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

RfC on other Comments Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to keep both sections. —Darkwind (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

---

It was argued that some of the comments in the other controversy sections should be excluded. In particular, it was argued that "comments from Rivard and Koster should be removed as being of trivial relevance." I would argue that the sections are well sourced and should be included. I am asking for community input into this. The basic question is: What sections of the other comment section, if any, should be removed? Why? Two relevant discussion on this are here and here. Thanks in advance. Casprings (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep both. Koster's section establishes notoriety and relevance, but Rivard's should work better to do so. According to Rivard's wikipedia article, his comments caused national controversy. This should be stated and cited. If other editors have a big problem with including Rivard's comments, because he was a state assemblyman, then I can understand that. However, the scope was not established as being limited to federal elections. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both. The range of sources makes it clear that both Koster and Rivard's received national attention, and in the specific context of rape comments in that election cycle. A paragraph for each seems reasonable to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both. I agree with the above two comments. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both. Mentions are sourced, of noted impact, and bring respectable breadth to the coverage. Re: "non-neutral coatrack"—I wouldn't take (in particular, those) disparaging comments to heart, especially without any organized claim or effort to quote objectionable phrasing. (Updated one of your reference links.) czar · · 08:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on including the 2008 percentage of women's vote

There is disagreement as to rather to include the percentage of women that voted for Obama in 2008 with the percentage that voted for him in 2012 in the wider impact section. The article is about the 2012 election, so I would argue that this statistic is all that is needed. Moreover, a range of other variables can effect a vote (i.e. less voters voted for Obama overall for a range of issues), and providing them together is a problem with WP:SYN. No secondary sources comment on this comparison, so there is also a problem with WP:OR. Others would argue that it is needed for comparison. That simply placing them side by side is not a problem and allows the reader to come up with their own conclusion. Casprings (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

YES NYT - Obama maintained his proportion of women vote Rutgers - Obama won about the same number of women voters as in 2008. NBC - Women voters supported Obama about the same as in 2008 55% versus 56%. Not all sources specifically state the %'s but there are many that do. As presented in the article; the implication is that Obama's % of women voters is a direct result of the 2012 rape and pregnancy controversies. However, sources do not state that Obama's % of women votes in 2012 increased in 2012 as a result of these incidents. To leave only the 2012 % without any historical information, which is supplied in many sources, presents a false summarization. It is certainly not OR to present the 2008 information as many sources present this information in context. It is a clear violation of OR to not present this information and leave the reader to believe that 2012 was different compared to other years with respect to the % of Women votes. One must really ask why Casprings and Roscelese are so adamant against including this information. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Don't include. Arzel has been pretty persistent about including this but pretty resistent to providing a reliable source that connects it to the article topic. Until that happens, it's not even worth a mention. Even if such a source is found, we can't include it in such a way that we seem to be undermining all the data presently in the article; sources do explain the reason for the discrepancy, and Arzel's already had this explained to him and should know better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided three sources above that explicitly mention this in the context of this election. You seem to be against it for the very reason why this article is nothing more than yours and Casprings attempts at a research paper. ie. "..we can't include it in such a way that we seem to be undermining all the data presently in the article;" If anyone should know better it is editors that continue to be confused about the differences between research papers and WP. It is quite clear what you are doing. Arzel (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I specifically asked you for sources that connect it to the article topic - controversies in the 2012 cycle. The fact that you keep being unable to provide such sources is illustrative. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And I provided three above that make as much of a connection as is currently in the article. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

False - the sources in the article directly attribute Republican vote losses to these controversies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

False - The source relating to Obama's % of women vote in 2012 does not attribute that % to these events. That source also mentions that Obama received 56% of the women vote in 2008. Arzel (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment An important discusion on this subject takes place here. Casprings (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Don't include the controversy and the election results are a great example of Correlation does not imply causation, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Here's the problem: right now, we have a vote share piece in the article already which could be considered synthesis. If the current text is okay to add in, so should the comparison to 2008. If the comparison to '08 is too far, so too is the vote share piece in the article for the same reason. Both of them or neither of them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem with that logic is that WP:RS do mention the women's vote in the context with Akin's comments. For example, here. THe same is not true about the 2008 numbers. Casprings (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The article you cite MENTIONS, and only mentions, both within the same article. As per RCLC, though, the article you cite does NOT state that RaPCiUSe2012 in any way CAUSES the gender gap. The article DOES mention that the gender gap is a longstanding one, including 2008, and DOES make the conclusion that specifics related to so-called "women's issues" in general seem not to have moved voters; the conclusion is that women as a class vote principally on economic issues. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Which is why, if we include that, we should include this and this and this and so on to provide the proper context, or not include it at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• What points would you suggest adding. I didn't see any clear connection to the comment controversy. I think the Atlantic article comes the closes, but I didn't see anything to really add.Casprings (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Don't include - The arguments for inclusion seem to be simple WP:POINT. It's better to stay with what reliable sources explicitly connect to the article's topic, and I haven't seen a convincing case for that yet. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Don't include per the rationale of RightCowLeftCoast. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I came here via the Feedback Request Service that I have signed up for. I am somewhat unconfortable with the phrasing of this RfC as it appears to violate the rule that RfC shall be brief and neutral, not arguing any postions or desired outcome. On the issue, I don't have any specific opionion on whether a comparison to the 2008 should be made (but I agree that such a comparison can only be made in the article if it has been made in a reliable source). I think the article should be slightly changed to reflect that the CNN source for the exit polls numbers also mention other reasons for the Romney women deficit. There is also a close paraphrasing issue with the last sentence of the paragraph. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, clearly not neutral. There is no argument, as the RfC erroneously states, that in an article about the 2012 election WP should INSTEAD write about the 2008 election. That is not what the editors advocating comparative statistics are advocating. Social science uses two primary methods to ascertain effect and intent, which is what is being written about. First, there can be detailed surveying of attitudes, beliefs, and impacts, combined with statistical normalization of the sample population. Second, there can be comparison between populations, in this case testing expectations of subpopulations' voting patterns with what would be expected had certain issues influenced votes, or comparisons between populations and similar elections where issues were different. Pretty much standard methodology. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the comment from user:Iselilja. I tried to clearly state, to the best of my ability, the two different sides of this debate. I would be more than happy to reword the RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

You did clearly state your biased view of the issue, which is why the RfC is flawed. Arzel (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Don't include per Roscelese and RightCowLeftCoast. I see no reason to try and correlate this data and confuse the reader. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You do realize that those two editors are not arguing the same conclusion, at least it does not appear that they are. RCLC is arguing against the inclusion of any of the statistics, while R would appear to be arguing in favor of the 2012 statistics. Arzel (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The RfC is about including the 2008 percentage. The title is, "including the 2008 percentage of women's vote ". The first sentence of the RfC is, "There is disagreement as to rather to include the percentage of women that voted for Obama in 2008 with the percentage that voted for him in 2012 in the wider impact section." It is silly to suggest that they are not arguing over the 2008 data.Casprings (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
      • You must not have read what RCLC wrote. Arzel (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes. What in it makes you think he thinks we shouldn't include the 2012 information, which was mentioned by a WP:RS. Especially when that wasn't the issue here.Casprings (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
          • For the ___ieth time - you cannot ascribe CAUSALITY from the fact of a gender gap to RAPCIUS2012, as has been stated by many editors. That an article shows up on a Google search as having MENTIONED both the gender gap AND RAPCIUS2012 does not mean you can now say one caused the other. If you introduce the fact of the gender gap, you introduce the issue of whether it relates to longstanding electoral trends or is unique to 2012 (which it is not - therefore CANNOT be ascribed as a cause)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - exclusion of non-informative statistics - Several independent editors have remarked that simply stating the existence of a gender gap in the 2012 vote does not indicate any effect of "RaPCiUSe". Indeed, even the primary reference claiming to be WP:RS does not actually claim any causality, but merely mentions that there is was a gender gap, refers to the same point Arzel is making, that the gender gap has been in existence for decades of elections, and pre-dated the Akin remarks, and then lists news stories that Democrats claimed were "women's issues", finally noting that women (as a general class, as referred to) don't actually tend to vote on "women's issues", but on economic ones. Unless a statistic actually teases out an effect of "RaPCiUSe", it really shouldn't be included. It should also be noted that while some sources on election day claimed the gender gap increased in 2012 vs 2008 (including the Politico ref being used - comparative statistics are central to it's mild claim that the women's vote moved), in actual fact, there were declines in the gender gap, even worse if you consider that the primary trend, unexpected increased Black and Latino voting masked that decline.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• By several editors, I would suggest the number is two, on the 2012 numbers. Again, that was not the issue with the RFC. If you want to make that an issue, please start an RFC. Otherwise, I will.Casprings (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please actually read other editors comments. And the WP:RS you refer to.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues are related. You don't need a seperate RfC to remove the 2012 information when several editors have already stated that it doesn't belong even if that was not the primary focus of this RfC. Arzel (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, you wouldn't need comparative statistical analysis on the general women's vote (aka 2008, 2010, etc comparisons) if, as editors are agreeing, if the article didn't have unsupported linkage between gross numbers and causes.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this a real topic?

This article was brought to my attention at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Proposed decision. I can't help but wonder if "Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012" is a real topic, or the product of WP:OR and WP:SYN from primary sources cobbled together to create a topic that doesn't actually exist. IOW, I'm not sure that this article passes WP:GNG. Can someone more familiar to this Wikipedia article point me to a few articles from reliable sources about this topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• This conversation may reveal some of the logic behind the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_the_2012_United_States_elections. The rational behind the article and the justification for keeping is there.Casprings (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, but the discussion you linked to seems to be primarily about WP:NPOV. My concern is not neutrality, but whether or not this is an actual topic that meets WP:GNG. Notability can be demonstrated by providing reliable sources about this topic in general.
• Note, to keep this discussion in one place, I am going to close the other discussions and refer everyone to here. Please give me a few minutes to do this. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, per WP:EFFECT, I would say it meets and exceeds that standard. I think that is demonstrated by multiple sources within the article. I also think the WP:AfD did deal with the issue of WP:GNG, if you read through the discussion. That said, that is my opinion and I think one that runs with consensus. But, it is always up to challenge at WP:AfD.

• That's fine. If it exceeds the WP:GNG, then this should be easy to prove by pointing us to a few articles from reliable sources about this topic in general. I just took a look at the first 5 or 6 sources, and most seem to be primary sources cobbled together to form an article. But there were two articles which do connect different incidents together. Is that enough to justify meeting WP:GNG? Probably not. That's why I am asking that editors familiar with this article provide such sources. I'd rather that we work this out through talk page discussion before proceeding to AfD. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Akin and Mourdocks defeats tied to this 2. Same as above, but with Rivard 3. Mentions Akin, Mourdock, Smith, Koster 4. Mentions Akin, Murdock, Rivard, Koster 5. GOP looks for ways to stop the rape comments " It all boils down to whether or not the Republican Party thinks this is a problem,” she said. “If they want to make inroads with women, then they need to subject every one of their candidates to sensitivity training — not to mention reality training.” Shows WP:EFFECT. 6.GOP pollster: Stop talking about rape I think that shows that there is enough WP:EFFECT from rape comments in the 2012 election to justify an article under WP:GNG. But would be happy to find further sources that are more what you are looking for.Casprings (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Did you actually read the various AfD's? There is a lot of discussion about WP:EFFECT. And I don't even think that NPOV problems are a valid rationale for deletion under WP:PROBLEM. Do we really need to have the same discussion all over again? At least you could respond to the previous comments about how there's sources that demonstrate this is a "real topic". AgnosticAphid talk 06:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• First, there is only one AfD concerning this Article, and the SOLE reason for its continued existence is the belief by the closing admin that NPOV, which includes WP:OR and WP:SYN (and WP:POVTRAP and WP:BLP) is ALWAYS an ineligible ground for deletion, a somewhat dubious assertion. Almost all of this article is not reporting on an legitimate issue, but promoting a thesis, as are sections of this article individually. The complication the original poster alludes to is a legitimate one, and has been brought up several times by multiple editors, and never adequately addressed. There is something of a problem here, in that the thesis, which could be summarized as "he's just like Akin", or "you are pro-rape" WAS in fact the kind of partisan spin narrative advanced several times by Democrats or Democrat challengers in various races. Was the Democrat narrative picked up on, and reported as such, yes. Was it notable, in the sense that there was an actual non-trivial issue involved in any of these; no. Were any of these sub-narratives connected other than Democrat attempts to smear by association? Not really (Roscelese has brought up the valid point that as a result of the relentless Democrat spin, the questions asked by legitimate reporters and in debates was influenced). Except for Akin, which came out of the blue, and was both bizarre ( WP:FRINGE )and INHERENTLY controversial, basically the "debate" in all instances cited was WHETHER what a pol said was controversial, or whether the opponents claim of "controversy" had any basis. Therefore, the WP issue is existence, not editing.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Need to add the point made multiple times that the effort to link and create a narrative that the Republican party was anti-woman, pro-rape, anti-health, etc all falls under the umbrella of the War on Women article, which is SUPPOSED to be about the Democrat slogan and campaign.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. So you admit in your comment above that WP:EFFECT is completely satisfied by the effect these comments had on the election, but you still want to delete the article because...you want to hide information that makes Republicans look bad? you think your own interpretation of events trumps the interpretation made by reliable sources? Do explain. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I give that comment an A for effort as a debate strategy, but no. You are using semantic jiu-jitsu in attempting to reverse causality. The Democratic War on Women strategy was in place at the start of 2012, long before anyone outside of MO heard of Akin. Innocuous statements that relative to all abortions, those needed as a result of rape are rare are not inherently controversial (the same was and has been said by Democrats, with no effect, since it is true) and did not CAUSE national attention. Claims of controversy by Democratic opponents, operatives, and surrogates may have captured attention and diverted focus from what 2011 analysts all were sure should be the issues (economy, deficit, government spending, resurgence of militant Islam, Obamacare), but you are making two claims, at least, that are not valid. First, that any mention (though seemingly unjustifiable exclusions apply to Democrats and major political figures) of rape or pregnancy sets a mudslinging fight apart from the general War on Women strategy, both in narrative and effect, and two, that prefacing every section with a statement in WP's voice that one theory of a debate is correct (either by titling or by, if you will, opening statement) does not violate WP:BLP, either in the form of misattribution, NPOV, or WP:SYN.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@Casprings: Thanks for the articles. Please give me a few days to read through them and respond. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Take your time.Casprings (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Roscoe Bartlett */ major BLP violations

Bartlett: Oh, life of the mother—exception of life of the mother, rape and incest ... there are very few pregnancies as a result of rape, fortunately, and incest—compared to the usual abortion, what is the percentage of abortions for rape? It is tiny. It is a tiny, tiny percentage.
Audience member: There's 20,000 pregnancies every year from rape.
Bartlett: Yeah, and how many abortions? In the millions," said Bartlett.
Another audience member: That's 20,000 rapes. That's 20,000 people who are violated.
Bartlett: Yeah, I know, I know. But in terms of the percentage of pregnancies, percentage of abortions for rape as compared to overall abortions, it's a tiny, tiny percentage.
Audience member: And incest is quite high too, believe me. In Appalachia we saw incest on a daily basis
Bartlett: Oh yeah, but again, it's a tragedy for the family and the person, but in terms of actual numbers it's a pretty small percentage of the total number.
Audience member: Unless you're the one.
Bartlett: Most abortions, most abortions are for what purpose? They just don't want to have a baby! The second reason for abortion is you'd like a boy and it's a girl, or vice versa. And I know a lot of people are opposed to abortion who are pro-choice.

*Problem; - "audience member" is a misattribution, and why attack sites are not a reliable source, even if quoted within another article. Bartlett was being followed by Progressive political activists, and the questions are from the videography team assigned to make "gotcha" footage.

On August 30, 2012, Roscoe Bartlett, a ten-term Republican Congressman from Maryland, was asked to clarify his position on abortion at a town hall meeting. He stated that very few pregnancies result from rape or incest, and therefore the life of the mother exception for abortion was the only one he supported.

*Problem; Bartlett was not "asked to clarify" a general position, his position was what his position always has been for 20 years, and was as he clearly stated. He was being peppered about Akin by Democrat/Progressive campaign operatives. He was stating why he still worked with Akin, in spite of their clear differences on abortion exceptions, and he responded that (and he always qualified, no slipup there) that RELATIVE to total abortions, rape abortions were rare. (and thus working with Akin on the other 90% made sense)

*Problem; "life of the mother was the only one he supported" - JUST PLAIN FACTUALLY WRONG and unsupported by WP:RS. Bartlett makes it clear that he supports exceptions for rape and incest, and Washington Post reference notes his immediate rebuke of and distancing from Akin.

Multiple sources equated this to Akin's comments, and this resulted in political attacks on Bartlett.

*Problem Bizarre, false and utterly unsupported causality. TPM not WP:RS, attacks by operatives made, only later did WP:RS equate ATTACKS with those on Akin, Washington Post (again) notes that the attacks were made IN SPITE of that lack of any objective slip-up.

The Democratic Congressional Committee Campaign targeted Bartlett with automated telephone calls that stated, "Republicans like your Congressman Roscoe Bartlett share some of these radical, right-wing beliefs—that the government should take away a woman's access to making informed decisions about her own pregnancy". Bartlett lost his bid for re-election to the Democratic challenger John Delaney.

Just a note; also cannot attribute WP:EFFECT in this case. Bartlett was redistricted out of office before the race began by act of the MD State Legislature (Democrat). He did not attract supportive outside money, generally written off at the beginning.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

BuzzFeed is not an attack site, and what is your source for the claim that "the questions are from the videography team?"

Moreover, what is your source for the claim that an activist cannot be an "audience member" at a town hall meeting? A town hall meeting, almost by definition, is open to any member of the public, regardless of POV. The POV of the audience member who asked the question is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Re;Source. One, the video. Two the other video (the local RDC also passively taped). Buzzfeed cannot be characterized as an attack site, but is a re-blogger or re-poster. A blog is not a WP:RS for other than opinion, if that, and this is a re-blog from attack sites, TPM is the one that is easiest to find.

The issue with "audience member" is the same as always must be dealt with in WP:RS and WP:NPOV discussions. The quote is a primary source, but might be used, the editorial content (saying "audience member", which implies some kind of grassroots or constituent, aka reporting on what is rather than instigating) is not, particularly under the guise of a quote. The video source can and should be a source of concern, for the high possibility of selective editing, or mis-quoting. The one WP:RS used scrubs the misleading editorially added attribution, which is what WP dictates must be done. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. The reliable source is BuzzFeed's reporting on the video. BuzzFeed is not a "blog." It is a professional news organization. We can report what BuzzFeed's professional journalists reported about the video. There are likely other reliable sources which have reported on the video, and we can find some.

Your allegation that the video has been selectively edited is unsupported by any reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

First, BuzzFeed is not inherently a WP:RS. they re-aggregate and pass along items they run across on the internet. They have the much-discussed Huffington Post WP:RS problem on steroids without the 10% fact-checked original content. The fact that something is (BuzzFeed's own self-stated criterion) viral does not make it reliable information; it isn't "edited" in the sense of a newspaper, but really "curated".

Second, what other WP editors are calling a "quote", namely that supposed excerpt set up to look like a transcript is NOT in fact in the BuzzFeed post. The BuzzFeed post simply passes it on, but the transcript format is in fact a "quote" (really a verbatim section) from an attack blog, not BuzzFeed. Please read the references. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: selective editing. In the attack video, the subject of the discussion is cut out. The videographer was repeatedly commandeering the town hall demanding greater and greater distancing from Akin. Bartlett was responding to the rather stupid question of why he EVER worked with Akin (obviously, because they are both Congressmen - you don't choose your colleagues, the voters do); Bartlett was stating where he does and does not agree with Akin. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

On the first point, I echo North. Second, Anonymous, is correct. The congress did not support life of the mother as the only exception, per the source. I have already change that. Now reviewing the rest. Busy night, so I don't know if I will finish tonight.Casprings (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well there are two video, one with extended remarks. The Buzz Feed article has the quoted material in the article. It is WP:RS, and most editors agree. Are we arguing that the video was doctored? Casprings (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The so-called "quote" (actually a section) is NOT on BuzzFeed, BuzzFeed paraphrases it. The so-called "quote" is from an attack blog, BuzzFeed passed it on, meaning its algorithm classed it as viral. BuzzFeed in this context is not a WP:RS, but the section you claim is directly out of BuzzFeed is in fact a "quote" or section from the source FROM WHICH BuzzFeed got it.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, in looking this over again, I saw one major point the section got wrong. Namely, that he would have an abortion exception for rape and incest. Other than that, I would say that the section clearly belongs in the article and I don't see any other WP:BLP violations.Casprings (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

POV tags for King and Bartlett

There is a claim about the RfC covering them, but I don't see it. I also agree with the Anon about King, but not really about Bartlett, in terms of inclusion. What's the story I'm missing here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They aren't there. Just to piggyback on your section, since we seem to have cross-edited while I was editing the King critique. Major objectively false statements, the consensus on an Neutrality page was that it was a violation of NPOV to say King "supported" Akin, and that the section should probably be deleted. It now is worse on the issues brought up, and has been tagged with multiple outright fabrications.

"Iowa Republican congressman Steve King supported Akin after Akin made the "legitimate rape" comments.[96]

*Problem - this is utterly outrageous in that the juxtaposition NOW implies he endorsed the remarks, which he explicitly did NOT do. Fabrication and a BLP violation, needs to be expunged.

He said in a television interview that he had never personally heard about anyone getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.

*Problem Utter mis-statement or LIE about what he said. King was asked multiple questions about federal funding of abortion, which he opposes, with some exceptions. King was asked if he opposed federal funding of non-violent underage pregnancy abortions, and he said yes. The interviewer started throwing out possible more extreme circumstances. When asked about the possibility of a 12-year old, who became pregnant due to non-violent, etc. "consensual" sex, he answered that he would "have to think about that one", ie, he would consider allowing federal funding. He DID add that he had never had any personal experience of anyone in THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE, namely, a 12-year old, etc. He never, at any time said what the WP editor who claimed he said, "he had never personally heard about anyone". That is a blatant falsehood. 12 year olds who are not the victims of forcible rape, pedophilia, child abuse, sex slavery or incest but who become consensually pregnant; I doubt most people have personal knowledge of such an instance, it is highly rare, and that is not a controversial observation.

He said, "Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter."[97] King's comments elicited condemnation from multiple sources,[98][99] and others noted their similarity to Akin's remarks.[100][101] King was re-elected.[102]

*Problem actual news source, the only one, is [97], and the abstract correctly says 12-year old, etc. TPM made the libelous claim of what he (DID NOT) said. Bloggers Dan Amira, Steve Benen, Alex Seitz-Wald all report the false accusation that he said "anyone". That is why TPM is NOT WP:RS, and a blogger saying what TPM erroneously (or falsely) said, does not make TPM information any more reliable.

The ENTIRE alleged "controversy" is King saying one thing, an attack blog claiming, falsely, that he said something else, and the false quote being endlessly repeated on attack blogs.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando I would have no problem integrating the section into the Akin section. The section is basically him supporting Akin, so I don't know if it is needed.

@ annoy All these statements are backed up. He did support Akin, which is what the article says.Casprings (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is DELETING the King and Bartlett, due to WP:BLP problems. Without false accusations of what each said there is no controversy. Quoting an attack that is false, in order to publish the false attack and somehow publicize it is flagrantly contrary to WP:BLP. The attack sites (or blogs reporting that the attack sites said something) claimed each did not "sufficiently" condemn Akin; by definition a suspect value judgement, and not really appropriate for inclusion on WP.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a consensus for doing anything with the Bartlett portion. As far as King, he did make a comment that was significant enough to get national coverage. Rather that is integrated into the section on Akin or is placed in his own section is the debate, at least for me. Others may chime in, of course. I see nothing that is false in the section. Casprings (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, I don't see how King's relevant to the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

He is relevant to the topic because he made himself relevant by speaking out in such a manner that he got national attention, and not just in a limited manner. It was all over the news. Suddenly millions of people who had no idea who he was identified him as someone who was in favor of limiting the rights of women. That's why he's relevant. We follow the RS, and it's easy to document. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this article about "limiting rights of women," or of "rape and pregnancy controversies?" Specifically, where is the "rape and pregnancy controversy" in King's statement? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would echo BullRangifer. Now, as to rather the information goes into the Akin section or its own section, that is another debate. I would say the comment, which did deal with rape and pregnancy, could have its own section. I would also think that because the comments are so directly linked to Akin's comments (he was responding to those statements), one could make the argument that it belongs there.Casprings (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a quick line about King echoing support, but I don't see the controversy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the section and added something into the Akin section. Lets see what others think. Casprings (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. No further problem with it as written, aside from the general topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Having a short sentence that King DID speak up for Akin as a person, which is supported, or that he said he should be judged on his legislative record, not some odd phrase is fine, as long as it is clear that he refused to support or repudiate the comments themselves. Continuing to insert, contrary to WP:BLP that he said something he did not, much less inserting it into an unrelated section is NOT OK.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it your position that inclusion of the King quotation constitutes a BLP violation no matter how much additional context to the quotation is supplied in the article? — goethean 15:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see a context within THIS article where non-controversially expressing an age limit for a Romeo-and-Juliet exception to federal funding, by quote, would fit. Can I imagine that that King quote, together with the actual question asked (not the TPM-made-up question) could be included in an appropriate article (not this one)? Absolutely. If, on the other hand, you are talking about including a quote by King ON Akin, as long as it actually states what he said (which the paraphrase does not), THAT and that alone might fit in the Akin section. Of course, this has already been reverted, not improved by none other than yourself.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the actual quote that we can use to compare it to what's being alleged? Might go a long way in solving this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The false TPM attack on King did have an accurate quote of King's RESPONSE, as did the WP:RS, the TV station that conducted the interview, but outright lied about what the question was. Goethean is responding to the legitimate WP:BLP deletion of the section due to insertion of a made-up QUESTION by asking a rhetorical about the ANSWER. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So do you have a source for the accurate question and answer? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on King and Bartlett Section of Other comments Section

There is some question on the neutrality of the Roscoe Bartlett and Steve King section of this article. Those discussions can be found here and here. The basic question of this RfC is to ask what changes (Keep, change, integrate integrate information into other sections, etc) should occur to those sections.Casprings (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• At this point in time, keep Bartlett but ditch King. I can't see how King is related. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• He is relevant to the topic because he made himself relevant by speaking out in such a manner that he got national attention, and not just in a limited manner. It was all over the news. Suddenly millions of people who had no idea who he was identified him as someone who was in favor of limiting the rights of women. That's why he's relevant. We follow the RS, and it's easy to document. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• THe best argument to keep King, is a source like this. It is a WP:RS source and does compare the remark to Akins.Casprings (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agreee THAT is really the best, in fact the only justification; that a blogger posted that TPM (Talking Points Memo) attacked King with a false account of remarks, CLAIMING he said what the WP currently says (in WP's voice) he said. The ACTUAL WP:RS all note that this TPM attack was untrue. This is the sole reason you have to justify the WHOLE King section and it does not even come close to avoiding a WP:BLP violation.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are plenty enough good sources used in the article to justify keeping King and Bartlett. That revisions to the sections might be appropriate is another matter. We can certainly entertain them, but deletion is out of the question.
  The Bartlett section has a VERY long quote. I vote for using an essential part of it in the section and eliminating the box. In fact, we should try to clean up all sections so we don't have boxes. That creates a difference in quoting style (in the same article) which could be construed as singling out some people, and THAT (treating people differently) could be construed as an NPOV violation. We can still keep the quotes, but just use the same format, preferably an ordinary colon indentation. That keeps it all very simple and easy. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't oppose that. I do think the current formatting looks nice in that section.Casprings (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Returning to my previous suggestion about getting rid of the box at Bartlett's section. It's interesting, but serves no real purpose not already covered in the main text. It's unsightly and just draws undue attention to Bartlett, as if his comments were especially bad, and they're no worse, and in fact "less" so than some of the others who have no such box. (They are still offensive, but so be it.) I'd like to get rid of the box. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, quote cut and reformatted. Thoughts? I don't really like the semicolons, but I can live with. Any thoughts on how to formate the quote?Casprings (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 has now removed the material on King, claiming a BLP violation. User:Anonymous209.6 seems to be claiming that King didn't actually say what he is widely and reliably sourced to be quoted as having said. [1] — goethean 20:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Only Anonymous can speak for themselves. However, what King said has been woefully misrepresented from the very beginning. Arzel (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the current wording? I think it is accurate and neutral.Casprings (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not at all neutral. The King quote is correct, but the exposition on what the question is is pure fiction. He answered a VERY, VERY, VERY limited theoretical question, WP editors and some partisan attack sites are claiming the question was one other than what it was. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS thought it was connected. It is sourced.Casprings (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Anonymous209.6 could suggest a more accurate wording. — goethean 02:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could just use his full quote and not try to imply something that he did not say. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Arzel (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ususally would not post the same thing twice, but since Casprings is again using noticeboard attacks rather than addressing issues, feel the need. The quote is an answer to a very, very, very specific theoretical question, Casprings keeps inserting questions that make the response sound controversial, but were NOT the question asked, nor in any context. The local news interviewer and King had a lengthy back and forth that clearly defined what the "that" in his quoted answer referred to, Casprings is substituting something else. An egregious WP:BLP violation. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And the current on King, gives the full details of what he was discussing.Casprings (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Utterly, completely ridiculous. Casprings is presently stating in WP's voice that King said that "I just haven't heard of [Medicaid's coverage for abortions for victims of rape and incest] being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter." That is objectively and libelously false, and contradicted by all actual WP:RS. The FALSE allegation by TPM (an obviously non-WP:RS) that he said "I just haven't heard of [anyone being pregnant from rape] being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter." was spammed to the media and some blogs reported that TPM (attribution, attribution, attribution) had made the false accusation. Repeating provably false attacks is a clear WP:BLP violation. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you suggest a more accurate wording? — goethean 19:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The premise of your question (do you still beat your wifc?-style)is that the non-controversial answer SHOULD be included in this article, and that some change in wording would allow their inclusion. Furthermore, you expect ME to find a wording that would allow them to be included and thereby characterized as controversial. Not constructive.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Issue with statement concerning Mourdock

I might as well include the issue since Casprings did not.

This has been a problem and in the article for some time. The way Casprings has it worded and has defended vigorously makes a statement which implies a statement Mourdock did not make.

..became embroiled in a similar controversy when he stated that pregnancy from rape was "something God intended".

This clearly implies that Mourdock thinks that God intends that pregancy is the result of a rape. However, that is not what he said. He clearly says that if a pregnancy is the result of a rape then God indended that life to happen.

I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

Frankly I am not even sure why this has to be debated. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I am not sure why anyone coming to this RfC would have a clue what they are supposed to be responding to. How the hell can you expect anyone to give sensible answers when you can't ask an intelligible question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I did an edit to adress your issue. Is that better?Casprings (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Background

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per request at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Given the time that has passed, I don't believe it is appropriate to comment as to what should happen to the content of the article as a consequence of these discussions. Even if a consensus existed at the time, consensus may have changed over the time since.
Before leaving that point, however, I would point to WP:SILENCE, but note the issue has been raised again at FAC. I am also inclined to point to WP:DROPTHESTICK with respect to the recent raising the issue at several fora.
The locust of the discussion is whether the background sections forms a synthesis and frames the topic of the article in an original way (i.e. that it draws the article as a whole into the realm of original thought).
On the broad principle of whether a background section of an article can inappropriately frame an article in an original way, I find the points made by Arzel (across several threads) compelling. From Wikipedia:No original research: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The topic of this article is Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 not Rape and pregnancy generally.
With respect, I don't see a compelling counter argument to Arzel's broad assertion that including material that does not directly relate to the topic of an article (the Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 in this case) is not original research (regardless of whether it exists in this case or not). Comments by Mangoe, FurrySings and Roscelese support the principle raised by Arzel but disagree that the issue exists in this case.
A significant point raised by Casprings and FurrySings is that a background section will naturally draw in issues that are not directly related to the topic of an article (for example, events that took place before the topic of the article). Such a section is helpful to a reader but must be done be done fairly per WP:NPOV and using verifiable resources dealing with the topic of the article (Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 in this case) in order not to be original research. I didn't see evidence in discussion that that is not the case in this instance. Maybe the section in this instance is OR, just no evidence was given to demonstrate that it is so. --RA (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

This section is almost entirely original research. The goal of WP is not to create research papers. This attempt to create a background section in order to validate the subsequent sections is a clear attempt to write a research like paper. Since almost zero of this section relates to the 2012 election process it has absolutely no relevance within this article. Arzel (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing your definition of original research. The section summarises reliable sources on Akin's remarks, placing them in a context of previous statements and positions advanced by anti-abortion activists and Republican politicians. It is not apparent to me how WP:NOR is a valid objection to its inclusion as the background material is derived from reliable sources discussing comments made during the election. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As you're now tagging the section as "synthesis" rather than alleging "original research" as in your above comment, can you substantiate this charge with reference to the sources? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't WP:OR. I also asked for some outside opinions at WP:ORN. Hopefully consensus will be reached quickly.Casprings (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Link to ORN request: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 Background Section. I'll post this link on Arzel's talk page just so that he's aware of it.FiachraByrne (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

It is actually both. Synthesis of Material and Original Research are very closely related. The subject of the article is in relation to the 2012 election. The background is not the background of the 2012 election and the view of rape related pregnacies, it is a research view of the question of rape related pregnacies. I have written enough papers to see the clear research presentation in this section. In a research paper it would be called the lit review aspect of the research. By creating this section you are in effect writing a research paper on the this article. Hence this section is contributing to Original Research. Furthermore you are trying to link previous research to this event which is Synthesis of Material. Simply put, any information included must be relevant to the article and specifically mention the effect regardinh the 2012 election. The big problem the approach being done here is that you, the editor, is framing the background outside of the scope of the article. If Casprings wants to write a research paper, I suggest he/she do it somewhere else, and the get it published in a journal. Arzel (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's telling that you haven't constructed an argument that is pertinent to any existing wikipedian policy, much less to that of original research or synthesis as defined on the relevant policy pages. This is an individual interpretation of what constitutes original research and as such you should seek community consensus before seeking to apply at individual articles.

You've also introduced a distinction between what you think is appropriate for inclusion in the background to a given article without actually defining the basis for that distinction in any meaningful terms (other than your assertion that you are somehow able to identify said distinction having "written enough papers").

That the material is relevant for inclusion in such a section is determined in the first instance by its presence in reliable sources and not by the idiosyncratic interpretation of what is germane as advanced by individual editors. The sources, cited in the section additions, have identified the theories of Mecklenburg and Willke as pertinent to the topic of this article. In terms of improving the article, they make the controversy more rather than less intelligible and provide much needed context for the reader.

The additional statements that the theories of the Mecklenburg and Willke are "medically inaccurate" and without scientific validity is derived from policy relating to WP:FRINGE - as these are demonstrably pseudoscientific medical theories it is necessary for the article to state that fact per WP:FRINGE/PS on the basis of reliable and authoritative medical sources per WP:MEDRS. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Outside observation from WP:NOR board: [2]. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies Back Ground Section

Two pervious discusions took place on the background section of this article.

• Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012/Archive_1#Background
• Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections.2C_2012_Background_Section

In sum, one side thought it had a problem with WP:OR and WP:SYN. The other side thoguht, that the material is relevant and sourced. The question is, is there a problem with WP:OR in the background section and should the background section remain?Casprings (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why discussing this again? I have take a look at previous discussions, and Arzel's arguments were already wholly dismissed. Cavarrone 16:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That is false. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I requested closure on the pervious discussions. It was suggested that I do an RFC.

• What is the question being asked here? The purpose of an RfC is to get input from uninvolved contributors - and you haven't specified here what material is being disputed, or what sources are being cited to support it. Asking vague questions and providing links to previous discussions isn't helpful. Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the statement in an RfC must be "neutral and brief" - the statement above appears to be anything but. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps that is better?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explanatory notes lacks a refutation of pregnancy being less likely to result from rape

This section has a long list of pieces of evidence and what percentage pregnancy likelihood they determined, but what it needs is a comparison of pregnancy rates of rape with non-rape sex to refute it. The only reason I can see for it not being in the notes is that such a comparison has not been done, which seems very unlikely. 110.32.195.198 (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Explanatory notes are just strange, and unhelpful, and should be deleted. The issue that you bring up, that Akin's understanding of biology was wrong, and isn't held by many people, is covered under WP:FRINGE, and the text of the main article, properly, says the understanding is false. That is what is actually needed, the note adds nothing and should be deleted. Should also add that in the "reactions" section, there SHOULD be the excellent explanations of WHY Akin was wrong by his fellow pols Roscoe Bartlett, and Phil Gingrey, both of who are recognized experts on the subject. I would advocate adding those to the reactions to Akin section, since they are not just condemnatory, but explanatory.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

While the article does simply state it as a fact, at the first FAC, an editor suggested the note would add context.Casprings (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that pretty much is Casprings again. A comment that the article needs to say Akin's understanding was generally regarded as wrong, when the article didn't say so at the time, does not mean (now that the article says so, under WP:FRINGE) an unrelated polemical essay is justified. This has repeatedly been commented on; it is just bizarre.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether explanatory notes are good, the article should still compare pregnancy rates of rape with non-rape sex. Does anyone disagree? 110.32.196.253 (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you understate what Akin said. He seemed to conclude that women COULD NOT become pregnant during a "legitimate"(assuming he meant forced or violent) rape. Different studies estimate different rates or conclude different influences; the figures vary. All reports are outside the range of what Akin's comments suggest. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What Todd said doesn't matter; there are heaps of quotes claiming that rape reduces (but imply doesn't eliminate) pregnancy likelihood. This article would be better if it actually refuted that.110.32.196.253 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That is problematic, while refuting Akin is not. There is consensus that post-ovulation effects of stress, and rape, do not have a LARGE effect on pregnancy rates, but once you start randomly citing statistical results, you involve legitimate disputes on sample or cohort size and bias. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

We should involve legitimate disputes on sample or cohort size and bias. As it stands, the article does not refute the idea that pregnancy is less likely to result from rape; it merely contradicts it. 110.32.147.217 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. While the stats obviously contradict Aikin, he said "really rare" which does not normally mean "impossible" which is what you seem to be saying he was saying. 110.32.196.253 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Akin is he is talking about INDIVIDUALS, and the effect of biology, versus the average. He is saying that for a woman who is raped it is "really rare" (and the reference to biology that follows, he is making clear that this is relative to the average woman who is not raped) for them to get pregnant. It is the "shut down" comment that really cements that he is talking about something unlike what scientists discuss, or other politicians or public health experts remark on. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. Akin claimed that the female body shuts down reproductive functions in the event of a "legitimate" rape. That's a medical claim and medical experts say it's not true. What's all this about "something unlike what scientists discuss"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese that Anonymous209.6's comment makes no sense. The article should make it very clear and well sourced that Akin's ideas are contradicted by modern medicine. — goethean 23:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As the pervious note did.Casprings (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No it did not: there was no comparison. All the notes did is give the impression he was wrong. You need a control group for a refutation to be meaningful. 110.32.147.217 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about the scientific aspects of pregnancy from rape. Arzel (talk 14:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Then delete "which is false" from the first line of the background section. 110.32.147.217 (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Explanatory note Pregnancy rate

During a FAC review, it was suggest that an explanatory note on the science behind the pregnancy rate and pregnancy should be added.. As such, one was added.. Should the statement be in the article?Casprings (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Trent Franks

Another incident to mention. The remarks are directly tied to similar remarks by Todd Akin:

• Blake, Aaron. GOP congressman: Rate of pregnancies from rape is ‘very low’. The Washington Post, June 12, 2013

Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not part of the 2012 election cycle. It is also not clear that the incidence of women becoming pregnant from rape, and waiting to report the rape and request an abortion for 6 months is all that common. The twitter blog and email blasts, and even current reports picked up by news organizations do not make clear all the context of the remarks. Pretty stupid politically to venture out on that plank, given the already in place apparatus to attack.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Incident can be included as WP:RS connects it to the 2012 incidents. — goethean 14:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope unrelated to the focus of this article. Arzel (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it completely bizarre, then, that the source explicitly mentions Todd Akin's 2012 senate campaign in connection with this incident? — goethean 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Far be it for me to argue with Arzel (that this article actually HAS focus) or with Gothean's idea that the title should actually be (" x is just like Todd Akin" (Democrat campaign slogan), but we have to argue from the basis of where the article actually IS, and it is allegedly NOT the Todd Akin lookalike page, and allegedly DOES have a focus, on 2012. Franks does not fit on that basis.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No article name change is needed, since the supplied source EXPLICITLY MENTIONS the Franks incident in association, not just with Akin's 2012 Senate campaign but with his 'women problem', which is the topic of this article. — goethean 15:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

How does a comment in June 2013 impact the 2012 elections? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you need assistance in reading the Washington Post article? — goethean 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No need for the personal attacks Goethean. Also this has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 election. Go find a different coatrack for this. Arzel (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not need assistance in reading the article. The question is how something in 2013 impacts 2012. If you can show a relationship in that direction, it fits into this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please return to the talk page for controversial edits

There have been multiple edits in recent days on what editors know or should know are controversial edits. Instead of reverting and changing the article, I would suggest that editors return to the talk page.Casprings (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)