Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Feminism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Gender Studies (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Abortion    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Human rights (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) events(s).
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Women's History (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Reproductive medicine (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force.
 
WikiProject Barack Obama (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Barack Obama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Congratulations![edit]

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)

Thanks. Alot of people helped. Can't seem to make it to WP:FA, however.Casprings (talk) 04:50, 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 [[1]].

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)

If you think the article should not have been promoted, here is the link to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. If you think there is something to investagate when it was done the first time, here is the link to either Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Casprings (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please note that the question was directed to RED, not you. Red is an editor who has earned my respect in the past for slashing crap from articles, and assessing where there is common ground between myself and Red would be productive.Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
If you would like to direct a comment to him and him alone, I would direct you to his talk page.Casprings (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2014[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus. 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, 2012Rape 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)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.
  • Strong support pretty much exactly per nom. It's more WP:CONCISE this way and clearly focused on one reasonable topic. Red Slash 03:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I read the comments above and I am not convinced that there is a need for changing the title. It was not about rape, it was also about pregnancy and it was (and still is) a controversy, and these were made during the 2012 elections, all of which are reflected in the title Cwobeel (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • (also note the very fitting categories: 2012 controversies, and Political controversies in the United States. The article needs to remain there for an easy way for readers to find it. If I was doing research on political controversies, I'd like to find this well written article. Granted, we can keep these categories, but why to change the tile for, when it is a controversy.) Cwobeel (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, a title change is long overdue and this seems reasonable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These linked controversies were explicitly about pregnancy as well as rape. Excluding the word "pregnancy" from the title would either narrow the scope, and restrict proper coverage of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

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)

@Casprings: That would be a change from "United States elections, 2012" to "2012 United States Congressional election". Different word order, but essentially just adding the word "Congressional". Why do you want this restriction in scope?
Is this to exclude some specific material relating to state or county or Presidential elections? If not, the word "Congressional" introduces un-necessary precision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Basically, all the comments came from congressional races. It excludes the one case that came from a state house race. It narrows the topic a bit. This is in response to the claim that the article is WP:Coatrack.Casprings (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The public debate about comments in these different races took place at the same time and in the same media. Excluding one type of election is artificial, and impedes comprehensive coverage of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

About the headline?[edit]

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

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

Todd Akin takes back applogy[edit]

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

Yes check.svg DoneRoscelese (talkcontribs) 16:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

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

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