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)