not to go down this hole.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 15:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment I've had to remove sections for including both 2008 and 2012. This is not an option; the previous, very recent RFC established a consensus that inclusion of the 2008 results was policy-noncompliant synthesis and therefore undesirable, and trying to use an RFC on another issue to sneak them back in is acting in bad faith against the community. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
What are the results about telling us at this point? At the very least, it appears that the only position that lacks good support is the one that wants 2012 data only. How should we proceed? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 19:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 → Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States politics – There have been muliple comments coming after the election. Each comments is compared, in some fashsion, to the 2012 election events. Allow this move, would allow the easier intergration of these additional comments. This is a logical move based on events that have occured. The page itself would not have to change much, but this is a logical expansion of the page. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 12:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Casprings ( talk) 19:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments:
Bartlett: Oh, life of the mother—exception of life of the mother, rape and incest ... there are very few pregnancies as a result of rape, fortunately, and incest—compared to the usual abortion, what is the percentage of abortions for rape? It is tiny. It is a tiny, tiny percentage.
Audience member: There's 20,000 pregnancies every year from rape.
Bartlett: Yeah, and how many abortions? In the millions," said Bartlett.
Another audience member: That's 20,000 rapes. That's 20,000 people who are violated.
Bartlett: Yeah, I know, I know. But in terms of the percentage of pregnancies, percentage of abortions for rape as compared to overall abortions, it's a tiny, tiny percentage.
Audience member: And incest is quite high too, believe me. In Appalachia we saw incest on a daily basis
Bartlett: Oh yeah, but again, it's a tragedy for the family and the person, but in terms of actual numbers it's a pretty small percentage of the total number.
Audience member: Unless you're the one.
Bartlett: Most abortions, most abortions are for what purpose? They just don't want to have a baby! The second reason for abortion is you'd like a boy and it's a girl, or vice versa. And I know a lot of people are opposed to abortion who are pro-choice. [1]
*Problem; - "audience member" is a misattribution, and why attack sites are not a reliable source, even if quoted within another article. Bartlett was being followed by Progressive political activists, and the questions are from the videography team assigned to make "gotcha" footage.
On August 30, 2012, Roscoe Bartlett, a ten-term Republican Congressman from Maryland, was asked to clarify his position on abortion at a town hall meeting. He stated that very few pregnancies result from rape or incest, and therefore the life of the mother exception for abortion was the only one he supported. [1]
*Problem; Bartlett was not "asked to clarify" a general position, his position was what his position always has been for 20 years, and was as he clearly stated. He was being peppered about Akin by Democrat/Progressive campaign operatives. He was stating why he still worked with Akin, in spite of their clear differences on abortion exceptions, and he responded that (and he always qualified, no slipup there) that RELATIVE to total abortions, rape abortions were rare. (and thus working with Akin on the other 90% made sense)
*Problem; "life of the mother was the only one he supported" - JUST PLAIN FACTUALLY WRONG and unsupported by WP:RS. Bartlett makes it clear that he supports exceptions for rape and incest, and Washington Post reference notes his immediate rebuke of and distancing from Akin.
Multiple sources equated this to Akin's comments, and this resulted in political attacks on Bartlett. [2] [3] [4]
*Problem Bizarre, false and utterly unsupported causality. TPM not WP:RS, attacks by operatives made, only later did WP:RS equate ATTACKS with those on Akin, Washington Post (again) notes that the attacks were made IN SPITE of that lack of any objective slip-up.
The Democratic Congressional Committee Campaign targeted Bartlett with automated telephone calls that stated, "Republicans like your Congressman Roscoe Bartlett share some of these radical, right-wing beliefs—that the government should take away a woman's access to making informed decisions about her own pregnancy". [5] Bartlett lost his bid for re-election to the Democratic challenger John Delaney. [6]
Again, WP:RS did not report that Roscoe Bartlett made "controversial" comments, only that IN SPITE of making no slip-ups, he was followed and attacked by State and national Democrat/Progressive organizations, and that several implications made BY THOSE (non-WP:RS) sources were provocative but false. Repeating false accusations or partisan "opinions" as if they were factual, particularly by mis-attribution is an egregious violation both of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 16:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this article not cover a single rape or pregnancy in the US elections, 2012? Rather, this article seems to be about comments about rape and pregnancy, which, of course, are completely different than actual rape and pregnancy. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
@Casprings: I'm sorry, but substance is more important than style. The current article title is misleading: AFAIK, none of the politicians listed in the article raped or impregnated anyone. Lest I remind you, these are living people that are in this article. If you and I cannot agree on this, that's fine. I'd like to hear from other editors whether or not they think the article title is inaccurate or misleading. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Neutron inadvertently brings up a bigger problem, namely the complete inappropriate and WP:OR nature of the "Background" section. There was one, and only one, person referred to in this article, that in 2012 expressed Todd Akin's belief on pregnancy and rape; and that was Todd Akin. It was odd, universally condemned, universally called wrong, and a WP:FRINGE view. The Background section cannot possibly be argued to have anything to do with anyone but Akin, and that, tangentially (a DIFFERENT WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problem, but not the one Neutron brings up). -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
In deference to A Quest For Knowledge, please keep responses to this post in the NEXT section Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 20:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
And in reference to AQFK's question, Sen Robert Menendez? Look it up. I would say don't include, but that is me.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 20:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Conversations on the general topic of the present Background section are a total mess. They are spread out all over WP, instead of kept together, and have unrelated issues and questions mashed in. Anything resembling consensus is difficult to fathom, and this is complicated by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH being in fact SEVERAL issues. While as per the closing admin above, and several independent editors, WP:OR looks pretty obvious, also per closing admin, the argument has not been adequately fleshed out, in specific; to some extent it has just been stated as obvious. Similarly, while a consensus has been correctly claimed, it is actually NOT on the issue of WP:OR, but unhelpfully on the issue of WP:RS, which was not in question. All original research (in the real world), and WP:OR actually involves some references; that is not the issue. WP:OR does not just imply the absence of WP:RS, but includes statements by placement, in this case, stating that information is Background, namely that it is essential to an understanding of the subject material.
The Background section is presently the Background section of the WHOLE ARTICLE. While some editors claim that the material relates to Todd Akin (only one section of many), there has yet to be an argument that it relates to any other section. A previously uninvolved editor coming to the article would be led to believe that ALL persons named in the article have been directly linked by WP:RS to 1980s WP:FRINGE theories on female reproduction, because by making this the Background section, that is de facto stated IN WP's VOICE. No article connects Richard Mourdock to 1980s WP:FRINGE theories. Richard Mourdock did not say anything about 1980s WP:FRINGE theories. WP:FRINGE theories are not necessary, nor do they add anything to an understanding of what Richard Mourdock did or did not say. Substitute any name for Richard Mourdock, except that of Todd Akin, and you have the same rhetorical question; is stating that this background section is essential to understand _____ and directly connected to ____, as it's existence does, WP:OR, or is it stated in WP:RS. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
A significant point raised by Casprings and FurrySings is that a background section will naturally draw in issues that are not directly related to the topic of an article (for example, events that took place before the topic of the article). Such a section is helpful to a reader but must be done be done fairly per WP:NPOV and using verifiable resources dealing with the topic of the article ( Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 in this case) in order not to be original research. I didn't see evidence in discussion that that is not the case in this instance. Maybe the section in this instance is OR, just no evidence was given to demonstrate that it is so.
The bolding is mine. Do you mean to distort the truth or do you simply not understand what another has written? Casprings ( talk) 21:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)While as per the closing admin above, and several independent editors, WP:OR looks pretty obvious
Obviously, this very specific, very limited WP:OR question was asked NOW, as a result of Neutron's comment above. Neutron mistakenly stated that somehow, Mourdock commented on female biology and WP:FRINGE theories (which he obviously didn't), though there are no WP:RS that say that, that Bartlett (section already deleted for WP:BLP violations), Smith, Koster, Rivard, Walsh (now condensed into a single section) all asserted some 1970s WP:FRINGE theory, even though they did not, nor do any WP:RS say they did. By virtue of the Background section being the Background section for the whole article, the article said, in WP's voice that they did, just as Neutron erroneously asserted. There is not a singe WP:RS that said this, it is entirely both wrong and a construction of a WP editor alone, the very definition of WP:OR. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 16:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
One must be careful when making declarative statements of fact. Such as, X is true, Y is false, when dealing with a statistical question. The statement that pregnancy from rape does not happen is proven to be false as empirical evidence exists to prove this statement to be false. However, the statement that pregnancy from rape is rare cannot be proven to be false or true as this is a statistical question. The two sources being used in this section do not make that declarative statement with statistical proof, and even then the wording would have to be phrased differently. It is possible that pregnancy from rape is rare, and until evidence contradicts this proposition we cannot include a declarative statement which supports null (ie pregnancy from rape is not statistically different than regular pregnancy). And even then the statement would have to be phrased a little different to support the statistical results. Arzel ( talk) 21:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
RESTART; I think Arzel brings up a good point. This article repeatedly uses the word "rare", but changes meaning without giving context. It is not (and I particularly refer to the lede paragraph) that Akin said pregnancy from rape is RARE. That could mean just about anything, and 5% likelihood could be considered "rare", without context. The problem is that Akin said that women shut "all that" down, and that pregnancy was almost impossible from rape, and the "rare" was compared to conventual reproduction. The declarative statement that he just said "rare" isn't accurate, and the statement that it is provably "not rare" similarly cannot be made declaratively, whereas the statement that Akin's understanding of female biology during/after rape IS false CAN be made, and can be covered under WP:FRINGE.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus to remove the paragraph on Steve King. While it was edit warred out a few days ago, I have returned it. If you want it removed, please get consensus to remove it. Casprings ( talk) 04:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please STOP trying to separate divide discussion threads. Paragraph was removed for BLP concerns, and with consensus. Re-insertion of BLP-violating content is WP:EW and has no consensus of any kind. The sentence that remained in the Akin responses section was ONLY the response, not the false intimation of WP editor Casprings that King believed Akin's biological assertion to be correct. If you want to find BLP discussions, they are under BLP discussions. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 16:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with this deletion of Bartlett's comments because they might well have been the cause of the ten-term incumbent's loss. I also think it's a mistake to abridge the narrative so much. A lot of the deleted material includes very salient explanation. EllenCT ( talk) 16:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It should be clear I don't agree with them. As such, lets discuss these changes. Again, I think a moderated discussion would be a good route to take. Casprings ( talk) 12:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Your recent( User:Anonymous209.6) edit 1 continues to add POV to the article. Please discuss language before making changes that, at this point, you should know are controvorsial. In this case, the language is clearly meant to be sympathetic Mourdock, instead of presenting neutral text in the way that the article presents it. I would ask you to self revert and discuss some comprimise language. Casprings ( talk) 17:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Anonymous209.6 has made serveral edits, with two in particular, that are in dispute. The first is an edit that made, what was formally the article's background section, into the background section of the Akin section. 1. The second is an edit that removed a paragraph on Rep. King. 2. The talk page discussion is at a standstill, but relavent conversations are: For the background, here and here. For the Rep. King section, relavent conversations are here and here. The question of the RfC is simple. Should Anonymous209.6's edits remain or should the article return to the orginal text? Casprings ( talk) 20:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This verges on WP:BLP, since the WP editor's construction implies quotes "certifying" that comments are "controversial" are the work of whole magazines, or statements of fact, when they are in fact rather partisan opinion pieces by indidviduals only marginally WP:RS for OPINIONS only. It is a really odd and clear mis-attribution, even stranger since it happens TWICE in this article, and only on this article.
First is in the few sentences on Tom Smith, where he said counseling his daughter was similar to how he would counsel a rape victim;
Salon magazine said, "If you believe pregnancy from rape and pregnancy from sex out of marriage are "similar," then you implicitly believe that the problem with rape is that it's non-sanctioned sexual activity, as opposed to a crime against a woman's person." [7]
The author is self-described feminist blogger Irin Carmon, WRITING IN Salon. Let's assume she is sufficiently notable; still have to properly attribute, and Salon magazine did NOT write this blurb. It is an opinion, and an obscure one; you have to attribute it to its author, feminist blogger Irin Carmon, or not use it.
The other is in the Koster section
US News and World Report connected Koster's comments to Akin and Mourdock's by saying, "The [Republican] insults may also have an ironic backlash. Ryan, Akin, Mourdock, and Koster are poster boys for the need for more women in Congress, so Republican attacks on women may mean the election of more women." [8]
The construction is even worse, though to my mind, the author, Brad Bannon is more notable. Problem is, again, that USNWR did NOT write the article, it is an "inside the campaign" piece, and Bannon is a campaign strategist and adviser, most particularly (so I don't quite know how this passed USNWR's conflict-of-interest policies) for liberal Democrats, and Koster's Democratic opponent. The only cogent objection I have heard to proper attribution to Democrat strategist and campaign adviser Brad Bannon is the previous moniker of "activist", which, while true (Bannon cut his teeth as an activist in MA), isn't current.
tiny
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).6thdistrict
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).volsky
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).debacle
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).pershing
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).fritze
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 19:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Returning to the subject of the section, please Neither Salon nor USNWR authored any quotes in the article. The bizarre attribution violates WP:MOS "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named", and WP:RS. One of the keys to NPOV is proper attribution, which is why the bizarre attribution of partisan opinions or spin to publications in general, rather than the authors, and who they are, violates this principle. It also represents Opinion as fact, another egregious violation of NPOV, and thus probably WP:BLP. Please stick to the topic of this section. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 03:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be compliant with WP:Close paraphrasing#Quotation of non-free text. I suggest that relevant portions be summarized and integrated into the background section. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I dont know how to do that anchor thing. Can someone fix it up so that Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy gets redirected to the right section if the section title here gets changed again? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
In a recent attempt to promote the article to WP:FA, it was suggested that the was WP:Coatrack. The article does go into many comments that would not be WP:notable, if not for the comments by Akin and Murdock. However, with that statement, the Akin and Murdock comments remain note worthy. Not only did they tip two Senate races, but it is still part of the political discussion in the United States. A google news search of "legitimate rape", demonstrates that fact. That said, what would be the thoughts of changing the article to only discuss Akin's and Mourdock's comments and any wider impact. Moreover, one could rename the article. Perhaps, Rape comments in United States Senate elections, 2012. That title would narrow the focus of the article and perhaps move the article passed criticisms concerning WP:Coatrack. At that point, the article could perhaps make it to WP:FA. Thoughts? Thanks in advance. Casprings ( talk) 20:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Akin and Mourdock got a lot of press. None of the others attracted as much, but if the title is "Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012" then any notable comment from someone involved in an election that year would seemingly make sense to include. Here's the thing, though: while Akin and Mourdock got people riled up, all of those others -- the ones spurring on the
WP:COATRACK talk -- built the issue into something broader. By the end of the year, the broader topic wasn't "look at what these people who are running for office are saying about rape" but rather "look at what Republicans are saying about rape." What about renaming the article to be more broad in one or both of these ways: (a) something about "controversial statements about rape by members of the republican party," or (b) "rape and pregnancy controversies in united states politics in 2012." Examples of sources talking about the subject in these broader terms:
Salon - Eight staggering GOP comments on rape and women;
Daily Kos - one of several posts on the "Rape Advisory Chart";
Politico - GOP looks for ways to stop the rape comments;
Huffington Post has several, but this one connects directly to Politico;
CBS News - House Republicans Drop "Forcible Rape" Language from Bill on Abortion;
PolicyMic - The 7 Most Outrageous GOP Explanations for Why Rape Victims Can't Get Pregnant;
Philly.com - What's With Republicans and Rape;
MSNBC - Republicans and rape rhetoric, redux;
Addicting Info - The Party of Rape Culture;
The Blaze - Why Do Republicans Insist on Making Dumb Comments about Rape?;
Gawker - A Recent History of Republicans Talking about Rape; and, in the category of "notable but not reliable"
Colbert's "dayswithoutagoprapemention.com" and
Republicans For Rape ...
...If this has been brought up and settled already, I apologize. I just came across this page for the first time via the RfC. --—
Rhododendrites
talk |
05:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The last time I was here this article was just a mess. Congratulations to all involved in taking a controversial article and upgrading it to GA status!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
HI, RedPen; sincere question:
am baffled by what you mean by the comment - last time you were here, I agree, this Article was a mess, among the worst on WP, BUT, at that time, though you may not have realized, it actually WAS already a GA [ [7]].
Did you mean to say that the promotion of the article (which had already occurred) that you saw then was a travesty Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012/GA1 , and that it has subsequently be improved by slashing, or do you mean that its promotion at that time (by a user that registered 2 days before, promoted this, and then all but disappeared from WP) to GA was appropriate. Just asking-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 22:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. It is unclear how omission of the word 'pregnancy' produces any natural subdivision of the topic. One commenter observed that inclusion of the word 'Congressional' is unnecessary precision. (See WP:PRECISE). EdJohnston ( talk) 01:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 →
Rape comments during the 2012 United States Congressional election – This move request is largely based off of the above RfA. In a pervious
WP:FA request, it was argued that the article was
WP:Coatrack. I started the RFA in order to think of ways to solve that problem. I think that Akin and Mourdock clearly need to be in the article. If one looks at the section,
other controversial statements, I think you can also make a clear case for these to be included. The one exception is Roger Rivard, who was a state legislator and the comment received little national attention. I suggest that we rename the article
Rape comments during the 2012 United States Congressional election and remove the comments by Rivard. I think this will limit the article to something that was clearly relevant in US politics. Moreover, I am hoping it will make a stronger case that the article is not
WP:Coatrack. I also think one can remove pregnancy from the title. The comments all have to do with rape and a shorter title would be better.
Casprings (
talk)
06:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.The two oppose votes both have a problem with the removal of pregnancy from the title. One oppose wants to keep the word controversy. Would Rape and pregnancy controversies during the 2012 United States Congressional election. This at least allows the article to be limited to the major focus in 2012, congressional elections. Casprings ( talk) 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be called "Republican rape and pregnancy controversies, etc....?
Because honestly, these statements all reflect the ideas and speech from Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.212.82 ( talk) 14:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
He is releasing a book where he defends the comment. This should be intergrated into this article and his bio. See link
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/todd-akin-new-book-108745.html?hp=f2
Done –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
16:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
The controversies continue on this subject, so this page needs to be renamed to Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States Politics or something of the kind. Ir can be useful as there is historical precedences that would be very interesting for readers. Cwobeel ( talk) 14:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed a number of RfC notices from this page. Additionally, formal closures have been declined for a number of discussions.
RFCs are intended to be used as part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. They are not intended to be used as an alternative to ordinary discussion. However important you believe this topic to be, please use RfC sparingly and do not use requests for formal closures as an alternative to arriving at consensus among yourselves.
-- RA ( talk) 20:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I noted that the individuals that have been talked to in-depth in this article are members of the Republican Party (United States). Are there non-Republicans where rape and pregnancy have impacted them? Is the attempt of this article to serve as a attack page, or a neutrally worded take on the subject? As this article discusses living individuals is this article subject to WP:BLP?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I propose that we created a moderated discussion for the remaining disputes on this page. It doesn't seem like these disputes will be resolved, if it is only done through dialogue. I would suggest an uninvolved editor would be of assistance in finding concensus here and resolving any remaining disputes. If there is agreement, I will post a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Casprings ( talk) 16:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
After looking back in the talkpage for the discussion on this issue, I've removed the comments from Salazar about concealed carry and rape. While the focus of the discussion was largely on the suitability of post-election events, a number of users at the time pointed out that the incident was not really related to the article topic; looking at the sources, I concur. (As I pointed out in my edit summary, the Salazar incident was included in our article based on its supposed relation to the Akin incident. We relied on three sources for this: one which did not mention Akin, one which pointed out that the comments were not like Akin's, and one that mentioned only partisans linking the two. This doesn't come up to the level of the other sources we use in this article, in which events are connected by reliable sources in authorial voice.)
I haven't looked into the sources/talk for Gingrey's comments, which were brought up more tangentially in the same discussion. However, I think that if we do decide that a post-election section is now unsuitable but that we wish to retain some specific incidents, we might put them in sections where they are relevant - eg. if we wanted to keep Gingrey, he was directly commenting on Akin and Mourdock, so we might move the material to one or both sections. (Although I do admit it's super awkward to split it.) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Unless there are major objections, I'm going to be doing some trimming of the "other comments" section. As controversial as some of the comments were (and I say "some" because now that I look into Bartlett, it doesn't seem to have created much uproar at all - and it's not about BLP and it's not about whether a question from an activist is valid, but rather about the fact that reliable sources didn't bother much with it - it ought to be removed and I can do that), a number of these guys were set to lose their elections anyway (eg. Walsh to Duckworth), so there's no "effect" there. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
This section has a long list of pieces of evidence and what percentage pregnancy likelihood they determined, but what it needs is a comparison of pregnancy rates of rape with non-rape sex to refute it. The only reason I can see for it not being in the notes is that such a comparison has not been done, which seems very unlikely. 110.32.195.198 ( talk) 08:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
During a FAC review, it was suggest that an explanatory note on the science behind the pregnancy rate and pregnancy should be added.. As such, one was added.. Should the statement be in the article? Casprings ( talk) 02:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
could readAny female capable of ovulation may become pregnant after rape by a fertile male.
Additionally, the sentenceAny female capable of ovulation may become pregnant by a fertile male, including after rape.
could be cited to show that every year this occurs, otherwise it is a general statement without verification that can be removed per WP:BURDEN.Rape causes tens of thousands of women to become pregnant each year.
Here is another source that medical estimates for pregnancy from a one time sexual encounter are 5% . Could include this statistic in the note. http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims . Casprings ( talk) 22:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The information for non-US studies should not be included as this is a US specific issue. What is the rational for including non-US studies. Arzel ( talk) 04:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
See for primary discussion Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Roscoe_Bartlett_.2A.2F_major_BLP_violations_Requires_tag_and.2For_deletion What are the issues, if any, with WP:NOV in the Roscoe Bartlett[edit] Section? Casprings ( talk) 21:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Has someone already mentioned that the Democratic robocalls we cite preceded Bartlett's comments? They're about Bartlett being in the same party as Akin, not about his comments. [1] – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
What are the NPOV issues, if any, with the wider impact section. Casprings ( talk) 23:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Should we include any polling data? This has been under dispute for some time. The previous RfC discussed whether the 2008 results (which showed the same or greater percentage of Women Vote in 2008) should be included. Several editors ended up discussing whether any poll data should be included as a means to prove that these events had an effect on the 2012 election. Arzel ( talk) 01:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Endorse Source after source have connected this issue to the women's vote. Many of those sources have also used the 2012 exit polls. This provides information to the reader in a WP:NPOV way. It is backed up by WP:RS and is WP:NPOV. Also, we have already had one RfC on the subject. The consensus is there. Casprings ( talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Not supportable The traditional gender gap (which is all we are talking about) was part of many elections, not just 2008. Discussion of the traditional gender gap vis-a-vis the issues in the 2012 election has to explain why the gender gap moved ever so slightly in favor of Republicans. One has basically two reasonable explanations, first, that the issues discussed had no global effect, or second, (credit Roscelese) that there was an incipient stampede of women voters toward Republicans that was halted by the Democrat's obsession with rape. None of your refs make the case. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Endorse: without the proper context, including only the 2012 data is misleading. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 13:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Endorse The best option for talk of the longstanding gender gap. Sloppy commentary that the gender gap is new and/or related to "rape issues" have to be followed with the generally good statistical evidence that they didn't. Best just not to go down this hole.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 15:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment I've had to remove sections for including both 2008 and 2012. This is not an option; the previous, very recent RFC established a consensus that inclusion of the 2008 results was policy-noncompliant synthesis and therefore undesirable, and trying to use an RFC on another issue to sneak them back in is acting in bad faith against the community. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
What are the results about telling us at this point? At the very least, it appears that the only position that lacks good support is the one that wants 2012 data only. How should we proceed? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 19:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 → Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States politics – There have been muliple comments coming after the election. Each comments is compared, in some fashsion, to the 2012 election events. Allow this move, would allow the easier intergration of these additional comments. This is a logical move based on events that have occured. The page itself would not have to change much, but this is a logical expansion of the page. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 12:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Casprings ( talk) 19:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments:
Bartlett: Oh, life of the mother—exception of life of the mother, rape and incest ... there are very few pregnancies as a result of rape, fortunately, and incest—compared to the usual abortion, what is the percentage of abortions for rape? It is tiny. It is a tiny, tiny percentage.
Audience member: There's 20,000 pregnancies every year from rape.
Bartlett: Yeah, and how many abortions? In the millions," said Bartlett.
Another audience member: That's 20,000 rapes. That's 20,000 people who are violated.
Bartlett: Yeah, I know, I know. But in terms of the percentage of pregnancies, percentage of abortions for rape as compared to overall abortions, it's a tiny, tiny percentage.
Audience member: And incest is quite high too, believe me. In Appalachia we saw incest on a daily basis
Bartlett: Oh yeah, but again, it's a tragedy for the family and the person, but in terms of actual numbers it's a pretty small percentage of the total number.
Audience member: Unless you're the one.
Bartlett: Most abortions, most abortions are for what purpose? They just don't want to have a baby! The second reason for abortion is you'd like a boy and it's a girl, or vice versa. And I know a lot of people are opposed to abortion who are pro-choice. [1]
*Problem; - "audience member" is a misattribution, and why attack sites are not a reliable source, even if quoted within another article. Bartlett was being followed by Progressive political activists, and the questions are from the videography team assigned to make "gotcha" footage.
On August 30, 2012, Roscoe Bartlett, a ten-term Republican Congressman from Maryland, was asked to clarify his position on abortion at a town hall meeting. He stated that very few pregnancies result from rape or incest, and therefore the life of the mother exception for abortion was the only one he supported. [1]
*Problem; Bartlett was not "asked to clarify" a general position, his position was what his position always has been for 20 years, and was as he clearly stated. He was being peppered about Akin by Democrat/Progressive campaign operatives. He was stating why he still worked with Akin, in spite of their clear differences on abortion exceptions, and he responded that (and he always qualified, no slipup there) that RELATIVE to total abortions, rape abortions were rare. (and thus working with Akin on the other 90% made sense)
*Problem; "life of the mother was the only one he supported" - JUST PLAIN FACTUALLY WRONG and unsupported by WP:RS. Bartlett makes it clear that he supports exceptions for rape and incest, and Washington Post reference notes his immediate rebuke of and distancing from Akin.
Multiple sources equated this to Akin's comments, and this resulted in political attacks on Bartlett. [2] [3] [4]
*Problem Bizarre, false and utterly unsupported causality. TPM not WP:RS, attacks by operatives made, only later did WP:RS equate ATTACKS with those on Akin, Washington Post (again) notes that the attacks were made IN SPITE of that lack of any objective slip-up.
The Democratic Congressional Committee Campaign targeted Bartlett with automated telephone calls that stated, "Republicans like your Congressman Roscoe Bartlett share some of these radical, right-wing beliefs—that the government should take away a woman's access to making informed decisions about her own pregnancy". [5] Bartlett lost his bid for re-election to the Democratic challenger John Delaney. [6]
Again, WP:RS did not report that Roscoe Bartlett made "controversial" comments, only that IN SPITE of making no slip-ups, he was followed and attacked by State and national Democrat/Progressive organizations, and that several implications made BY THOSE (non-WP:RS) sources were provocative but false. Repeating false accusations or partisan "opinions" as if they were factual, particularly by mis-attribution is an egregious violation both of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 16:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this article not cover a single rape or pregnancy in the US elections, 2012? Rather, this article seems to be about comments about rape and pregnancy, which, of course, are completely different than actual rape and pregnancy. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
@Casprings: I'm sorry, but substance is more important than style. The current article title is misleading: AFAIK, none of the politicians listed in the article raped or impregnated anyone. Lest I remind you, these are living people that are in this article. If you and I cannot agree on this, that's fine. I'd like to hear from other editors whether or not they think the article title is inaccurate or misleading. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Neutron inadvertently brings up a bigger problem, namely the complete inappropriate and WP:OR nature of the "Background" section. There was one, and only one, person referred to in this article, that in 2012 expressed Todd Akin's belief on pregnancy and rape; and that was Todd Akin. It was odd, universally condemned, universally called wrong, and a WP:FRINGE view. The Background section cannot possibly be argued to have anything to do with anyone but Akin, and that, tangentially (a DIFFERENT WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problem, but not the one Neutron brings up). -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
In deference to A Quest For Knowledge, please keep responses to this post in the NEXT section Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 20:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
And in reference to AQFK's question, Sen Robert Menendez? Look it up. I would say don't include, but that is me.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 20:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Conversations on the general topic of the present Background section are a total mess. They are spread out all over WP, instead of kept together, and have unrelated issues and questions mashed in. Anything resembling consensus is difficult to fathom, and this is complicated by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH being in fact SEVERAL issues. While as per the closing admin above, and several independent editors, WP:OR looks pretty obvious, also per closing admin, the argument has not been adequately fleshed out, in specific; to some extent it has just been stated as obvious. Similarly, while a consensus has been correctly claimed, it is actually NOT on the issue of WP:OR, but unhelpfully on the issue of WP:RS, which was not in question. All original research (in the real world), and WP:OR actually involves some references; that is not the issue. WP:OR does not just imply the absence of WP:RS, but includes statements by placement, in this case, stating that information is Background, namely that it is essential to an understanding of the subject material.
The Background section is presently the Background section of the WHOLE ARTICLE. While some editors claim that the material relates to Todd Akin (only one section of many), there has yet to be an argument that it relates to any other section. A previously uninvolved editor coming to the article would be led to believe that ALL persons named in the article have been directly linked by WP:RS to 1980s WP:FRINGE theories on female reproduction, because by making this the Background section, that is de facto stated IN WP's VOICE. No article connects Richard Mourdock to 1980s WP:FRINGE theories. Richard Mourdock did not say anything about 1980s WP:FRINGE theories. WP:FRINGE theories are not necessary, nor do they add anything to an understanding of what Richard Mourdock did or did not say. Substitute any name for Richard Mourdock, except that of Todd Akin, and you have the same rhetorical question; is stating that this background section is essential to understand _____ and directly connected to ____, as it's existence does, WP:OR, or is it stated in WP:RS. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
A significant point raised by Casprings and FurrySings is that a background section will naturally draw in issues that are not directly related to the topic of an article (for example, events that took place before the topic of the article). Such a section is helpful to a reader but must be done be done fairly per WP:NPOV and using verifiable resources dealing with the topic of the article ( Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 in this case) in order not to be original research. I didn't see evidence in discussion that that is not the case in this instance. Maybe the section in this instance is OR, just no evidence was given to demonstrate that it is so.
The bolding is mine. Do you mean to distort the truth or do you simply not understand what another has written? Casprings ( talk) 21:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)While as per the closing admin above, and several independent editors, WP:OR looks pretty obvious
Obviously, this very specific, very limited WP:OR question was asked NOW, as a result of Neutron's comment above. Neutron mistakenly stated that somehow, Mourdock commented on female biology and WP:FRINGE theories (which he obviously didn't), though there are no WP:RS that say that, that Bartlett (section already deleted for WP:BLP violations), Smith, Koster, Rivard, Walsh (now condensed into a single section) all asserted some 1970s WP:FRINGE theory, even though they did not, nor do any WP:RS say they did. By virtue of the Background section being the Background section for the whole article, the article said, in WP's voice that they did, just as Neutron erroneously asserted. There is not a singe WP:RS that said this, it is entirely both wrong and a construction of a WP editor alone, the very definition of WP:OR. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 16:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
One must be careful when making declarative statements of fact. Such as, X is true, Y is false, when dealing with a statistical question. The statement that pregnancy from rape does not happen is proven to be false as empirical evidence exists to prove this statement to be false. However, the statement that pregnancy from rape is rare cannot be proven to be false or true as this is a statistical question. The two sources being used in this section do not make that declarative statement with statistical proof, and even then the wording would have to be phrased differently. It is possible that pregnancy from rape is rare, and until evidence contradicts this proposition we cannot include a declarative statement which supports null (ie pregnancy from rape is not statistically different than regular pregnancy). And even then the statement would have to be phrased a little different to support the statistical results. Arzel ( talk) 21:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
RESTART; I think Arzel brings up a good point. This article repeatedly uses the word "rare", but changes meaning without giving context. It is not (and I particularly refer to the lede paragraph) that Akin said pregnancy from rape is RARE. That could mean just about anything, and 5% likelihood could be considered "rare", without context. The problem is that Akin said that women shut "all that" down, and that pregnancy was almost impossible from rape, and the "rare" was compared to conventual reproduction. The declarative statement that he just said "rare" isn't accurate, and the statement that it is provably "not rare" similarly cannot be made declaratively, whereas the statement that Akin's understanding of female biology during/after rape IS false CAN be made, and can be covered under WP:FRINGE.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus to remove the paragraph on Steve King. While it was edit warred out a few days ago, I have returned it. If you want it removed, please get consensus to remove it. Casprings ( talk) 04:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please STOP trying to separate divide discussion threads. Paragraph was removed for BLP concerns, and with consensus. Re-insertion of BLP-violating content is WP:EW and has no consensus of any kind. The sentence that remained in the Akin responses section was ONLY the response, not the false intimation of WP editor Casprings that King believed Akin's biological assertion to be correct. If you want to find BLP discussions, they are under BLP discussions. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 16:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with this deletion of Bartlett's comments because they might well have been the cause of the ten-term incumbent's loss. I also think it's a mistake to abridge the narrative so much. A lot of the deleted material includes very salient explanation. EllenCT ( talk) 16:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It should be clear I don't agree with them. As such, lets discuss these changes. Again, I think a moderated discussion would be a good route to take. Casprings ( talk) 12:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Your recent( User:Anonymous209.6) edit 1 continues to add POV to the article. Please discuss language before making changes that, at this point, you should know are controvorsial. In this case, the language is clearly meant to be sympathetic Mourdock, instead of presenting neutral text in the way that the article presents it. I would ask you to self revert and discuss some comprimise language. Casprings ( talk) 17:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Anonymous209.6 has made serveral edits, with two in particular, that are in dispute. The first is an edit that made, what was formally the article's background section, into the background section of the Akin section. 1. The second is an edit that removed a paragraph on Rep. King. 2. The talk page discussion is at a standstill, but relavent conversations are: For the background, here and here. For the Rep. King section, relavent conversations are here and here. The question of the RfC is simple. Should Anonymous209.6's edits remain or should the article return to the orginal text? Casprings ( talk) 20:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This verges on WP:BLP, since the WP editor's construction implies quotes "certifying" that comments are "controversial" are the work of whole magazines, or statements of fact, when they are in fact rather partisan opinion pieces by indidviduals only marginally WP:RS for OPINIONS only. It is a really odd and clear mis-attribution, even stranger since it happens TWICE in this article, and only on this article.
First is in the few sentences on Tom Smith, where he said counseling his daughter was similar to how he would counsel a rape victim;
Salon magazine said, "If you believe pregnancy from rape and pregnancy from sex out of marriage are "similar," then you implicitly believe that the problem with rape is that it's non-sanctioned sexual activity, as opposed to a crime against a woman's person." [7]
The author is self-described feminist blogger Irin Carmon, WRITING IN Salon. Let's assume she is sufficiently notable; still have to properly attribute, and Salon magazine did NOT write this blurb. It is an opinion, and an obscure one; you have to attribute it to its author, feminist blogger Irin Carmon, or not use it.
The other is in the Koster section
US News and World Report connected Koster's comments to Akin and Mourdock's by saying, "The [Republican] insults may also have an ironic backlash. Ryan, Akin, Mourdock, and Koster are poster boys for the need for more women in Congress, so Republican attacks on women may mean the election of more women." [8]
The construction is even worse, though to my mind, the author, Brad Bannon is more notable. Problem is, again, that USNWR did NOT write the article, it is an "inside the campaign" piece, and Bannon is a campaign strategist and adviser, most particularly (so I don't quite know how this passed USNWR's conflict-of-interest policies) for liberal Democrats, and Koster's Democratic opponent. The only cogent objection I have heard to proper attribution to Democrat strategist and campaign adviser Brad Bannon is the previous moniker of "activist", which, while true (Bannon cut his teeth as an activist in MA), isn't current.
tiny
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).6thdistrict
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).volsky
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).debacle
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).pershing
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).fritze
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 19:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Returning to the subject of the section, please Neither Salon nor USNWR authored any quotes in the article. The bizarre attribution violates WP:MOS "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named", and WP:RS. One of the keys to NPOV is proper attribution, which is why the bizarre attribution of partisan opinions or spin to publications in general, rather than the authors, and who they are, violates this principle. It also represents Opinion as fact, another egregious violation of NPOV, and thus probably WP:BLP. Please stick to the topic of this section. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 03:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be compliant with WP:Close paraphrasing#Quotation of non-free text. I suggest that relevant portions be summarized and integrated into the background section. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I dont know how to do that anchor thing. Can someone fix it up so that Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy gets redirected to the right section if the section title here gets changed again? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
In a recent attempt to promote the article to WP:FA, it was suggested that the was WP:Coatrack. The article does go into many comments that would not be WP:notable, if not for the comments by Akin and Murdock. However, with that statement, the Akin and Murdock comments remain note worthy. Not only did they tip two Senate races, but it is still part of the political discussion in the United States. A google news search of "legitimate rape", demonstrates that fact. That said, what would be the thoughts of changing the article to only discuss Akin's and Mourdock's comments and any wider impact. Moreover, one could rename the article. Perhaps, Rape comments in United States Senate elections, 2012. That title would narrow the focus of the article and perhaps move the article passed criticisms concerning WP:Coatrack. At that point, the article could perhaps make it to WP:FA. Thoughts? Thanks in advance. Casprings ( talk) 20:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Akin and Mourdock got a lot of press. None of the others attracted as much, but if the title is "Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012" then any notable comment from someone involved in an election that year would seemingly make sense to include. Here's the thing, though: while Akin and Mourdock got people riled up, all of those others -- the ones spurring on the
WP:COATRACK talk -- built the issue into something broader. By the end of the year, the broader topic wasn't "look at what these people who are running for office are saying about rape" but rather "look at what Republicans are saying about rape." What about renaming the article to be more broad in one or both of these ways: (a) something about "controversial statements about rape by members of the republican party," or (b) "rape and pregnancy controversies in united states politics in 2012." Examples of sources talking about the subject in these broader terms:
Salon - Eight staggering GOP comments on rape and women;
Daily Kos - one of several posts on the "Rape Advisory Chart";
Politico - GOP looks for ways to stop the rape comments;
Huffington Post has several, but this one connects directly to Politico;
CBS News - House Republicans Drop "Forcible Rape" Language from Bill on Abortion;
PolicyMic - The 7 Most Outrageous GOP Explanations for Why Rape Victims Can't Get Pregnant;
Philly.com - What's With Republicans and Rape;
MSNBC - Republicans and rape rhetoric, redux;
Addicting Info - The Party of Rape Culture;
The Blaze - Why Do Republicans Insist on Making Dumb Comments about Rape?;
Gawker - A Recent History of Republicans Talking about Rape; and, in the category of "notable but not reliable"
Colbert's "dayswithoutagoprapemention.com" and
Republicans For Rape ...
...If this has been brought up and settled already, I apologize. I just came across this page for the first time via the RfC. --—
Rhododendrites
talk |
05:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The last time I was here this article was just a mess. Congratulations to all involved in taking a controversial article and upgrading it to GA status!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
HI, RedPen; sincere question:
am baffled by what you mean by the comment - last time you were here, I agree, this Article was a mess, among the worst on WP, BUT, at that time, though you may not have realized, it actually WAS already a GA [ [7]].
Did you mean to say that the promotion of the article (which had already occurred) that you saw then was a travesty Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012/GA1 , and that it has subsequently be improved by slashing, or do you mean that its promotion at that time (by a user that registered 2 days before, promoted this, and then all but disappeared from WP) to GA was appropriate. Just asking-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 22:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. It is unclear how omission of the word 'pregnancy' produces any natural subdivision of the topic. One commenter observed that inclusion of the word 'Congressional' is unnecessary precision. (See WP:PRECISE). EdJohnston ( talk) 01:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 →
Rape comments during the 2012 United States Congressional election – This move request is largely based off of the above RfA. In a pervious
WP:FA request, it was argued that the article was
WP:Coatrack. I started the RFA in order to think of ways to solve that problem. I think that Akin and Mourdock clearly need to be in the article. If one looks at the section,
other controversial statements, I think you can also make a clear case for these to be included. The one exception is Roger Rivard, who was a state legislator and the comment received little national attention. I suggest that we rename the article
Rape comments during the 2012 United States Congressional election and remove the comments by Rivard. I think this will limit the article to something that was clearly relevant in US politics. Moreover, I am hoping it will make a stronger case that the article is not
WP:Coatrack. I also think one can remove pregnancy from the title. The comments all have to do with rape and a shorter title would be better.
Casprings (
talk)
06:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.The two oppose votes both have a problem with the removal of pregnancy from the title. One oppose wants to keep the word controversy. Would Rape and pregnancy controversies during the 2012 United States Congressional election. This at least allows the article to be limited to the major focus in 2012, congressional elections. Casprings ( talk) 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be called "Republican rape and pregnancy controversies, etc....?
Because honestly, these statements all reflect the ideas and speech from Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.212.82 ( talk) 14:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
He is releasing a book where he defends the comment. This should be intergrated into this article and his bio. See link
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/todd-akin-new-book-108745.html?hp=f2
Done –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
16:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)