Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 135: Line 135:
::::*Good point, if it is not a Republican it is not worth including in this article. </sarc> [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
::::*Good point, if it is not a Republican it is not worth including in this article. </sarc> [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*Casprings's idea of including a generalized point about post-election comments being compared to Akin's is a good one. The issue with including Salazar is that the more incidents we add, especially post-election (though not exclusively - I was iffy about including McMahon and I never even heard about the Buchy incident), the further we stray from the actual topic. If you question my bona fides, check out my most recent edits to the article - severely trimming a section on offensive post-election comments from a Republican and moving it out of its own prominent section. We shouldn't continue adding new events - new ''analysis'' yes. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*Casprings's idea of including a generalized point about post-election comments being compared to Akin's is a good one. The issue with including Salazar is that the more incidents we add, especially post-election (though not exclusively - I was iffy about including McMahon and I never even heard about the Buchy incident), the further we stray from the actual topic. If you question my bona fides, check out my most recent edits to the article - severely trimming a section on offensive post-election comments from a Republican and moving it out of its own prominent section. We shouldn't continue adding new events - new ''analysis'' yes. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*This is rich. Casprings bitched about the Buchy section being included even though the sourcing was very suspect from the beginning. But now in order to keep this Democrat out he/she is suddenly ready to get rid of it. It would be funny if not so hypocritical. [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:57, 20 February 2013

Background

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)[reply]

I'd be interested in hearing your definition of original research. The section summarises reliable sources on Akin's remarks, placing them in a context of previous statements and positions advanced by anti-abortion activists and Republican politicians. It is not apparent to me how WP:NOR is a valid objection to its inclusion as the background material is derived from reliable sources discussing comments made during the election. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you're now tagging the section as "synthesis" rather than alleging "original research" as in your above comment, can you substantiate this charge with reference to the sources? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it isn't WP:OR. I also asked for some outside opinions at WP:ORN. Hopefully consensus will be reached quickly.Casprings (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link to ORN request: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 Background Section. I'll post this link on Arzel's talk page just so that he's aware of it.FiachraByrne (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is actually both. Synthesis of Material and Original Research are very closely related. The subject of the article is in relation to the 2012 election. The background is not the background of the 2012 election and the view of rape related pregnacies, it is a research view of the question of rape related pregnacies. I have written enough papers to see the clear research presentation in this section. In a research paper it would be called the lit review aspect of the research. By creating this section you are in effect writing a research paper on the this article. Hence this section is contributing to Original Research. Furthermore you are trying to link previous research to this event which is Synthesis of Material. Simply put, any information included must be relevant to the article and specifically mention the effect regardinh the 2012 election. The big problem the approach being done here is that you, the editor, is framing the background outside of the scope of the article. If Casprings wants to write a research paper, I suggest he/she do it somewhere else, and the get it published in a journal. Arzel (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's telling that you haven't constructed an argument that is pertinent to any existing wikipedian policy, much less to that of original research or synthesis as defined on the relevant policy pages. This is an individual interpretation of what constitutes original research and as such you should seek community consensus before seeking to apply at individual articles.
You've also introduced a distinction between what you think is appropriate for inclusion in the background to a given article without actually defining the basis for that distinction in any meaningful terms (other than your assertion that you are somehow able to identify said distinction having "written enough papers").
That the material is relevant for inclusion in such a section is determined in the first instance by its presence in reliable sources and not by the idiosyncratic interpretation of what is germane as advanced by individual editors. The sources, cited in the section additions, have identified the theories of Mecklenburg and Willke as pertinent to the topic of this article. In terms of improving the article, they make the controversy more rather than less intelligible and provide much needed context for the reader.
The additional statements that the theories of the Mecklenburg and Willke are "medically inaccurate" and without scientific validity is derived from policy relating to WP:FRINGE - as these are demonstrably pseudoscientific medical theories it is necessary for the article to state that fact per WP:FRINGE/PS on the basis of reliable and authoritative medical sources per WP:MEDRS. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Outside observation from WP:NOR board: [1]. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

typo in quotation?

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

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

NPOV

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

Please do not overthrow perviously discussed consensus without actually citing a policy reason and gaining consensus. I will post on the relevant notice boards to gain outside views on the problems you brought up. Casprings (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Background section is cited almost entirely to post-Akin sources (and some of the non-post sources are ones that seem to make the individuals look better, like where it says they apologized). We could trim it, but it's not a fundamental NPOV issue the way you claim - the sources treat it as background to the 2012 events, so we do the same. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post a section that deomonstrates original research that is in the current section. Mecklenburg published an article in 1972 entitled "The Indications for Induced Abortion: A Physician's Perspective" in which he advanced three reasons for the putative near absence of pregnancy in instances of rape.[8] The source assumes the basis for Akins POV is this article, yet this article presents this information as a factual history for the reasons why Akin et al made the comments they have made. This is a clear case of Opinion being used as factual point to push a specific point of view. Thus OR. There is no evidence, outside of Opinion that anything in the background section has anything remotely connected to these issues. I'll forgive that many WP editors are not familiar with writing research papers, but WP is not the place to write your research paper. Arzel (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request for comment on neutrality of article

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

  • If the main issue in question is the nature of the section headings, then I don't see a POV problem. The writing of the article in general seems quite neutral and dispassionate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I think of some importance in this article is also WP:CENSOR." I don't know what you mean by that. Otherwise, given all the eyes on it last couple months, it's hard to imagine it is not "quite neutral and dispassionate". CarolMooreDC 20:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with CarolMooreDC; many eyes fix errors. If it's the title or header that you have a problem with, then discuss that. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After stepping away from this article for awhile for a number of factors, I certainly believe it is much more neutral than when I left it. It may not be entirely perfect, but the tag at the top of the article ought to be removed. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So long as editors continue to violate WP:MOSQUOTE with the inane arguement that you can have concensus to violate guidelines, this article will never be netural. The use of dramatic headings by pulling of partial quotes of living people in order to attack those living people is a clear violation of BLP. I have yet to see a single rational argument for their inclusion in this manner for the headings. Some of them are quite blatent in their attempt to attack as well. Most annoying is the attempt by several WP editors to continue to attack living people through WP even after the 2012 campaign has completed. The additional use of Original Research in the Background section is just as problematic. Arzel (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can have consensus to violate guidelines. They're guidelines, not rules; you can violate them if you can get agreement that there's a good enough reason to violate them, which is to say, if you have consensus.
That being said, there are also BLP considerations and you can't have consensus to violate BLP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I read it is that there are multiple controversies (Missouri, Indiana, etc.) that many observers have stiched together into a single narrative (or controversy). The overall title seems acceptable to me, though I would remove the quotes for Roger Rivard and John Koster at the minimum. NW (Talk) 05:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current form of the headers makes sense to me. These comments were commonly excerpted in exactly this way by any number of reliable sources because that was the controversial part. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems this article is basically now the 2012 election version of "zoological conspiracy theories" in that it has devolved into a coatrack of loosely connected material that now serves pretty much as a way of denigrating Republicans. Agree that the comments from Rivard and Koster should be removed as being of trivial relevance. Inclusion should be based on whether comments during the election were significantly tied to the broader pattern. Anything that ties it into the broader pattern because of a single comment in a source or two should be excluded. That also means McMahon should be removed unless there are numerous sources discussing her connection to this pattern in a significant fashion. Right now there is only a single source that makes a trivial connection in the beginning of the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

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

Ron Paul should only be included if there is a source which explicitly connects him to a controversy over his remark on rape. — goethean 19:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say absolutely nothing. It looks like he answered a question, there was no actual controversy surrounding it, and it was added here because it contained the words "rape" and "abortion". Dreambeaver(talk) 19:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not true and it is also not assuming good faith. What Ron Paul said was stupid and reprehensible, and caused some media coverage at the time. However, it should only be included in the article if a source which documents the controversy can be cited. — goethean 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Linda McMahon

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

I am not against it. I would however note that Mother Jones mentions it her defeat here. Mother Jones is WP:RS. Casprings (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Fair. Although it does mention her in the sense that she said something about rape, I'd say that it doesn't really make it a controversy. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't disagree with the removal. I did a quick look at a google search for "Linda McMahon" and "Emergency Rape". Results can be found here. There are mostly blog entries and not news articles. Does that mean the section cannot be support by WP:RS? I doubt it. With enough effort, I bet one could find the cites needed. I may do that in the future or you could do that before you removed the text. That said, I am fine with the removal. However, if you do remove the section, please check the article for other mentions. I know she is mentioned in the wider impact section. Casprings (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Removed Text

Linda McMahon

Linda McMahon (R-CT)

During a debate on October 15th, 2012 at New London, Connecticut the Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon from Connecticut was asked about her comments that Catholic-run hospitals should be allowed to deny emergency contraception to rape victims. McMahon said, "It was really an issue about a Catholic church being forced to offer those pills if the person came in in an emergency rape. That was my response to it. I absolutely think that we should avail women who come in with rape victims the opportunity to have those morning after pills or the treatment that they should get."[1] McMahon's phrase "emergency rape" proved controversial and was commented on by the media.[2][3]

  1. ^ Shen, Aviva. "Linda McMahon Offers Ridiculous Excuse For Opposing Emergency Contraception In Cases Of Rape". Think Progress.
  2. ^ Ryan, Erin Gloria. "Introducing 'Emergency Rape', This Season's Hottest Rape Trend". Jezebel.
  3. ^ Shen, Aviva. "Linda McMahon Offers Ridiculous Excuse For Opposing Emergency Contraception In Cases Of Rape". THink Progress.

Jim Buchy

Republican State Representative Jim Buchy from Ohio gave an interview with Al Jazeera. The reporter asked Buchy why he thought some women may want an abortion. He replied, "Well, there’s probably a lot of—I’m not a woman so I’m thinking, if I’m a woman, why would I want to get—some of it has to do with economics. A lot has to do with economics. I don’t know, I have never—It’s a question I have never thought about." These comments were criticized by the national media, including the Rachel Maddow Show.[1][2][3][4]


GA Review

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

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

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)[reply]

Initial Checks

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

Assessment of the Article

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

Joe Salazar Comments

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

On February 18, 2013, a Democrat in the Colorado State House of Representatives, Joe Salazar, generated controversy during a floor debate over a bill that would ban concealed-carry in colleges. Salazar argued that women would not be left defenseless against attackers by the bill, arguing that "boxes... safe zones... [and] whistles" would serve a similar function because "you just don’t know who you’re going to be shooting at". He also stated "you don’t know, if you feel like you’re going to be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble, and when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop around that somebody". Conservatives sharply criticized Salazar for the comments, interpreting them as him saying that a woman might know not if she is being raped and arguing the comments were similar to Akin's rape comments. Salazar apologized for the comments.[5][6]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference culp-ressler was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference maddowshow was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference faultlines was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference neverthought was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Bartels, Lynn (February 18, 2013). "Colorado lawmaker Joe Salazar issues apology over rape remark". The Denver Post. Retrieved February 19, 2013.
  6. ^ Richardson, Valerie (February 19, 2013). "Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar's comments on rape and guns draw backlash". The Washington Times. Retrieved February 19, 2013.

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


  • First off, thanks for starting this - I agree 100% with this move, discussion is warranted. Now, I support on the first and think a small amount is warranted. The main reason this belongs is it shows the long-term impact of Akin's comments - any controversial comments about rape by males are now associated with Akin. While the comments were relating to gun control, they also concerned rape - Salazar asserted that women might not know if they are being raped and might not be trigger-happy in shooting people who they consider to be raping them. The controversy was not about guns, as the Washington Times ("Another male politician has waded into trouble with comments about rape, and this time he’s a Democrat.") notes. Further, the comparison was immediately made to Akin by conservatives/Republicans, per both the Washington Times and Denver Post. A whole lot of text isn't warranted (it could easily be summed up in 2-4 sentences), but it does deserve note due to the media coverage and comparison to Akin's remarks (covered pretty well by this HuffPo article). I disagree with the idea this should not be included due to it not being part of the elections - the impact of Akin's comments extends fare beyond elections into personal views and future rape comments. Thus, the impact section is an idea place to cover it. Toa Nidhiki05 16:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general point that everytime someone mentions rape and does so in a way that is dumb (for lack of a better word) way, it will be compared to Akin and other's comments. That general point, could be added to the wider impact. However, one would need a secondary source to add it. While certainly a little WP:crystalballing from myself, I think in the future such a source will be there because this won't go away. That said, including indivual comments does not make sense to me. It is not about the wider impact of these events nor is it related to the comments of that anyone made that are covered in this article. It's a dumb comment that was compared to Akin's comment. That, in and of itself, doesn't warrent inclusion in the article. That is my view, at least. Casprings (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casprings's idea of including a generalized point about post-election comments being compared to Akin's is a good one. The issue with including Salazar is that the more incidents we add, especially post-election (though not exclusively - I was iffy about including McMahon and I never even heard about the Buchy incident), the further we stray from the actual topic. If you question my bona fides, check out my most recent edits to the article - severely trimming a section on offensive post-election comments from a Republican and moving it out of its own prominent section. We shouldn't continue adding new events - new analysis yes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is rich. Casprings bitched about the Buchy section being included even though the sourcing was very suspect from the beginning. But now in order to keep this Democrat out he/she is suddenly ready to get rid of it. It would be funny if not so hypocritical. Arzel (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_statement_controversies_in_the_2012_United_States_elections&oldid=539160813"