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

Political impact

WP:NOTNEWS. This section as it stands IS a newspaper.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. That GOP Senators have called for Akin to withdraw from the race is relevant here as is his opponent's response to the comments. Wikipedia is not prevented from covering the same events as newspapers by WP:NOTNEWS. The recentism tag is also inapplicable here as this story is about a current event and therefore should be slanted towards current events. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 01:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Step by Step News Article

This article might be a good place to start to expand the article. It provides a detailed blow by blow of the event. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rep-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-statement-and-reaction.html Casprings (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

John Willke

Some material from here may be illustrative of the "science" behind Akin comments, and may be useful for this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pro-life-doctor-john-willke-linked-akin-forcible-rape-claims-endorsed-romney-2007-article-1.1141021 Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, can someone help rename J._C._Willke to John C. Willke? I don't know how to do that Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked up the 1985 book mentioned in the NYT article were Willke supposedly said this, but the only book I can find by a "John Willke" in 1985 was about nuclear reactors. Can someone clarify what the article was talking about?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, it appears that two of Dr. Willkes books - Handbook of Abortion and Abortion questions and answers, which have a number of editions in many years, had versions come out that year. These were all under the name "J.C. Willkes". Can anyone find a copy and see what he is talking about?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See the John C. Willke article. I found the ISBN numbers and an excerpt. Cwobeel (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Missouri voters not upset with Akin

Looks like Missouri voters are fine with Akin. The liberals and the main stream media are going to have to stop gloating over the gotcha.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/21/ppp-poll-todd-akin-isnt-dead-yet/>True Observer (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that social conservative voters are quite happy with Akin. Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, just demean a whole group of people William Jockusch (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of material

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Akin_rape_and_pregnancy_controversy&diff=508507021&oldid=508502453

I'd ask ‎William Jockusch to explain why he deleted material that is relevant and properly sourced. Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what has been deleted: Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney's 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.”

It has been pointed out that Akin cosponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which would have conferred full legal personhood on embryos beginning at fertilization or cloning, as well as bills recognizing only "forcible" rape to narrow access to federal funding for abortions.

In my view this is a clear POV edit. I supported adding it back. Casprings (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

They seem ridiculously Pointy in their wording; not 100% sure on whether they should be added back - but the wording should be improved. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Simple -- the restoration of the material misidentified the previous edit deleting it as vandalism. However, if you read WP:Vandalism, it is abundantly clear that the prior deletion does not fit the criteria. In fact, WP:Vandalism specifically excludes edits like the prior deletion. Such editing practices should not be tolerated.William Jockusch (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how a deletion of content without discussion is anything but vandalism. In particular when the editor is not signed in. Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" . The paragraph about BLP does not apply here, as the material is verifiable and sourced to reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk)

From WP:Vandalism Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. In light of this, are you still contending that the edit was vandalism?William Jockusch (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, if you want to argue for the Romney point, please separate the discussions.William Jockusch (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am discussing BOTH your removals. I have no indication from you about why you deleted both. The burden is on you to explain the deletions, as you deleted them and both sentences are sourced to reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing that is upsetting is that there is lack of respect for the effort made by others to improve the article by researching and adding properly sourced information. If you think these edits are pointy or that need to be better worded, please do so. But deleting them outright with a mere edit summary is in no way conducive to collaboration. Cwobeel (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No lack of respect is intended. I am sure your efforts were in good faith and well-meaning. William Jockusch (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lack of respect is what you are doing with your actions. Deleting content in the middle of a debate? That is called edit warring. Cwobeel (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The material deleted is not unambiguously "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced". Please discuss here and gain consensus, and stop edit warring. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Political Bias is Not Acceptable on Wikipedia

I hold no sympathy whatsoever for the Republican Party. But it is clearly obvious that some left-leaning contributors are attempting to milk this incident. Does Wikipedia have an article devoted to Maxine Waters' gaffe threatening to "socialize" and "take over" oil companies for charging too much for gasoline? Or what about Joe Biden saying how capitalism would "put y'all back in chains", to an African-American audience? There are plenty of examples of stupidity on your side of the aisle, too, and you seem content to allow those to slide.

Regardless of your political views, it is of the utmost importance that favoritism never enter journalism. Until articles exist regarding the incidents mentioned prior, you are guilty of blatant hypocrisy, and all independently-minded readers will hold you in the deepest contempt for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.111.240 (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I understand your point but I think this article is quite informative. Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief - you cannot be serious. It's bad enough that Wikipedia has Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy without having Joe Biden Wall Street chains controversy and Maxine Waters gasoline overcharging controversy to go with it. At least that Palin woman actually resigned all those years ago but, well, where does this actually end? How much further can it go? Is Wikipedia soon going to have an entry detailing a U.S. politician's bowel movements during a trip to the toilet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.241 (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

not to mention the enormous gaffe that was the "Paul Ryan" budget. 68.37.254.48 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as this article stands up to all relevant Wikipedia policies, I see no evidence for political bias. If you're accusing Wikipedia of political favoritism you must not understand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website for political journalism. Content is user-driven, and volunteers are not assigned to fields as in journalism, they contribute on subjects they are interested in. Thus it would impossible to impose such balancing requirements as you suggest, but right-leaning contributors are more than welcome to create such articles as you've suggested, again, so long as they follow policy. There is no overseeing entity for Wikipedia that is allowing politically beneficial articles for one party and blocking the creation of them from the other. Any perceived imbalance in political articles would be due to users simply not creating them, as is their right.If you believe these articles should exist, then WP:SOFIXIT and create them.

Unlike this legitimate news story, In the Biden "controversy" example, there has been no retraction, there has been and will be no statement issued by the Vice President that he "misspoke," and what Akin stated was a belief that could not stand as valid due to biological/scientific fact as evidence to the contrary . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.131.15 (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest you take a quick peek at WP:NOTABILITY if you're fearing the creation of a Politician Bowel Movement article. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia soon going to have an entry detailing a U.S. politician's bowel movements during a trip to the toilet?

If there are thousands of newspaper articles dedicated to the topic, as there are to this one, then I would have no problem with such an article. — goethean ॐ 19:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The current debate within the US about abortion rights, and the role of religious convictions rather than accepted scientific opinion in shaping national policy on the matter, is of great interest to all sorts of people outside the US with no particular stake in the outcome of the US electoral process. As currently framed, the article does provide what seems like a straightforward picture of the controversy; Akin's revelatory statement is in no way comparable to the average politician's gaffe. VEBott (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney coatrack

A user appears to believe that a past interaction between Mitt Romney and an individual named Willke is somehow relevant to the controversy. I'm sure the user believes this in good faith; however, Romney/Willke from years ago is not relevant to the Akin idiocy. Furthermore, this is a violation of WP:Coatrack. William Jockusch (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It provides background information that is important for Willke and the Article. Casprings (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's face it, every politician is going to have had some sort of involvement with a less-than-scrupulous person. This little bit of 'information' does not relate to the controversy at all and thus should not be included. Toa Nidhiki05 00:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda" is verbatim from the 2007 Romney campaign about Willke, who is one of the "sources" for the theories about rape espoused by Akin as reported by the sources provided. That is useful and encyclopedic context, I believe. Cwobeel (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Other sources providing the same context:

* http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-doctor-behind-todd-akins-rape-theory-was-a-romney-surrogate-in-2007-20120821,0,80862.story

* http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/romney-endorsed-by-praised-dr-john-willke-leading-proponent-of-idea-that-rape-lowers-pregnancy-risk/261358/

Cwobeel (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is from the waback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20071227112415/http:/www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Endorsement_Willke Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Saturday, Oct 20, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390

Boston, MA – Today, Dr. John Willke, a founder of the Pro Life Movement, endorsed Governor Mitt Romney and his campaign for our nation's highest office. Dr. Willke is a leading voice within the pro-life community and will be an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.

"Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life. Every decision he made as Governor was on the side of life. I know he will be the strong pro-life President we need in the White House," said Dr. Willke. "Governor Romney is the only candidate who can lead our pro-life and pro-family conservative movement to victory in 2008."

Welcoming Dr. Willke's announcement, Governor Romney said, "I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country. He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies. Policies that include more than appointing judges who will follow the law but also opposing taxpayer funded abortion and partial birth abortion. I look forward to working with Dr. Willke and welcome him to Romney for President."

And how does that relate to Todd Akin's comments, the idea behind the article? You have sources linking Wilke to supporting the 2007 Romney campaign and the 2007 Romney campaign recognizing him and Wilke to Akin, but how do they link Akin's comment to Romney? Further, how is it notable to this encyclopedia, and how is it notable to include this in background? The mention is entirely random and in similar fashion to conservative arguments linking Obama to terrorist Bill Ayers It simply isn't notable to include on this page - it is little more than a political 'Gotcha!' moment by the media trying to link an incredibly stupid and unscientific comment to the Romney campaign. Toa Nidhiki05 00:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

−

It relates to it as reported by reputable sources. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." Now, this is my opinion: This is not a gotcha moment, not at all. These ideas permeate the thinking of many in the conservative movement, who honestly believe that life begins at conception. In that thinking, many ideas that purports to support that belief with science, has been embraced by them some overtly (like Akin), others not so publicly. Again: just my opinion. Cwobeel (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources can say something and it not be included in the article because context is needed. There is no context for this statement in the background section, no need for it and it fails to serve an encyclopedic purpose at all. Toa Nidhiki05 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"There is no context for this statement" are you serious? The context is established very well by the sources provided. This is unacceptable that solidly source material is deleted while having this discussion! Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The fact that this guy endorsed the Romney campaign and the acknowledged him has nothing to do with Akin's comment. At all. It is random trivia that is out of place in both the background section and the page. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, who is edit warring, William Jockusch? Cwobeel (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm to improve Wikipedia is delightful; your quickness to accuse less so. My edits are allowed by exception number 7 under WP:3RRNO. I'm sure you believe in good faith that it is appropriate to use Akin's idiocy to attack Republicans in general and Mitt Romney in particular, and my attempts to enforce WP in this regard must be quite annoying to you; warm regards. William Jockusch (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That is what is called Ad hominem. I would have preferred that you substantiate your arguments about why this material is not relevant. WP:3RRNO: care to explain why this applies? Cwobeel (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:3RRNO: "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Cwobeel (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I did consider it, but due to the BLP issues involved and the time-sensitive nature of the issue [as this is at the peak of the media cycle], I believe reverting is the more appropriate course. If the 3RR folks want to correct me, I'll find that an interesting discussion of it's own right. In regards to the irrelevance, I have already explained that but will humor those who appear to want to do so again. The fact that Todd Akin said some idiotic things is not a reason to bring up times in the past when others have said similar idiotic things. Warm regards. William Jockusch (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Idiotic or not, that is not for us to judge. The fact is that these opinion have been widely reported in relation to Akin;'s comments and that is why it is relevant. Cwobeel (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with William Jockusch on the WP:COATRACKing of Romney's 2007 campaign. It's not particularly relevant to understanding who Wilke is. There could be a mention of Wilke's views on rape and pregnancy on a Romney's 2007 campaign article if it exists, but in the context of Todd Akin's controversy, it doesn't seem relevant that Wilke was considered an "important surrogate"(whatever that means) for Romney's campaign. I do believe the rest of the content that is being edit warred over should remain in the article. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Todd_Akin_rape_and_pregnancy_controversy Cwobeel (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Todd_Akin_rape_and_pregnancy_controversy . I have restored all that content with the exception of the sentence about Mitt Romney. I think it is worth mentioning and not a coat-rack, but bringing this up for further discussion.:

Mitt Romney's 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.”

Cwobeel (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not just a Romney coatrack. It's simply a spurious effort to keep the whole "War on Women" meme alive. The article is poorly written and has serious NPOV problems, which is why I'm about to stick a tag on it. Belchfire-TALK 06:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I would love to hear what are the serious problems you describe so that we can resolve them. Adding a tag without providing a substantive rationale is not helpful Cwobeel (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link: WP:COATRACK I hope that helps. Belchfire-TALK 00:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I read that nicely written essay, but I still fail to understand how this applies to this statement. Could you explain? Cwobeel (talk)

i.e. "A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." How this applies to this article? Cwobeel (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This continues: Cwobeel (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9493653/US-election-Mitt-Romney-met-Todd-Akin-doctor-Jack-Willke-during-2012-campaign.html

Mr Romney and Paul Ryan, his running mate, have denounced Mr Akin's remarks. Dr Willke has been given no role in Mr Romney’s 2012 campaign and aides stress that the candidate disagrees with his theory on rape.

However, Dr Willke told The Daily Telegraph that he did meet Mr Romney during a presidential primary campaign stop in the doctor's home city of Cincinnati, Ohio, in October last year. Local news reports at the time noted that the candidate held “private meetings” during the visit.

“He told me ‘thank you for your support – we agree on almost everything, and if I am elected President I will make some major pro-life pronouncements’,” Dr Willke said in a telephone interview on Tuesday.

Background Section

I think the information about other support for Akin's view is WP:REL. I think that this belongs in the background section. Please discuss. Casprings (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit in question is the following:

In a 1972 article, Dr. Fred Mecklenburg argued that pregnancy is unlikely from rape. That article has influenced two generations of anti-abortion activists with the hope to build a medical case to ban all abortions without any exception. The article uses a flawed argument, claiming experiments in Nazi death camps had shown women are less likely to ovulate after trauma. Humans are not reflex ovulators, and have to ovulate before fertilization can occur.

Pennsylvania state Republican representative Stephen Freind was one the the first legislators making the argument that rape prevents pregnancy, arguing in 1988 that the odds of a pregnancy resulting from rape were “one in millions and millions and millions.”

Another early proponent of this view is John C. Willke, a former president of the National Right to Life Committee and a general practitioner with obstetric training, who articulated this view in a book published in 1985 and in a 1999 article, and in an interview on August 20: "This is a traumatic thing — she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight. She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.” These assertions were disputed by a number of gynecology professors. Mitt Romney's 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.”

In 1995, Republican Henry Aldridge, a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives, made the following remarks to the House Appropriations Committee during a debate to eliminate a state abortion fund for poor women: "The facts show that people who are raped — who are truly raped — the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."

I think this is highly WP:ROC. It shows that the comments are not made in a vacuum and previous high profile individuals have supported the view. Casprings (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is WP:Coatrack for reasons already explained. Cheers. William Jockusch (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As clearly stated in WP:WINAC background information is fine. "It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require."

The fact that Akin is among many public figures that said similar views is important. While we can certainly cut down on the amount of text, something should be included. Casprings (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, since we have all these paragraphs for the "pregnancy" part of the quote, how about including Whoopi Goldberg's statement that whatever Polanski did was "not rape-rape" -- as background to the "legitimate" part of the quote. It's background, isn't it? Relevant to part of the quote, no? By the logic of the above posters, it is therefore relevant.William Jockusch (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that follows from what editors have said above. They are only including political figures. Whoopi Goldberg is only a media figure, albeit an EGOTer, and her opinions do not have the same potential to affect policy as Aldridge's and Freind's. If you can find a Democratic state representative who espouses the same views on rape and pregnancy, as you mention on the BLP noticeboard, that would be perfectly reasonable for addition. Jonathanfu (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancient law of England -- woman cannot conceive if she does not consent

Britton, in stating the law on rape in section De Apels de Homicides, writes that "With regard to an appeal of rape, our pleasure is, that every woman, whether virgin or not, shall have a right to sue vengeance for the felony by appeal in the county court within forty days, but after that time she shall lose her suit; in which case, if the defendant confesses the fact, but says that the woman at the same time conceived by him, and can prove it, then our will is that it be adjudged no felony, because no woman can conceive if she does not consent." Text available here.

Seems to me the Akin controversey raises an interesting question for evolutionary biologists. A mechanism that would prevent conception in cases of forcible rape would seem to serve a useful purpose by preventing conception when the woman is violated by an undesirable. There is no research I have seen that would even begin to pass muster at evaluating that hypothesis. The research cited in the article does not even come close, and further, is incorrectly presented as a rebuttal to Akin's remarks, an error that the author of this article may wish to correct. Akin was specifically referring to a subset of rapes he terms "legitimate", which apparently means forcible knife-to-the-throat cases, and the research does not distinguish such circumstances. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.140.139 (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Chuck.Anesi (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the Akin controversy raises an interesting question for evolutionary biologists.

Not really. Natural evolutionary processes don't "care" whether something is undesirable for society. They "care" whether it is desirable for the species. There's nothing about the continued lineage of rapists that is undesirable for the species. — goethean ॐ 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There are such ideas out there. Read: Sociobiological_theories_of_rape Cwobeel (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Group selection is generally regarded not very highly by biologists nowadays so talking about what is good for the species doesn't make much sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the universal Democratic response to this?

To read this article one would think that other than President Obama's saying that "rape is rape", there was no Democratic reaction at all, which of course is totally absurd. Why is there no section chronicling the virtually universal response that Democrats had for these statements? Tvoz/talk 15:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will object if you put something in. But the fact that political opponents would criticize him in a near universal fashion in this context shouldn't be surprising. That's all the more the case given that when most Democrats are strongly pro-choice and have been trying to push the notion of a Republican "war on women" this election cycle. Having a detailed discussion of predictable respones may not be that useful. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that "trying to push" is an accurate (or at least unbiased) description, but in any case the recent edit merging the material into "Political impact" satisfies my concern for the moment. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Willke / Akin

More on Willke and Akin: "Akin's decision to release the letter from Dr. Jack Willke, founder of the International Right to Life Federation, sends a mixed message from the GOP congressman, who has apologized repeatedly for having said "legitimate rape" rarely leads to pregnancy."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-todd-akin-touts-support-from-man-who-popularized-theories-on-rape-20120821,0,6626759.story

"The pro-life movement and I unequivocally stand with Rep. Akin. How could we not?" Willke wrote in the letter. "Rep. Akin will make the U.S. Senate a safer place for the most vulnerable in our nation.

"It's time for Republican leaders to rise to the level of Rep. Akin's principle and courage and stand with him and the Republican platform that stands for the protection of every human life."

A mention of this should be added. Cwobeel (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Dr Willke has told The Daily Telegraph that he met Romney during a campaign stop in Cincinatti, during the current campaign. Quote "He told me ‘thank you for your support – we agree on almost everything, and if I am elected President I will make some major pro-life pronouncements’."

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9493653/US-election-Mitt-Romney-met-Todd-Akin-doctor-Jack-Willke-during-2012-campaign.html

--TS 04:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Remarks ripple globally

Nice article on the reaction by some overseas commentators to this story at the CNN website. Mention could be made in this article perhaps?. Or it could even be useful to those trying to save the article from deletion? -219.89.40.209 (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We could include a section on "International reaction". I will work on this over the next few days. Cwobeel (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

New article name

The recent move of the article to Todd Akin's 2012 comments on rape-induced pregnancy is a little confusing, considering the controversy is about the fact that his comments were that rape cannot induce pregnancy. Are there any contenders for a more accurate / less confusing name? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither the old one nor this one seem like a great fit. Maybe just "... comments on rape and pregnancy"? a13ean (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to the previous title Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy, which is also the title that the AfD is under. -- The Anome (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as inaccurate or confusing as this exact terminology is used in several sources: [1] [2][ [3]. He made comments that rape-induced pregnancies are "rare", not that they don't exist and it is clearly the focus of the controversy over the comments. Certainly it is miles better than "rape and pregnancy controversy" as it clearly defines the subject. "Rape and pregnancy controversy" could mean any number of things.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please undo this move? The previous name was there for a while and if you want to change it, make a proposal here and discuss first. I would do it myself but better if you do it. 20:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy" has major BLP issues with a straight reading implying that Akin has come connection to a rape. There needs to be something about "Comments" or else the more obvious and NOTNEWS answer of a redirect and merge. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This pretty much sums up my main reasons for the name change.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss, then. What is the BLP issue? Can you clarify? Also note that the article is being already discussed for deletion or merge. Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation because a straight reading of Akin rape controversy leads the reader to believe that the controvery is about an actual rape committed by a living person and not just merely stupid comments about rape. The title needs to convey that the article and controversy is about words and not acts -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point. Thank you. But "comments on rape-induced pregnancy" is completely out of the question as it does not describe the article, and no one as referred to it that way in the sources we have. We need to look for something better than that. Cwobeel (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just "Legitimate rape controversy" or "Todd Akin rape comments" (used a lot in press titles) Cwobeel (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Except it is clearly as much about the comments about rape causing pregnancy as it is about his use of the term "legitimate rape" and we have more than enough sources to attest to that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So, what do you propose? Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Todd Akin "legitimate rape" controversy? -- The Anome (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Except there are also plenty of sources that focus on the scientific claim about women having some biological mechanism that makes pregnancy from rape less likely.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That is pseudoscience, and described in Pregnancy from rape. Here we are describing the controversy of the remarks made by a Akin. Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes were are describing that, and said claim about pregnancy from rape is another focus of the controversy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree this article title is highly problematic and should be changed per BLP to include the word comment, i.e. Todd Akin rape comment controversy. Technically, the comment was more about abortion than pregnancy, the issue of abortion in cases of rape (which he opposes). Jokestress (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How about "Todd Akin rape comment controversy"? Ha, great minds think alike. I agree with "Todd Akin rape comment controversy". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Still sort of confusing and I think the failure to mention pregnancy is kind of a problem, since that was a pretty important part of the controversy, even getting a substantial write-up in Popular Science.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Todd Akin rape pregnancy claim"? Or "...comment" or "...controversy"? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the current article name. If Akin had merely declared "I don't think women should be able to get an abortion even in case of rape," he might have been labelled an extremist, but would not have attracted such unique attention, as many people hold such views. The media firestorm centers around the ignorance of his pseudoscientific implications that rape rarely results in pregnancy and that the female body can identify and respond to rape. As such I think some mention of pregnancy in the title is valuable. Dcoetzee 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

pov - the lead sentence buries the actual salient parts of the controversy - the DENIAL of rape induced pregancy and the use of the phrase "legitimate" rape

The lead sentence that DA keeps reverting to "Todd Akin's comments on rape-induced pregnancy during the 2012 United States Senate election in Missouri have been the subject of considerable controversy." is an unaceptable POV phrasing because it is misleading buries the actual basis of the controversy. If his comments had only been about "rape-induced pregnancy ", there would be no controversy. But instead, the comments were a DENIAL of rape induced pregancy and the use of the phrase "legitimate" rape. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't denying the existence of rape-induced pregnancy, but saying it was rare as one can see from reading the quote provided in the very first section of the article. His used of the term "legitimate rape" is part of the controversy yes, and it is mentioned in the lede in the very next sentence. There is no reason why it should be in boldface since the comment is not included in either title for this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we please stop splitting hairs? What he said is pretty obvious by now, and it should not be a problem finding a summary for it. Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether someone denied the existence of rape-induced pregnancies or simply said they were rare is not "splitting hairs", but is instead a very important distinction. It is particularly important when it concerns an article on a living person.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What we have there says exactly that: "[...] comments including the the claim that women who are victims of "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant", so we are good Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And until the name issue gets straightened out, worrying about details of the lead is moot. i created this section before the rapidfire series of moves. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"rape is rape" ?

Lost, somewhere in the controversy, is regard for another type of rape -- statutory rape -- in which minors engage in sexual relations (imagine!) while they are below the age of consent. Keeping this concept, e.g., that other kind of rape, out of the article is .... --S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it in any way relevant to Akin's remarks? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

?? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Akins talked about "legitimate rape" and Ryan said "rape is rape". Is the article so hide-bound that statutory rape -- that other type of rape -- is omitted? No. Let the readers click on the link, then they can decide. But perhaps Types of rape should be added as a useful link in consideration of Ryan's comment. --S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We could also link date rape/acquaintance rape, which sources seem to think far more likely to be the sort of rape Akin finds illegitimate. Singling out statutory rape (which, by the way, the sources by and large do not do) seems like an attempt to excuse Akin's comments through original analysis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Other rape "gaffes"

We've subsequently seen a number of other politicians make "gaffes" about rape, most recently Tom Smith, Bob Casey's challenger in Pennsylvania. What do editors to this article think of adding this sort of material to the political impact section? The sources are saying that it's unlikely that these politicians would be in the position to make such "gaffes" - wouldn't be asked these questions - if not for the Akin affair. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't really have an opinion on that, but if it does get included, I would just hope that we are all focused on avoiding coatracking. Dreambeaver(talk) 23:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about whether they should be included either, but I'd question characterizing statements such as Tom Smith's as gaffes. (And Roscelese I see you put "gaffes" in quotes, so maybe you feel the same way.) Comments like the Tom Smith statement may be Kinsley gaffes, but they're not classic gaffes in the sense of a politician awkwardly misspeaking. Based on the Wikipedia article, it looks like Tom Smith was just stating his views on abortion. Some/many people may disagree with him, but that doesn't make his statement a gaffe -- it just makes it controversial. Sue Gardner (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

general practitioner with obstetric training John C. Willke

I know a NY Times article lists him as such, but are there any records available out there that can give a better idea than this vague statement? As I understand it, all MDs undergo various levels of training in every specialty, and things like residencies and fellowships are much more significant training. Does his description as is give some very slight undue weight to Willke's medical background? I've been looking for better records, but the best I have managed is a fairly odd looking website that says Willke did a internal medicine residency at Good Samaritan Hospital, and says nothing of any OB/GYN fellowships or board certifications. I don't believe he practices anymore, so I've had no luck scrounging up some data from his former hospitals.

If we can find some RS to support or not support Willke having significant OB training, that'd be best, but if not, should that bit be removed? Jonathanfu (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. As you said, obstetric training is standard for doctors, so emphasizing it would be strange. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, going to remove it unless someone objects. Jonathanfu (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

science committee membership?

does he still work on the science committee? There's probably no specific way to be kicked off the committee once assigned right? 71.234.13.90 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the DCCC has tried to make this move and there have been opinions suggesting this (Margaret Martonosi, Wired, etc.), but it's nothing really notable -- not worth mentioning on this page. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

WTF is this doing on wikipedia?

Seriously are the admins now 1005 left wing kobbers these days? This article should have been speedily deleted withing 24 hours of inception. This place is becoming such a joke.Whatzinaname (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This controversy most likely cost Akin a senate seat, and has been the subject of multiple news articles. That's why it's here. Czolgolz (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this page might be too current-events focused, but there was already a thread about it all. The consensus seemed to be to keep it until we can gauge the lasting impact of these comments. It got a lot of media coverage and was a potential swing district in an election year. Who knows what consensus will be when January rolls around -- I plan on being involved in that discussion then. But until the next thread, I'm just trying to make sure that the political commentary here is at a minimum. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was so liberal, You didn't build that wouldn't exist. I am thinking of initiating new AfDs on both articles after the election. We need things to settle down first. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The header on You didn't build that alerts users that the article is considered biased and may be deleted. This article has no such header despite generating the same complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.73.139 (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is it here? Many stripes of political activists have been able to utilize Wikipedia as a public platform for their election year silliness because Wikipedia's policies and practices are more designed to support the open "anyone can edit" ethos which ends up trumping (at least temporarily) the quality control and encyclopedic focus of the project. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that after the election people will be more open to addressing things that seem current events focused. A current Google News search for Akin doesn't really bring much other than articles about the race. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Marital rape

When I first heard about this controversy, I thought he was referring to the concept of marital rape, because historically marital rape was not illegal and was in fact considered legitimate in most cultures until the middle of the 20th century. And even nowadays marital rape is still not illegal in Muslim countries such as Morocco and Afghanistan. The concept of marital rape could possibly be talked about in the article as a side-issue though. 199.21.182.31 (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has brought up the idea of "marital rape", so that would be WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

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: Moved to Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections Casprings (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Was moved as a result of AfD discussion found here . However, will do another move request with 2012 Republican rape comment controversies to determine what real consensus is.

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy → 2012 Election (US) Republican party's comments about rape – I suggest it it time to integrate the diverse comments on rape by Republican politicians during the 2012 cycle. There is a clear theme and the media has often reported them together in their analysis The Todd Akin page can form the backbone of the new page, but the page should also include Richard Mourdock comments, Roger Rivard's "rape so easy" comments, and Linda McMahon's "emergency rape". Multiple sources discuss these sources together and the page would have one very clear connection. It would not have a WP:COATRACK problem for those reasons. Casprings (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note The suggested title for the new article may need some work. If you agree (or disagree) with the proposal, please suggest a new title, if you have a better idea.Casprings (talk)

Survey

• Support merge/move (though proposed title is clumsy). Refocusing the article on the GOP rape comments as a whole, as a phenomenon, allows us to take a longer-term and less day-by-day, news-y view of the event and its effect on the election, and to prefer the commentary of analysts to most of the "reactions" from either side. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge Wider subject and better coverage. As for a parent article, I would suggest Pregnancy from rape which currently covers historical perspectives on the subject. Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support; how about Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections? It's long but descriptive. Powers ^T 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Still seems like a campaign strategy that will blow over and isn't all that related. Voting that all of these comments should be on the pages of their respective candidates (depending on notability) and the races they played a factor in. Dreambeaver(talk) 21:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support could all be included in one article. I'm not sure I like the proposed name, however, because the disambiguation isn't needed and because it makes it seems as though the comments were made by candidates themselves. Something along the lines of 2012 Republican candidates' rape comments would be better. Hot Stop (Edits) 16:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Sure. I strongly support LtPowers's proposed title. "2012 Republican candidates' rape comments" is too much of a generalization. dci | TALK 17:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• I don't oppose the move. Yes, the proposed title is awkward. It does seem like there are reliable sources linking these events together (although I'm not familiar with all four of them). That seems to lend support to linking them. Other articles like Todd Akin could remain in summary style (or be rewritten in better summary style) if they were linked to the akin or whichever politician part of this moved article. Perhaps the less sensational title would mean the articles attracted less unwanted attention. The problematic parts of this article are definitely the narrative parts of it which would presumably be de-emphasized in the moved and expanded article. But the article about the other rape gaffe in Indiana was deleted, so I'm not sure about the propriety of sort of quasi-resurrecting it here.AgnosticAphid talk 17:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, support, an integrated article makes sense --- there are beginning to be lots of media stories linking all the comments. As time passes and journalists move out of horse-race mode, it looks like the comments are beginning to be understood less as isolated gaffes and more as an indicator that there's a streak of strong social conservatism inside the Republican party that's hurting electability. See this or this. So a single article makes sense, and it should probably be a child of War on Women. (And maybe Tom Smith should be in it too.) Sue Gardner (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support proposal. -- KTC (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title if the intent is present cases like Akin's as if they were representative of the Republican platform (which mentions rape only once - in support of mandatory prison sentencing for those convicted of it). Neutral if a title like LtPowers' option is chosen instead. Kilopi (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support the idea of creating an article discussing all these ridiculous Republican rape-related gaffes. However, the Todd Akin controversy is particularly notable, and the article is so extensive that I'm not sure how well it would fit into a broader article. I suggest creating a broader article, but summarizing the Akin controversy in the broader article, while leaving the original article intact as a subarticle. Everyking (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. How can classifying gaffes according to party be anything other than partisan? These people are state assemblymen and state treasurers, not exactly key positions in the party. If a gaffe had a notable effect on a particular election, it can be addressed in the article that deals with the relevant election. Kauffner (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kauffner. The name is too broad and to vague. Hekerui (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. If nothing else, I'd say the present title is a bit (too) clumsy. "Todd Akin comment controversy" in lieu of anything different? (Or are there more than one notably controversial comments made by Todd Akin? "Todd Akin comment controversy (2012)"?) 213.246.91.158 (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – The comments were made by an individual, not the entire GOP! The proposed title is factually untrue. Senator2029 “let's talk” 21:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support principle, oppose non-NPOV name. Yes, we should expand this article to include the various other rape/pregnancy/abortion-related controversies in this US election cycle, but the proposed title, in addition to being clumsy, pushes the POV that the Republican Party is responsible for these controversies, rather than the individual people that made the comments. If they are all Republicans, then consider mentioning it in the article, but not in the title. I'd prefer LtPowers' suggestion (Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections) or Agnosticaphid's alternate option (Rape and abortion controversies in the 2012 United States elections). RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Interesting proposal. I think the potential article as described sounds like a child article for a parent article that doesnt yet exist of the 2012 US election coverage. If the parent article did exist, I would probably support a spinout of the "rape" content and would certainly support the merger of this article and the Murdoch rape comment article into one of them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Why do you think it would be a child of an article on coverage, rather than a child of the election article itself (and possibly War on Women)? I know Wikipedia is not good at covering current events in an encyclopedic and historically-oriented fashion (believe me, I edit in the Israel/Palestine topic area), but I'd hope that after some time has passed, we'd be able to write about influences in the election; these comments, and the focus they drew to the Republicans' extreme positions on social issues, are relevant per analysis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • i was not aware that United States elections, 2012 existed; but i still think that these fit into encyclopedia coverage more at a "meta" level than at a "which seats are up for grabs" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Good idea. I certainly like it better than keeping the article as it is. I may support it if the AfD closes as not delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'm still not a fan. It just strikes me as the Wiki community saying, "These people were wrong, let's point them out all at once on a single article." And while they might have been, it's not our place. Also I see a problem with WP:UNDUE. I would support a merge in to either their own articles or the appropriate election articles. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 19:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like WP:UNDUE is more of a problem if we merge these things back into the politicians' articles. I don't think it's fair to Mr Akin to have an article about his entire political life be dominated by discussion of comments in one Senate race. AgnosticAphid talk 19:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats a "problem" that can and should be addressed by/at the individual politician's article where the actual important information is weeded out from the hot air of the chattering class. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's some aspect of this article that you think is needlessly repetitive or superfluous or ill-sourced, I think it's just as much of a problem here as it would be there. There may be a great deal of detail here, but that's not actually a problem, it's a reason not to merge the stuff back into the politicians' articles where it would appear to have undue weight given its length.AgnosticAphid talk 21:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Name

It seems that consensus seems to be moving towards creating an integrated article. With that being the case, I think a new section on the name is needed. Out of the name suggested, I think 2012 Republican candidates' rape comments is the best. Casprings (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's long but I'd go with LtPowers' suggestion of Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections if RM succeeds. KTC (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• The apostrophe strikes me as unencyclopedic in this context. Powers ^T 17:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can agree with that. What about Republican rape controversies. Much shorterCasprings (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it seems a bit POV to call out Republicans specifically. And I'd also be concerned that the scope of that title was too broad for the actual topic we're trying to cover. Powers ^T 21:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree it sounds NPOV. However, looking at it logically, it is king of justified to name Republicans specifically. Republicans are one of the elements that unify the article. All the comments come from members of the GOP. Casprings (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Long comment ahead: forgive me! I think the essential elements for the title include the words Republican, rape, 2012 and controversies, plus possibly abortion. So I would suggest something like 2012 Republican rape and abortion comment controversies or 2012 Republican rape comment controversies, with the former excluding Rivard from scope.

• Comment (or similar) is necessary to make it clear that the controversies were not about Republican rapes or abortions. It was words not deeds that were controversial.
• You could make a case for having the word pregnancy in the title, but I think that's a bit of a red herring: pregnancy was a key component of the Akin controversy because of the pseudoscience aspect, but it was not actually the central issue of that or any of the other controversies.
• The core context was really abortion/reproductive rights: all of the comments except Rivard's occurred in the context of the politicians being asked about their position on the legality of abortion. In my view, it would make sense therefore that the article title also include the word abortion, because the people making the comments were candidates for legislative positions and in that role were being asked their positions on abortion (in the case of McMahon, access to emergency contraception). Including McMahon in scope perhaps argues for "reproductive rights" instead of "abortion," but I think the slight over-simplification effect of using "abortion" for the title is likely justified by it being shorter.
• If abortion were part of the title, that would exclude Rivard, whose comments took place after he was asked a question about a specific sexual assault prosecution: neither pregnancy nor abortion were at issue there.
• Republican is essential because, as Casprings says, all the controversies were related to comments made by Republican candidates, and because a big part of the controversies' significance is their effect on the outcome of the campaign and the future role of social conservatism in the Republican party.
• 2012 is essential because there have been earlier similar controversies that would not be in scope for this article, and there will be controversies in future that will be out of scope. The context is really the 2012 campaign. Sue Gardner (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  My vote is for 2012 Republican rape comment controversies. The first is because it is shorter. Second, I don't think Rivard's comments should be excluded because they have been linked in the media. If we are going to have an article about these comments during the 2012 election cycle, it makes no sense to me to exclude Rivard's comments. Casprings (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  I think 2012 Republican rape comment controversies is good as well. (There were other controversies related to abortion that were not about rape, eg. Joe Walsh's claim that abortion was never necessary to save a woman's life, and Rivard's comment was not related to abortion.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  I continue to oppose use of the word "Republican" in the title. It needlessly politicizes the issue and is entirely superfluous (there are no other 2012 rape comments in the U.S. election cycle). As well, I don't understand why you would want to exclude comments that are about abortion and not rape; aren't these all usually lumped together by the media sources? Powers ^T 19:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can buy that logic also. Plus I agree that we shouldn't want to exclude comments when the media linked them. How about 2012 US Election Women Issues Controversies Is that closer to NPOV and working? Casprings (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• That seems to me like War on Women by another name! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. 2012 Republican rape comment controversies seems like a good title for the integrated article. -- The Anome (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Republican rape comment" - terrible name, as we've seen countless Republicans including the presidential nominee Romney condemn the statements. Hekerui (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, Hekerui. Looking at some of the other comments below, something like 2012 U.S. election rape and abortion controversies would be better. -- The Anome (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• 2012 US election rape comments - it really is immaterial whether they were made by any particular party, but it is important to identify the country. Apteva (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• I support this nameCasprings (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• On second thought, it is hard to get around the fact that they are all Republicans. I mean, it does seem like whitewashing a name. Casprings (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - In addition to being a complicated and wordy title, it associates the comments of individual candidates with the overall party at too great of a level.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Name for new article created out of Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy → 2012 Election (US) Republican party's comments about rape

I am placing the rfc here to get some different voices in this discussion. The request is to give an article based on the multiple comments during the 2012 election cycle a NPOV name. I would ask anyone who reviews this to look at this discussion and provide their thoughts on a name. Casprings (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you either create a new article that is what you allege is the Republican Party Platform on Rape, and defend it there, taking what you deem necessary from this or other Articles, or copy and userfy this article on your personal page so that you may create your new article, if you have no intention of creating it unless this Article is deleted/transferred to the appropriate Election campaign article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

* No one has mentioned that it was part of the Republican Party platform. Casprings (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections is the most neutral. Adding "Republican" to the title isn't strictly necessary and none of the ways of incorporating it strike me as encyclopedic. AgnosticAphid talk 19:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I would also support Rape and abortion controversies in the 2012 United States elections, if other editors agree. AgnosticAphid talk 19:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

One final comment: I think that either of these names would cover an event that only related to either rape or abortion/pregnancy.AgnosticAphid talk 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Agnosticaphid about this. To say it's the Republican party's comments, rather than Republican candidates' comments, is non-neutral POV. In fact, the word "Republican" should be wholly removed so as to avoid blaming the party for the actions and words of a few of its members. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think either one is good and non-POV. If you wanted to cover all the controversies, it might be Rape, abortion and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections. That would allow the article to coverage what WP:RS link together. Casprings (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2012 (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.

edit of lead

I reverted an edit to the final sentence of the lead. There wasn't an edit summary, and I think that the current sentence fairly summarizes the reference, the first sentence of which says "Two Republicans who made widely criticized remarks about abortion and rape lost their Senate elections Tuesday, the result of a massive backlash by female voters in states where Republicans should have won handily." I also don't see a consensus for this change. AgnosticAphid talk 19:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically the fact that they lost is significant, but not interesting. What is interesting is that they made the comments, i.e. had the belief that allowed the comments. This article would still exist even if they had both won. Apteva (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that. There'd certainly be a much stronger argument under WP:EVENT or WP:N for deleting this article if no reliable sources claimed that the comments had a demonstrable impact on the election (or US politics more generally). In my view, what makes the comments encyclopedia-worthy is that they've been the subject of critical commentary, not that they were uttered.AgnosticAphid talk 07:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections → 2012 Republican rape comment controversies – A discussion on moving this page from Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy → 2012 Election (US) Republican party's comments about rape was closed quickly because of the AfD discussion here. However the move discussion never really got to real consensus on the the new name for the article. That discussion can be found here. I feel that the current title is needlessly long and clunky. I understand the argument of not being WP:POV by placing the word "Republican" in the title. However, we are whitewashing a bit, aren't we? Wikipedia does notWP:CENSOR. The fact is, they were all Republican who made these commets. As such, doesn't 2012 Republican rape comment controversies provide the reader with something that meets WP:PRECISION Casprings (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the second discussion referred to as "here" has been retitled to "here". Apteva (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Survey

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.

• Support the precise language identifying who made the controversial comments. I fully agree with Casprings. Just as with the War on Women (which should be entitled The GOP War on Women), these all originated with the GOP. Therefore a vague title is misleading. If anything about the title should be tweaked, it would be to include "pregnancy". -- Brangifer (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There's really no need to be coy about it; the comments were made by Republicans and had great impact on Republican fortunes in the election. The proposed title is shorter and includes in its scope the non-pregnancy-related controversies which reliable sources tie to the ones that were about both. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose at the moment. I feel like adding "Republican" ties the party to the comments or implies an endorsement in a way that's not neutral. I guess to me it seems more like the fact they were all Republicans was sort of a coincidence; it's more that the controversy widely affected Republicans. Also, does the title need to have "United States" in it? AgnosticAphid talk 17:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A NPOV title and a clear definition of the scope. Much better than using partisan terms. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This isn't whitewashing or censoring in any way. The fact is that Casprings' proposed title seems to blame the Republican Party for making comments that were actually made by a few of its members. For example, many prominent Republicans, such as Scott Brown and Mitt Romney, opposed the remarks of their fellow Republicans. We shouldn't pin the blame on all of them, it's not true and it's not NPOV. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. All the comments and controversies had to do with prominent politicians from the Republican Party, and that the subsequent controversy, analysis, and discussion focused on the Republican Party's policies and treatment of women and rape. While this title may not originally reflect an intent to whitewash, some of the opposing comments clearly do. We have to look for naturalness and not to be overly lengthy in a title, and nuances about what Party policies specifically are (the proposed title is ambiguous; it's not "Republicans Love Rape!") can be elucidated in the article itself. Shrigley (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support because the proposed title is more concise, more natural (5,860,000 results on Google versus 3,270,000 for the current title) and more precise. I don't think it taints all Republicans to have the word Republican in the article title -- I think it's obvious the title is referring to multiple but not all Republicans. There is precedent on Wikipedia for using the name of a group in the title of an article about a scandal or controversy in which not every member of the group was involved -- see for example 2006 Republican party scandals, Quiz show scandals, Japanese history textbook controversies and House banking scandal. Sue Gardner (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Sue, you of all people should know that Google result counts are unreliable, especially over about 5 digits. When you get up to seven digits, they're almost completely meaningless. Powers ^T 14:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; the proposed title improperly implies that the controversial statements were a movement or organized campaign by the Republican party. I also don't see why the non-rape pregnancy comments should be excluded from the scope. Powers ^T 14:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There isn't enough backing to justify Republican being in the title. As of now there are only a few that were truly "controversial", and it seems like this opens it up more to WP:COATRACK. Dreambeaver(talk) 21:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The controversy was lopsidedly Republican Party related, per reliable sources. This is an extension topic of the Republican War on Women. No Democratic Party people put their foot in their mouth to create this kind of controversy. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • And note that we don't call it Republican War on Women. Powers ^T 23:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Your point is greatly reduced by the fact that we carry a redirect from that formulation. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't see how. There's a big difference between putting in place a redirect and actually titling the article. Powers ^T 02:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The pregnancy aspect of the comments is directly relevant to identifying the topic; the Republican aspect of it is not as this is not a party platform issue (therefore not precise, as some claim). Someone searching for "Republican rape comments" is probably looking for this article, so I take no issue with a redirect with a similar title. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment something is wrong with this page... the last requested move seems to have closed off an active RFC, which is also a requested move... and then there's this third requested move... -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Someone has fixed the RFC problem -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. The result of the AfD for this page on 18 November was "The result was merge to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 and/or Todd Akin". Apteva (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"...or such other articles as may be created in the future." A complete quote would be more helpful.[4]AgnosticAphid talk 05:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

the whole quote is useful. That said you are always welcome to challenge this article, just as any other article. It was however created because of the closing statement.Casprings (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Reagan Republicans"

The article seems to be in a rather good shape in terms of sourcing. But I am curious about one item concerning "Reagan Republicans": "Jennifer Mason said that Akin's position "is an integral part of the Republican Party platform, the same position that was held by President Ronald Reagan" and that "[we] are left with Reagan Republicans, who agree with the Republican Party platform on abortion..."

Is this a reference to a specific faction within the Republican Party, or an attempt to connect anti-abortion campaigners to Ronald Reagan? Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Overall response needs expansion

There are many sources available to document the response to these comments and should be added. Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Many sources available. Casprings (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack Page

This article is becoming an attack page. It is quite clear that editors are trying to tar every Republican possible as being involved in a controversy, even when they clearly are not. Case in point, Steve King. Kind did not defend Akin's comments regarding rape. King stated that he had not personally known of a situation of which Akin was describing, yet Casprings is hell bent on trying to imply that King was defending Akin's comments. This kind of crap has got to stop. WP is not the place to push your personal political activism. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Casprings is finding instances of the controversy in news articles, not inventing same. What part of "Steve King defends Akin" and "Steve King: Rape remarks out of context" don't you understand? King is certainly defending Akin though he did so without defending Akin's position on rape. King's own position is that he hasn't "personally" heard of pregnancy happening through incest or rape; a preposterous ignorance that was noted by New York Magazine in the article "Congressman Steve King Has Never Heard of Someone Getting Pregnant Through Statutory Rape or Incest". This stuff is out there in the media, not invented by Casprings.

Arzel, your own reactionary activism is obvious. You accusing Casprings of activism is outrageous. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a lie. King did not defend Akin's rape statements. That is a BLP violation. You are pushing a clear POV in order to push this ongoing activism on WP. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing has been added that is outside of the articles scope and sourced. If the problem is with the article, I suggest you take it to WP:AfD. However, how an article that clearly meets WP:N is deleted, I am not sure. Casprings (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The WP:OR is the premise for this article, and that premise, namely that Rape was some sort of widely supported Republican election theme, is what makes it an attack page, and (as a completely new article) subject to its first AfD. The Democrat campaign strategy of hammering a divisive wedge regardless of how much pretzel logic was needed is already covered (or should be, if that Article ever resolved its major editing and NPOV problems)in the article on the slogan "War on Women". --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that it was a campaign theme. However, the events concerning rape and pregnancy certainly had an effect on the election, at least according to WP:RS’s that include Karl Rove. You are certainly welcome to take it to WP:Afd. Casprings (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets look at the Jim Buchy section. It was using Think Progress, Rachel Maddow's blog, and Al Jazera. This is a perfect example of non-reliable sources and clearly biased sources giving undue weight and violating BLP at the same time. There is absolutely no evidence that this was a controversy in the least. Those that insist that it is tells you everything you need to know about their motivations behind this article. Arzel (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• You claim that the sources are non-reliable and that they are biased. First, Al Jazera is considered a WP:RS (Here and here are two discussions on it). Think progress is less clear, but it leans towards being a general WP:RS. One discussion I found on it was here. One important note in that conversation was, "Think Progress is less clear. According to the About page[5], they have a staff of credentialed editors and writers, including the author of this post." As far as Rachel Maddow's website, there are no previous conversations on it that I can find. However, it is part of MSNBC, which is a WP:RS.

Lets then look at what WP:RS Per, WP:RS,"the reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." What am I trying to show here? One, that the event happened. Two, that it was controversial. Given that is what I am trying to show, these sources more then meet WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In what alternate reality is TP a reliable source? Also, maybe you could elabortate what the controversy is here, because it is not in the section. Arzel (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• If you still think there is a problem, the place to take it is the WP:RSN . In my opinion, they all qualify to be used in this case under WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera CAN be considered a WP:RS in context, but should be used carefully. Maddow and TP can in no way be considered reliable for anything but their own opinions. Therein lies the problem. Al-Jazeera merely conducted an interview, and is a source for the fact that the interview took place and that he said "I don't know". True, but of no conceivable notability. Further I believe A-J's editorial position on abortion centers around "behead or not". The overwrought diatribes, and the cries of "controversy", based on claims that what he said was some secret code all come from attack blogs which you cited. There is no WP:RS that actually certifies that this is a controversy, hence no real controversy. You could cite that Maddow and TP attacked someone for innocuous comments, as long as you attributed, but it still wouldn't meet any other WP:BLP standard, let alone WP:UNDUE. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets looks at the Steve King section. It makes a synthesis arguement by stating he is a political ally of Akin (not in source) and then takes his quote out of context (while not including his response). It also claims that King caim to Akin's defense regarding Akin's statements (this is a lie). Now if Casprings and Binkersnet think that WP whould be used to make false statements against living people then they should go do something else. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually King did come out and defend Akin. It is also in the source that he is a political alley of Akin. See reporting from The Hill

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) bucked others in his party on Tuesday, defending Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) as a "strong Christian man with a wonderful family."

Akin has faced a firestorm of criticism from fellow Republicans, who have ripped his recent comments that women rarely get pregnant from "legitimate rape," with a number of them, including Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas), strongly suggesting Akin should drop out of the race for Missouri's Senate seat. Akin has so far refused to exit the race.

But King, a close friend and ally of Akin's who campaigned for him during the primary, stood by Akin's side. He told a local television station that he didn't want to give his thoughts on Akin's specific remark because he hadn't heard it in context, but attacked those who were blasting Akin as focused on "petty personal attacks."

Casprings (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

King defended Akin as a person, he did not defend the remarks. Seriously, your bias is beyond the pale. Arzel (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack the problem, not the person. That is a point that is valid and should be added in a NPOV way. He didn't want to give specific comments on Akin's remarks because he had not seen the context. Casprings (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That King expressed the sentiment that Akin, in spite of whatever he said, was a friend and a good person, could be included in the Akin section. HOWEVER, the synthesis is in creating a section concerning King. You are saying in WP's voice that saying someone has a "wonderful family" is a "King rape controversy", and no reasonable person could take that away form what he said. A clear WP:BLP violation. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Malarkey. There is no synthesis here. King made comments about Akin, and those comments were seen as revealing King's massive ignorance on the topic of pregnancy in rape. His ignorance added to the general atmosphere of some prominent Republican politicians' denial of the seriousness of rape. King was part of the controversy. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I called you ignorant it would be a personal attack, so why do you feel the need to call King ignorant? Also after reading the full context of his comment you would see that he is not ignorant. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• I went ahead and started a discussion at WP:RSN, here.

Working on the Page and making it NPOV

I think the first thing to work on is organization. I think that the organization should be Akin, Murdock, a new others section which will include all the other comments, and then overall reactions. While not chronological, it does fit the level of WP:N that each of the events had. Also, there is plenty of expanding that could happen in the overall reaction section. Casprings (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's quite unnecessary for the article to be organized by person, and was going to come here and suggest the same. Some comments, Akin's especially, were simply more significant and impacting than others. To deal with the chronological issue, I would actually suggest a more "narrative" structure; that way, we'd be able to see more clearly (for instance) that sources link Smith's comments to Akin's because the controversy around Akin led Republican positions on rape to be on interviewers' minds. That would run the risk of getting news-y, with the sort of blow-by-blow day-by-day that really isn't helpful, but we could address that in part by gutting the Reactions, which aren't encyclopedic at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Some of the other comments come directly from reporters asking questions on Akin. That said, I think the most urgent thing is to expand the overall reaction, because of the AfD. Following that, we should work on an outline and decide what parts need to be cut. Casprings (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a first attempt to restructure. I think you are right on the narrative. I will work on Akin's sections, trim it down and start to move other comments up to that section (If they fit). Casprings (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I started cutting out reactions; removing some of the pile-on could help with the perceived neutrality issues. I was on the fence about removing McCaskill's response, so if anyone wants to restore it, I won't object; the poorly-sourced reactions from activist groups, Piers Morgan comments, threats from fellow Republicans that didn't come to fruition, etc. should remain out of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The other thing I was thinking was the background section should be moved out of the Akin and placed at the start of the article. It is the background for all these commentsCasprings (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

just read it again. Perhaps not. However there should perhaps be a background section that show that these comments did not come from thin air and they have a long history in the pro-life movement.Casprings (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It'd have to be succinct and come from sources that specifically link the background to the recent controversies. That's not the case with all of the new additions. I also think it should probably remain in Akin's section if it's specifically rebutting or contextualizing Akin's claims, as these things are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

yeah you are prob right. I had to leave my computer right after that edit(using my cell now). Will fix it when I get back if it isn't done. Casprings (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

as plan to bring the article more encyclopedic I endorse the above concepts. good luck, its going to be a helluva job though.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Especially when editors like yourself only work to make it even less netural by removing sourced information showing that Obama's percentage of Women votes is down from 2008 putting the basic claim behind this entire article into question. Arzel (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)