Talk:Rape and pregnancy statement controversies in the 2012 United States elections/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page needs renaming

The controversies continue on this subject, so this page needs to be renamed to Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States Politics or something of the kind. Ir can be useful as there is historical precedences that would be very interesting for readers. Cwobeel (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It makes sense as muliple comments keep getting refered back to the Akin comments. I will start a move discussion on it.Casprings (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of RfCs

I've removed a number of RfC notices from this page. Additionally, formal closures have been declined for a number of discussions.

RFCs are intended to be used as part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. They are not intended to be used as an alternative to ordinary discussion. However important you believe this topic to be, please use RfC sparingly and do not use requests for formal closures as an alternative to arriving at consensus among yourselves.

--RA (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Republican only article

I noted that the individuals that have been talked to in-depth in this article are members of the Republican Party (United States). Are there non-Republicans where rape and pregnancy have impacted them? Is the attempt of this article to serve as a attack page, or a neutrally worded take on the subject? As this article discusses living individuals is this article subject to WP:BLP?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's at least one question there that you can attempt to answer yourself without speculating on the motivations of other users. Are there non-Republicans that reliable sources have tied into this issue? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The basic problem with the critique is that, in fact, most are Republicans. The only one that wasn't was Salazar. It is the nature of these events. Perhaps expanding it beyond the election may get more non-Republicans. That said, the article is not an attack page. It is, however, controversial. That is one reason that seeking WP:GA and hopefully WP:FA is important. The higher the standard, the better for an article such as this.Casprings (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If Joe Sazalar falls within the scope of this article, outside of the 2012 election, then it should be included. For this article to only be about Republicans, when outside of the time frame which is defined by the title of the article there are non-Republicans who also had rape and pregnancy controversies. This would definitely make this article less an attack page against Republicans and a more general cronicling of rape and pregnancy discussions in American politics, which IMHO would be far more neutral than what has presently evolved.

It also doesn't help that often, the media will hyper focus on an event when it may negatively impact a non-democrat, and thus creating more sources, compared to when a democrat has a similar event, brief mentions will occur and often forgotten.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've explained why the sources didn't support the inclusion of Salazar - again, can you actually identify any non-Republicans that belong in the article, or is this destined to be nothing more than a complaint about how it's terrible that only Republicans say these things? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, plus Trent Frank. It does seem to be an ongoing theme in American Politics.Casprings (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The justification for exclusion of Salazar, if I got this right, was that the criticism was partisan and the links to Akin of Salazar saying something dumb about rape were also somewhat partisan. While I agree that they are, exclusion on that basis of attacks being partisan is.... shall we say... novel, vis-a-vis this article. If adopted, it would make editing very, very, very, very easy. The inclusion of Joe Walsh, who admittedly said something dumb, but NOT about rape, is solely because of the R after his name, and the email blasts that went out asking editors to post to this page. It doesn't fit the title of the article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, why the need to question the good faith of other editors? Why the need to say, "solely because of the R after his name, and the email blasts that went out asking editors to post to this page." Casprings (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Moderated Discussion of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I propose that we created a moderated discussion for the remaining disputes on this page. It doesn't seem like these disputes will be resolved, if it is only done through dialogue. I would suggest an uninvolved editor would be of assistance in finding concensus here and resolving any remaining disputes. If there is agreement, I will post a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance.Casprings (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Salazar and Gingrey

After looking back in the talkpage for the discussion on this issue, I've removed the comments from Salazar about concealed carry and rape. While the focus of the discussion was largely on the suitability of post-election events, a number of users at the time pointed out that the incident was not really related to the article topic; looking at the sources, I concur. (As I pointed out in my edit summary, the Salazar incident was included in our article based on its supposed relation to the Akin incident. We relied on three sources for this: one which did not mention Akin, one which pointed out that the comments were not like Akin's, and one that mentioned only partisans linking the two. This doesn't come up to the level of the other sources we use in this article, in which events are connected by reliable sources in authorial voice.)

I haven't looked into the sources/talk for Gingrey's comments, which were brought up more tangentially in the same discussion. However, I think that if we do decide that a post-election section is now unsuitable but that we wish to retain some specific incidents, we might put them in sections where they are relevant - eg. if we wanted to keep Gingrey, he was directly commenting on Akin and Mourdock, so we might move the material to one or both sections. (Although I do admit it's super awkward to split it.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've moved Gingrey's response under Akin, since the sources focus on the controversy of his support of Akin with Mourdock as something of an afterthought. The post-election section is now gone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Other comments

Unless there are major objections, I'm going to be doing some trimming of the "other comments" section. As controversial as some of the comments were (and I say "some" because now that I look into Bartlett, it doesn't seem to have created much uproar at all - and it's not about BLP and it's not about whether a question from an activist is valid, but rather about the fact that reliable sources didn't bother much with it - it ought to be removed and I can do that), a number of these guys were set to lose their elections anyway (eg. Walsh to Duckworth), so there's no "effect" there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think those sections are relevant and should be in the article. However, I will see what others think.Casprings (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't outright cut anyone except Bartlett, I've just made it take up less space. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with that. We need to clear up the citations and also work on readability.Casprings (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

Problem is, you are confusing different things. Akin's comment implied a large effect, something a social studies analysis of rape WOULD be expected to pick up, and they don't. You are now talking about something entirely different; whether pregnancy is in any way INFLUENCED by rape; that actually can be, and is, a matter for legitimate dispute, but in part because of the limitations of this kind of study. Quoting numbers from disparate individual studies confuses more than explains; the bottom line is that no-one has found the kind of LARGE effect Akin claimed.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:06, 18 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)

Why? That is supported by sources and evidence.

I would normally agree, but that claim has been refuted quite often outside of the scientific aspect of becoming pregnant. However, I did soften it a little bit. That pregnancy is "less likely" is not a statement which can be made declaratively. Arzel (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine. The article is better like this, though it would be far better with a comparison of the sort I mentioned. 110.32.147.217 (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Support. Keep the explanatory note so that the reader can see exactly why Akin was so wrong. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Not sure, and here's why. Akin was wrong in that it's impossible, and the explanatory note is correct in that regard. Bundling that in with "rare," however, is a problem. How are we defining "rare?" Is 5% (the upper end of the estimate) "rare?" I think we might need to separate these issues in order to make the explanatory note more realistic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. This article must make it absolutely clear that Akin's remarks contradict modern medicine. This is very easy to source. There simply is no valid argument to the contrary. — goethean 21:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• CommentI would support if it also refuted the many other statements which say pregnancy is less likely to result from rape. As it stands, I'm neutral. 110.32.147.217 (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment, I have to agree with what Thargor Orlando said above, is 5% (or 1/20) rare? Rare has no real assigned numeral value, so it's subjective. The wording of the note linked in the reference appears to be well cited but it could be better worded in the beginning sentences. For instance the beginning sentence

  Any female capable of ovulation may become pregnant after rape by a fertile male.

  could read

  Any female capable of ovulation may become pregnant by a fertile male, including after rape.

  Additionally, the sentence

  Rape causes tens of thousands of women to become pregnant each year.

  could be cited to show that every year this occurs, otherwise it is a general statement without verification that can be removed per WP:BURDEN.

Let the readers decide if 5% is "rare", and let us not force our opinions upon the reader.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

5% is around the same rate as concenual sex on any randomn day. People don't become pregnant from "normal" sex every time they have it. It depends on the time of month for the female, how fertile both the male and female are, etc. Casprings (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Does the article state what Caspring has stated above, or are there RSs that support Caspring's statement?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I can provide them. I am busy today, so give me a little time.Casprings (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

here is one quick source before I go. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120313-sex-in-the-city-or-elsewhere

There are a wide wide range of biological factors that effect pregnancy. That said, the article estimates a 1 in 20 chance of pregnancy occurring from any particular act of sex.11:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Should note, the 1 in 20 number is for a young couple. Clealy that will change with age.Casprings (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source that medical estimates for pregnancy from a one time sexual encounter are 5% . Could include this statistic in the note. http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims . Casprings (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The information for non-US studies should not be included as this is a US specific issue. What is the rational for including non-US studies. Arzel (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the US isn't the only country populated by humans? Or that the political comments didn't say "pregnancy from rape is rare in the United States? Both are possible answers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Roscoe Bartlett

See for primary discussion Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Roscoe_Bartlett_.2A.2F_major_BLP_violations_Requires_tag_and.2For_deletion What are the issues, if any, with WP:NOV in the Roscoe Bartlett[edit] Section?Casprings (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually meant it for the other section for which I have returned the tag. Arzel (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the above, extensive section justifying the Bartlett tag, unrelated to your tag on "wider impact"--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues were discussed. No other editor saw an issue. Moreover, the section was motified based on some input. What needs to be changed now in your opinion?Casprings (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please address the major WP:BLP issues, as required for inclusion of any related material, at the entry for "Roscoe Bartlett */ major BLP violations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous209.6 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

They have been addressed or discussed. What issues or edits, in particular, are still needing consensus?Casprings (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Has someone already mentioned that the Democratic robocalls we cite preceded Bartlett's comments? They're about Bartlett being in the same party as Akin, not about his comments. [1] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

YES!!!!! For criminy's sake; there ARE NO WP:RS, except a different WaPo citation that says Bartlett was targeted IN SPITE of saying nothing that was in any way controversial or like Akin. And for good measure

• Staff (August 30, 2012). "Rape, Abortion Debate Fuels 6th District Race". Gazette.Net. - The local paper, and a WP:RS, BUT BUT BUT - says nothing about the TP attack quote, and for good reason - it was published 14 hours BEFORE the *(Y^&%^% town hall.
• Volsky, Igor (September 1, 2012). "Maryland Congressman Says 'Few Pregnancies' Result From Rape". Think Progress. Center for American Progress Action Fund. - a pure attack piece, no way can ever be considered WP:RS, and completely falsifies what Bartlett says - and without which, no controversy (the controversy IS the false allegations BY TP!!!!)
• "MD Congressman in Tight Race Steps into Rape/Abortion Debacle". Ms. Magazine. September 4, 2012. - not in mag, but in "Feminist blog" online - not a WP:RS, not factual - that and TP are the entire basis for this BLP-violation-on-wheels section.
• Pershing, Ben (August 27, 2012). "Bartlett Targeted by Democrats Over Views on Abortion, Rape". The Washington Post. - WP:RS, but deals only with the PRIOR set of false allegations (that Bartlett opposed rape and incest exceptions) by TP, the Maryland Democratic party, MMfA, etc. Bartlett's opponenet had to recognize that this AND the Town Hall crap was untrue, but later sent a more vague set of robocalls out anyway.

That is the whole basis for this garbage that you have been defending- congrats for finally checking a ref.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

and, sorry, YES, the WP story that you looked at WAS published 3 days BEFORE the alleged "controversy", and (WaPo not known for clairvoyance) thus does not refer to the attack quote. Thanks for acknowledging.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I haven't been "defending" anything because I only just checked out those sources. The Bartlett discussion was not one I was involved in until now. You don't need to assume bad faith of everyone you disagree with. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

While the sentiment was correct,[[2]] the tone may have been harsh. I do give you credit for acknowledging that the Bartlett section needed deleting (as per the BLP section, up for over a month), and for reading the refs, and hope this ends the issue for good.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP was not a concern. The section simply was not germane to the article. (You'll observe that my linked edit was a response to your behavior in trying to maintain a permanent tag, not to the content.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues with Wider impact Section

What are the NPOV issues, if any, with the wider impact section. Casprings (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not my tag, but I believe that at least one is already being discussed above; the change in the gender gap (that did not happen).--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, no user or source is arguing a change in the gender gap vis-à-vis 2008. Rather, the sources have pointed out, for instance, that these issues critically affected the women's vote in swing states. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have such commentary, that links Rape and Pregnancy with Presidential results in swing states, I would certainly look at it, but that is not what is presently in the article section. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's from the CNN source, which is cited both in the lede and in "Wider impact." Reading the sources before making claims about what is in them: not a novel concept. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"How Women Ruled the 2012 Election and Where the GOP Went wrong". CNN. does in fact mention mention that, as with the National polls, Obama won the women's vote in Ohio, but as with the national polls, as much discussed, it neither connects the poll data to any specific issue, stating that economic issues were the prime motivator, and similarly does not show any CHANGE in the women's vote, thus does not demonstrate, or try to demonstrate any effect (effect needs change). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous209.6 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So long as the impression is given that the vote % in 2012 was due to these events than this tag shall remain. Arzel (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

since that is a clear point of dispute, I would like an RFC.Casprings (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2013‎ (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, no, that's emphatically not how it works. A permanent tag is not a "Plan B" for when you've failed to convince the community that changes need to be made. As I said, the CNN source identifies economic issues as more of a factor, but explicitly and specifically states that the rape comments showed the Republicans out of touch with women and that "social issues" swung some states. Going into other sources, the Politico op-ed (from a conservative) identifies these rape issues as a reason people voted for Obama over Romney. Other sources which I went and looked for break down the vote further, eg. [3], showing that single women voted for Obama over reproductive rights issues. (Similar to the vote as a whole, this isn't a significant change from 2008, and similar again, that doesn't matter because a. the analysis of reliable sources matters more than your own personal analysis and b. you don't appear to understand the statistics anyway.) Or point out that in the runup to the election, abortion was identified as the most important issue in swing states. [4] You're not required to agree, but threatening to edit-war the tag back in indefinitely is a bad idea. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There is discussion above that is unresolved. The RfC I started was removed as Casprings knows. I have already provided severable reliable sources that present the information relative to 2008, that you do not want them in is the relevant NPOV issue. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is normal not to wish to include material that violates core policies like WP:NOR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll: whether ANY polling data should be included

Should we include any polling data? This has been under dispute for some time. The previous RfC discussed whether the 2008 results (which showed the same or greater percentage of Women Vote in 2008) should be included. Several editors ended up discussing whether any poll data should be included as a means to prove that these events had an effect on the 2012 election. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose all results

• Endorse The inclusion of poll results to support the position that these events had an effect is very similar to original research. Casprings, in particular, has been trying to prove for several months that these events had an effect and has been adamant about including these results to prove that position. It is not the place of WP to promote a point of view. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse with qualification Just to be clear; endorsement ONLY of no gender gap quotes. The gender gap was mentioned in sloppy reports; but, as has been exhaustively hashed out, it has been a fixture of electoral politics, and declined in 2012, thus no "wider effect".

Do NOT include in this the mostly OK exit polls about attitudes and issues; there is attitudinal polling done in Missouri that indicates Akin's comments were on the minds of Missouri voters, and that SHOULD be in the Akin section. That needs to be balanced, as per WP:NPOV with the equally valid data that Missouri remains solidly pro-life, and that attitudes to Akin and his suitability did NOT change the overall issue makeup of the Missouri electorate. Not a "wider effect".--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Support 2012

Endorse Source after source have connected this issue to the women's vote. Many of those sources have also used the 2012 exit polls. This provides information to the reader in a WP:NPOV way. It is backed up by WP:RS and is WP:NPOV. Also, we have already had one RfC on the subject. The consensus is there.Casprings (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to the RfC? I would like to read it. Thanks. Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The RfC was not objectively worded; it was framed as a useless debate on whether using polls of the 2008 election IN ISOLATION could be justified. No-one has ever advocated using 2008 poll data IN ISOLATION, nor has it ever been used IN ISOLATION. Consensus nevertheless gelled around a different answer to a different question; if it is being claimed that the 2012 gender gap was a new phenomenon, and due to 2012-specific issues, can you cite the overwhelming statistical evidence that it is not? The historical gender gap did not increase in 2012, but DEcreased. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

HereCasprings (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The other RfC was on the 2012 numbers. The fact is, muliple WP:RS do use the 2012 numbers. It isn't myself that thinks it is proper context, it is muliple WP:RS. No one is making the argument the gender gap is new. However, what is being argued agaist is the use of the 2008 and 2012 to form an argument based on WP:SYN, when a WP:RS doesn't make that argument.Casprings (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

When you don't ask valid questions you don't get valid consensus, or get consensus on non-issues. This is the first objectively worded RfC that has been posted. Rape issues did not produce a major move of women TOWARD the Democrat party (an issue produces a CHANGE in established voting patterns - this did not), NPOV requires that if someone supposes that they might have, to get to NPOV, there has to be a rebuttal. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, instead of representing the arguments in WP:RS, you are making making your own arguments. That is not your place. If I were making an argument, I would argue that the issue allowed the President to keep a gender gap (that was extermly large in 2008), despite a host of factors that might make women vote for Romney. For example, the economy was still doing badly. It is impossiable to know the causal effect of this event on the women's vote. However, if a WP:RS uses the 2012 number as context, than it is useable here.Casprings (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not supportable The traditional gender gap (which is all we are talking about) was part of many elections, not just 2008. Discussion of the traditional gender gap vis-a-vis the issues in the 2012 election has to explain why the gender gap moved ever so slightly in favor of Republicans. One has basically two reasonable explanations, first, that the issues discussed had no global effect, or second, (credit Roscelese) that there was an incipient stampede of women voters toward Republicans that was halted by the Democrat's obsession with rape. None of your refs make the case. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Both 2008 and 2012, or neither

Endorse: without the proper context, including only the 2012 data is misleading. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Endorse The best option for talk of the longstanding gender gap. Sloppy commentary that the gender gap is new and/or related to "rape issues" have to be followed with the generally good statistical evidence that they didn't. Best just not to go down this hole.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've had to remove sections for including both 2008 and 2012. This is not an option; the previous, very recent RFC established a consensus that inclusion of the 2008 results was policy-noncompliant synthesis and therefore undesirable, and trying to use an RFC on another issue to sneak them back in is acting in bad faith against the community. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of other editors' comments is considered disruptive. CUT IT OUT!!!!!--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC on the 2008 number can be found here.

Consensus can change, and the information about 2008 is what makes the information worth including. Plus, we have a reliable source that does the comparison for us, so it's not synthesis or original research. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, or, to put it another way, to say issues have an effect, you have to talk about an EFFECT, namely, a change, and thus the simple statement of gender gap is like saying the baseball score is 3.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus check

What are the results about telling us at this point? At the very least, it appears that the only position that lacks good support is the one that wants 2012 data only. How should we proceed? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 → Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States politics – There have been muliple comments coming after the election. Each comments is compared, in some fashsion, to the 2012 election events. Allow this move, would allow the easier intergration of these additional comments. This is a logical move based on events that have occured. The page itself would not have to change much, but this is a logical expansion of the page. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 12:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Casprings (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, as the danger is that this will simply become a coatrack for any and all commentary the media chooses to align to Todd Akin. Better to keep them attached to actual elections, thus being able to show a cause/effect relationship. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This article doesn't seem to cover any rape or pregnancy controversies in United States elections or politics regardless of year. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Casprings simply desires to have a dedicated attack article for any year. Arzel (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Was the attack questioning WP:Good Faith needed?Casprings

• Support, for reasons which I have stated elsewhere on the talk page. The very small time scope of the article and the heavy focus of left-leaning reliable sources to focus on non-democrat candidates during the limited time scope of the article has made this article, intentionally, or unintentionally, into an attack page against non-democrat politicians.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Except for local politics in Wisconsin, (and the Romeo and Juliet exception issue isn't discussed anywhere in this article) there really aren't major rape and pregnancy issues being debated, or at least, if there are issues, and should be debated (and there are), they are already covered by issue articles, where they belong. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Obviously the issue is continuing and therefore still needs to be documented here. Rather than splitting up the same subject into separate articles by what amounts to an arbitrary Jan. 1 - Dec. 31 system, we should just rename the article and keep all the information in the same article. The subject is about an issue, not precisely where it gained prominence, especially since what became obvious then is obviously continuing and being noticed by the press. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• The precise problem with this article and its expansion is that it is resolutely NOT about actual ISSUES. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• It really depends on whether someone intends to add material. Rape and pregnancy controversies go back hundreds of years, they didn't start in 2012. Whoever wants to change it should create a good outline page, including a number of WP:RS of material they want to add and then propose what to do about it. And let's not forget to add Bill Clinton's alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick to that article. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Carolmooredc's comment - the name change is ill considered, as it opens the article up to hundreds of years where issues of rape or pregnancy might have played roles in elections (several Presidential candidates have been accused of having illegitimate children, fears of Indian attack included reference to rape and pregnancy, though press standards were a little lax). Virtually everything presently in this article would be deleted under WP:UNDUE. Not saying that is good or bad, but this isn't really a MOVE being proposed, or if it is (ie if there IS an idea behind it for a small adjustment of the article) it doesn't follow from the title proposed. The title as proposed would be a totally different article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Roscoe Bartlett */ major BLP violations Requires tag and/or deletion

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)

NO; what you put in the article was false. The CONTROVERSY was that, in fact, the attack blogs SAID he was opposed to rape exceptions, when he said the opposite. Attack blogs SAID he said that women can't get pregnant after rape, when he said the opposite. You fail to include that question, fail to identify any comment that actually IS controversial, and then fail to say what the bloom of attack emails were about- two (main) UTTERLY FALSE ACCUSATIONS about what he said. That is ALL of the alleged "controversy" Anonymous209.6 (talk 13:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, WP:RS did not report that Roscoe Bartlett made "controversial" comments, only that IN SPITE of making no slip-ups, he was followed and attacked by State and national Democrat/Progressive organizations, and that several implications made BY THOSE (non-WP:RS) sources were provocative but false. Repeating false accusations or partisan "opinions" as if they were factual, particularly by mis-attribution is an egregious violation both of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Does this article actually cover any rapes and pregnancies in the US elections, 2012?

Is it just me, or does this article not cover a single rape or pregnancy in the US elections, 2012? Rather, this article seems to be about comments about rape and pregnancy, which, of course, are completely different than actual rape and pregnancy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, no--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

One. however, the pont of the move request was to change the focus of the article and expand it.Casprings (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@Casprings: Can you please elaborate? Who was raped/impregnated and by whom? If it was rape, was there a conviction in a court of law? Please remember that WP:BLP applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Its pretty clear from the first sentence what the article was about. It is about comments that create a controversy.Casprings (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty clear from this article that is really just a place to attack the comments of Republicans. Arzel (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@Casprings: My point is that article is mistitled. It is not about rapes and pregnancies, it's about comments about rapes and pregnancies. I could be mistaken, but I believe that this article use to have a better name (but perhaps I'm confusing it with a similar article). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I fail to understand your point. The controversies are about real rapes and pregnancies in the United States, and the consequences thereof. I can't help but feel that you're trying to make a "point" here, especially since you've not suggested a better title. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, answering both the "Republican" and the "comments" question, it really isn't even about "comments", but about "accusations". Except for Akin, we aren't necessarily talking about comments that are inherently controversial. The controversies are by and large accusations by Democrats/attack blogs that either what was said was controversial, or that a candidate said something they didn't. If something is inherently conttoversial, you can, under WP:NPOV, simply title it controversy x. If what is controversial is whether someone said something, or accusations of what they meant, then you can't title a section "controversial comment", as that is only one side of a dispute. It would be far more accurate to list "Dan Parker false accusation" controversy, "TPM/Think Progress/MMfA false accusation controversy', etc. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So Akin's comments are "inherently controversial" because they went further than you personally are comfortable with, but the rest aren't because you or your friends might agree with them? No, that's foolish. They are controversial because reliable sources documented controversy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@Orange Mike: First, there's nothing wrong with uninvolved editors pointing out a problem in an article. There is no requirement that a fix must be suggested. Indeed, such feedback should be welcomed. In any case, since you asked, the article used to be titled "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy" back when it was just about Todd Akin's rape and pregnancy comment.[5] How about "Rape and pregnancy comment controversies in United States elections, 2012"? It's wordy, but at least it's accurate. AFAIK, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock and the others mentioned in the article didn't rape or impregnate anyone. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• @A Quest for Knowledge. I understand, but disagree with your point. I don't think one needs to add another word to the title and make it longer. I think it enough for the reader. One could argue for a longer and longer title. Such as having the names of the people involved in the title. However, I think the title is enough that a person looking for the information in the article would go to this article and I think it is WP:NPOV. I don't think anything else is really needed. Casprings (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The original article was specific to Akin. That article failed AfD and was recreated by Casprings to include Akin et al. Arzel (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@Casprings: I'm sorry, but substance is more important than style. The current article title is misleading: AFAIK, none of the politicians listed in the article raped or impregnated anyone. Lest I remind you, these are living people that are in this article. If you and I cannot agree on this, that's fine. I'd like to hear from other editors whether or not they think the article title is inaccurate or misleading. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the article title does imply that. It simply basically says, "here is an article concerning rape and pregnancy in the 2012 election". I don't think someone would naturally think it evolves a list of people that raped someone. That said, I am not terrible hard up on this. Adding "comment " is less preferred, but if others feel strongly, absolutely add it.Casprings (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is about controversies about comments (during the fall 2012 U.S. election campaign) about the relationship, or in some cases the alleged lack thereof, between rape and pregnancy. That's a bit long and awkward for a title, though. I think in this case, the choice is really between a long and awkward title and a shorter but still awkward title, and what we have is the latter. If people read the article they can see what it is about, which I realize is not an optimal situation. In a perfect world people could tell with precision what every article is about, just from the title. I think that is true for most articles, but there are always going to be exceptions due to the complexity of the subject matter, and I think this is one of those instances. Neutron (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutron inadvertently brings up a bigger problem, namely the complete inappropriate and WP:OR nature of the "Background" section. There was one, and only one, person referred to in this article, that in 2012 expressed Todd Akin's belief on pregnancy and rape; and that was Todd Akin. It was odd, universally condemned, universally called wrong, and a WP:FRINGE view. The Background section cannot possibly be argued to have anything to do with anyone but Akin, and that, tangentially (a DIFFERENT WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problem, but not the one Neutron brings up). --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In deference to A Quest For Knowledge, please keep responses to this post in the NEXT section Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And in reference to AQFK's question, Sen Robert Menendez? Look it up. I would say don't include, but that is me.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR - SPECIFICALLY, is it WP:OR to state in WP's voice that 1980s WP:FRINGE theories that ONLY relate in any way to ONE section (Todd Akin) also are necessary to understand Mourdock, Bartlett, Smith, Rivard, Walsh, Koster?

Conversations on the general topic of the present Background section are a total mess. They are spread out all over WP, instead of kept together, and have unrelated issues and questions mashed in. Anything resembling consensus is difficult to fathom, and this is complicated by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH being in fact SEVERAL issues. While as per the closing admin above, and several independent editors, WP:OR looks pretty obvious, also per closing admin, the argument has not been adequately fleshed out, in specific; to some extent it has just been stated as obvious. Similarly, while a consensus has been correctly claimed, it is actually NOT on the issue of WP:OR, but unhelpfully on the issue of WP:RS, which was not in question. All original research (in the real world), and WP:OR actually involves some references; that is not the issue. WP:OR does not just imply the absence of WP:RS, but includes statements by placement, in this case, stating that information is Background, namely that it is essential to an understanding of the subject material.

The Background section is presently the Background section of the WHOLE ARTICLE. While some editors claim that the material relates to Todd Akin (only one section of many), there has yet to be an argument that it relates to any other section. A previously uninvolved editor coming to the article would be led to believe that ALL persons named in the article have been directly linked by WP:RS to 1980s WP:FRINGE theories on female reproduction, because by making this the Background section, that is de facto stated IN WP's VOICE. No article connects Richard Mourdock to 1980s WP:FRINGE theories. Richard Mourdock did not say anything about 1980s WP:FRINGE theories. WP:FRINGE theories are not necessary, nor do they add anything to an understanding of what Richard Mourdock did or did not say. Substitute any name for Richard Mourdock, except that of Todd Akin, and you have the same rhetorical question; is stating that this background section is essential to understand _____ and directly connected to ____, as it's existence does, WP:OR, or is it stated in WP:RS. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The background section has been discussed. [[6]]

Why do you continue to distort what others say? The closing admin said this:

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.

The bolding is mine. So when you say,

While as per the closing admin above, and several independent editors, WP:OR looks pretty obvious

The bolding is mine. Do you mean to distort the truth or do you simply not understand what another has written?Casprings (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't actually see a response or an argument there, just WP:PA. I will take that as meaning there is no justification for WP:OR. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that it isn't WP:OR and gives background information for these comments, there is no justification needed. It provides the reader with historical information in a way consistent with WP:NPOV.Casprings (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That is yet again, another non-answer. Please formulate arguments, and address the questions asked.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the close of the last RFC on the subject, "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)." The background section provides important information to the reader for understanding the totality of the subject, not just Akin. Understanding the history of comments on rape and Preganancy is important for the reader. Moreover, the section is done in accordance with WP:NPOV. I don't see that you have offered any arguments as to why that isn't true.Casprings (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Beyond acknowledging that the Background is not related to the Article sections (as required), that still isn't an answer. In what way does 1980s WP:FRINGE theories on biology relate to, for instance, a malapropism in a dicussion of Romeo and Juliet exceptions? The obvious answer is "none", and therefore it is NOT Background for that section. I look forward for your argument, any argument that it is. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing the background section. However, I will not discuss it, if you will continue to distort what I and others said. I never acknowledged "that the Background is not related to the Article sections" Mainly, because I don't believe that. I think it provides relavent information for the whole article, as it gives some history of related comments on rape and pregnancy. If you won't at least acknowledge what I actually stated, I cannot have a logical discussion with you.Casprings (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You really aren't discussing and you really aren't being logical; you are cutting and pasting chunks of text from other Talk page sections (BTW; this is disruptive and does not add - please stop), and are doing so as a SUBSTITUTE for making an argument. The section you quoted of another editors entry was about the limited inclusion, WITHIN a Background section, of items "not directly related to the topic". --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The background section is the most obvious example of an attempt to present a research paper on WP. I am glad that you are bringing this back because it has never been adequately addressed. Some appear to beleive that some OR is required in order to set up the following sections. Arzel (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was addressed, with an RFC and a close. The section provides important background information. It is important for the whole article that the thought that rape prevented preganancy is something with roots in American Politics. This is relavent from Akin to the last comments defending that concept.Casprings (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

To Arzel; thanks for the encouraging words, but I am not strictly bringing "back" anything. A valid criticism of previous discussions of the general topic was that it involved multiple issues, which were jumbled together, never individually teased out. Trying to stick to the very narrowly defined, specific question, and get clear answers; would appreciate input on THIS question in isolation.

To Casprings; as with Arzel, please stick to the topic, and the very specific question being discussed. NO RfC addressed this question, not that the multiple RfC, motions, etc. actually neutrally addressed questions (a little junk in, junk out) in general. The idea that the Background is background of ANY kind is a valid question, but not the one we are discussing. The "concept" you refer to extends from Akin and ends with Akin. If it is Background (debatable, but a VERY different question), it is Background to the Akin section only. Anonymous209.6 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6, do you have a specific suggestion for changes to the article? — goethean 21:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously, this limited question only addresses whether the Background section is background for the WHOLE article. The minimal result if consensus is reached would be changing the Article Background section to a Section background. Truth in advertising, there is the separate question (without prejudice to whether the information should be INCLUDED) of whether the material in Background for a Section is then background or commentary, but that is a different question.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If the issue is rather the background section is background for Akin or the whole article, I would argue that it is background for the whole article. First, this provides background for all the comments, by the mere fact that this is the background that these comments took place in. In other words, rather we are talking about Akin, who directly made a comment like those in the background section or Joe Walsh, who said technology makes abortion not needed, these comments provide relevant information on pervious thought and comments on abortion, pregnancy and rape. Simply because the comments are not the exact same, does not mean that the comments are not background. They provide important background to understand the context of these comments.
Another point is that many of these comments are actually directly related. For example, Rep. Phil Gingrey said Akin's comments were "partly right" when he said women's bodies can avoid pregnancy in cases of rape. This is not simply related to Akin comments, but directly relates to the background of the article. This relates to comments from Mourdock and others, who were responding to not only Akin, but the arguments represented in the background. Thus, the background section is needed to understand the context of the article. Moreover, it is presented in a way consistent with WP:NPOV. It is therefore not, WP:OR. Casprings (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That whole previous entry is utterly unintelligible gibberish. The Background section presently has material that ONLY relates to Akin, no-one else, except other commentary directly ON Akin (Gingrey is an Akin RESPONSE, and is not IN the Background). Walsh said nothing about about rape at all (and thus has no reason for mention in this article AT ALL), and certainly made no reference to any 1980s fringe theories on reproductive biology.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit is without consensus. No other editor has agreed with you. Please self revert and gain consensus. If need be, we can take this to WP:ORN and get some more outside opinions.Casprings (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, this very specific, very limited WP:OR question was asked NOW, as a result of Neutron's comment above. Neutron mistakenly stated that somehow, Mourdock commented on female biology and WP:FRINGE theories (which he obviously didn't), though there are no WP:RS that say that, that Bartlett (section already deleted for WP:BLP violations), Smith, Koster, Rivard, Walsh (now condensed into a single section) all asserted some 1970s WP:FRINGE theory, even though they did not, nor do any WP:RS say they did. By virtue of the Background section being the Background section for the whole article, the article said, in WP's voice that they did, just as Neutron erroneously asserted. There is not a singe WP:RS that said this, it is entirely both wrong and a construction of a WP editor alone, the very definition of WP:OR. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

They were all responding to Akin comments and making comments concerning rape and pregancy. Providing context for the article is important. As such, providing a section on background, is essential. That section should cover the pervious comments and their roots, which is does. It does so in a non-neutral way.Casprings (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Declarative Statements

One must be careful when making declarative statements of fact. Such as, X is true, Y is false, when dealing with a statistical question. The statement that pregnancy from rape does not happen is proven to be false as empirical evidence exists to prove this statement to be false. However, the statement that pregnancy from rape is rare cannot be proven to be false or true as this is a statistical question. The two sources being used in this section do not make that declarative statement with statistical proof, and even then the wording would have to be phrased differently. It is possible that pregnancy from rape is rare, and until evidence contradicts this proposition we cannot include a declarative statement which supports null (ie pregnancy from rape is not statistically different than regular pregnancy). And even then the statement would have to be phrased a little different to support the statistical results. Arzel (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you use a cite the is current for the whole story. Second, I think we can add back the explanatory note that provides some of the evidence and science behind the statement.Casprings (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you rephrase your question. I am not sure I understand your first sentence. Arzel (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The cite. It is just a link. I can update it, but I was also writing about placing a note back in that would provide the science behind the statement.Casprings (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about the science, this article is about how the statements (regardless of their truth) impacted the 2012 election. If you want to discuss the science in depth, go the approriate article and work with it there. Arzel (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is about providing useful context to the reader. That is what the note does. Moreover, it supports the sentence. Casprings (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No this is about you trying to provide a research paper to attack republicans. I provided a previous compromise and you have worked against it consistantely. Arzel (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Why the continued attacks? 2. I didn't know that if you reworded a sentence, that the discussion and the editing ended. 3. How does that note an attack on republicans. That makes no sense at all.Casprings (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

RESTART; I think Arzel brings up a good point. This article repeatedly uses the word "rare", but changes meaning without giving context. It is not (and I particularly refer to the lede paragraph) that Akin said pregnancy from rape is RARE. That could mean just about anything, and 5% likelihood could be considered "rare", without context. The problem is that Akin said that women shut "all that" down, and that pregnancy was almost impossible from rape, and the "rare" was compared to conventual reproduction. The declarative statement that he just said "rare" isn't accurate, and the statement that it is provably "not rare" similarly cannot be made declaratively, whereas the statement that Akin's understanding of female biology during/after rape IS false CAN be made, and can be covered under WP:FRINGE.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Akin, at least according to most sources, was implying that pregancy was much less likly or not possiable if one was raped. Thats the problem with his statement. Casprings (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Steve King Paragraph

There is no consensus to remove the paragraph on Steve King. While it was edit warred out a few days ago, I have returned it. If you want it removed, please get consensus to remove it. Casprings (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We had it down to a quick sentence before, what changed? Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we had it down to what it is, if you look at the edit history and the changes. This paragraph represents what was said on the subject in a fair and neutral way. It was edit warred out without consensus, if you look at the above discussion on it.Casprings (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, was coming back to revert myself, but misunderstood the passage we were talking about. My bad. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please STOP trying to separate divide discussion threads. Paragraph was removed for BLP concerns, and with consensus. Re-insertion of BLP-violating content is WP:EW and has no consensus of any kind. The sentence that remained in the Akin responses section was ONLY the response, not the false intimation of WP editor Casprings that King believed Akin's biological assertion to be correct. If you want to find BLP discussions, they are under BLP discussions. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You have again removed the King comment without any concensus (and did many other edits). The King comment is well sourced and represented what he said and the question he was asked. It is not a BLP violation.Casprings (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Bartlett

I disagree with this deletion of Bartlett's comments because they might well have been the cause of the ten-term incumbent's loss. I also think it's a mistake to abridge the narrative so much. A lot of the deleted material includes very salient explanation. EllenCT (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we'd need a reliable source that attributes Bartlett's loss to the comments. In the edit you link, I shortened some material because the candidates were set to lose anyway so there was no evident effect; however, Bartlett's were the only comments I quite removed, not because of his loss, but rather because the comments were barely covered. The Democratic robocalls aligning him with Akin happened before he made the comments. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what point EllenCT is trying to make, but re: the loss, the Bartlett seat attracted very little national coverage because it was widely believed to be over before it started. The MD Legislature enacted a very controversial redistricting plan to maximize the number of Dems elected, and Bartlett's was the Congressional District that was most played with. With respect to reportage, the false attacks pretty much began and ended with the usual suspects; non-WP:RS partisan attack "blogs" like TPM, ThinkProgress, etc., mostly because there was no "there" there. While I am sure there was much private polling done, the race never provoked release of poll results with narrative; the closest thing to a reaction to attacks was his opponent's apology on behalf of the Md Democratic Party.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That is fine. They were not covered as much as the other comments.Casprings (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Could we please discuss the changes you are making throughout the article?

It should be clear I don't agree with them. As such, lets discuss these changes. Again, I think a moderated discussion would be a good route to take.Casprings (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Any editor wishing to understand my edits can read the clear, specific edit summaries, or the extensive constructive explanation and discussion, with specific argument at the appropriate Talk page section. Please refer to them. Filing RfCs, ANIs, ANs, or other non-neutral or misleading motions is NOT a substitute for rational arguments on Talk page. Further, when BLP violations are brought up they MUST be addressed, and are not subject to votes.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could outline what BLP violations are in the article and why they are BLP violations.Casprings (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You continue to make wholesale changes to the article without concensus. Please stop and return to the talk page. These are not BLP violations and are well sourced.Casprings (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent(User:Anonymous209.6) edit 1 continues to add POV to the article. Please discuss language before making changes that, at this point, you should know are controvorsial. In this case, the language is clearly meant to be sympathetic Mourdock, instead of presenting neutral text in the way that the article presents it. I would ask you to self revert and discuss some comprimise language.Casprings (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute

Anonymous209.6 has made serveral edits, with two in particular, that are in dispute. The first is an edit that made, what was formally the article's background section, into the background section of the Akin section. 1. The second is an edit that removed a paragraph on Rep. King. 2. The talk page discussion is at a standstill, but relavent conversations are: For the background, here and here. For the Rep. King section, relavent conversations are here and here. The question of the RfC is simple. Should Anonymous209.6's edits remain or should the article return to the orginal text?Casprings (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It had four refs, so I put it back. MilesMoney (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Fist, MilesMoney, welcome to Wikipedia. The King material, contrary to the impression you might get from Caspring's obtuse new sections (obtuse as in pretending the issues weren't extensively hashed out in preceding sections) has been exhaustively discussed, and is a violation of WP:BLP. Further, you have to be particularly careful when dealing with BLP-violating material; unlike NPOV or WP:OR, which are context-specific, BLP issues "port" from page to page, so, for instance, deleting a section for WP:BLP means it ALSO cannot be put into another section. The references also cannot simply exist, they also have to be WP:RS, and ThinkProgress, TPM, Maddowblog, etc are inherently NOT WP:RS, nor are reports of what they say, unless they are taken as examples of opinion, not fact.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no WP:BLP problem with this edit. It is well sourced and provides the context for what King was discussing (Medicade). No other editor has stated that they saw a problem with BLP, yet you continue to remove the edit. Instead of insulting me, please take part a constructive discussion to find a comprimise.Casprings (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre attribution of opinion columns (WP:RS opinion??) to whole publication ( used as WP:RS fact, or WP:RS opinion of editorial board)

This verges on WP:BLP, since the WP editor's construction implies quotes "certifying" that comments are "controversial" are the work of whole magazines, or statements of fact, when they are in fact rather partisan opinion pieces by indidviduals only marginally WP:RS for OPINIONS only. It is a really odd and clear mis-attribution, even stranger since it happens TWICE in this article, and only on this article.

First is in the few sentences on Tom Smith, where he said counseling his daughter was similar to how he would counsel a rape victim;

Salon magazine said, "If you believe pregnancy from rape and pregnancy from sex out of marriage are "similar," then you implicitly believe that the problem with rape is that it's non-sanctioned sexual activity, as opposed to a crime against a woman's person."

The author is self-described feminist blogger Irin Carmon, WRITING IN Salon. Let's assume she is sufficiently notable; still have to properly attribute, and Salon magazine did NOT write this blurb. It is an opinion, and an obscure one; you have to attribute it to its author, feminist blogger Irin Carmon, or not use it.

The other is in the Koster section

US News and World Report connected Koster's comments to Akin and Mourdock's by saying, "The [Republican] insults may also have an ironic backlash. Ryan, Akin, Mourdock, and Koster are poster boys for the need for more women in Congress, so Republican attacks on women may mean the election of more women."

The construction is even worse, though to my mind, the author, Brad Bannon is more notable. Problem is, again, that USNWR did NOT write the article, it is an "inside the campaign" piece, and Bannon is a campaign strategist and adviser, most particularly (so I don't quite know how this passed USNWR's conflict-of-interest policies) for liberal Democrats, and Koster's Democratic opponent. The only cogent objection I have heard to proper attribution to Democrat strategist and campaign adviser Brad Bannon is the previous moniker of "activist", which, while true (Bannon cut his teeth as an activist in MA), isn't current.

--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

First, you have 5 sources before the ones you mention. They all talk about the comments and connect it to the election.

• Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith tangled up over rape and abortion
• Smith makes Abortion Gaffe
• Clout: Did Pa. GOP Senate hopeful join Todd Akin club?
• The Fruits of Todd Akin: Pennsylvania Edition
• Politician: Rape Pregnancy Is Like Having Illegitimate Baby

It than goes into a statement that was printed in Salon magazine on the subject. I fail to see the problem with the statements on Tom Smith. The woman was writting for the magazine and they published it. That is fine. I think adding decriptors to the writter (feminist, democrat, etc) is simply a means to discount the sentence and put WP:POV into the article. What salon printed is fine on its own. Casprings (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6, you continue to edit over the objections of other editors. This edit is without consensus. Please stop and take part in a discussion.Casprings (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

UserAnonymous209.6 , the edit on Rep. King is without support of any other editor. The edit you removed contains the full context of his statement and does so in a neutral way. I again invite you to propose other wording and discuss this. It seems that you are removing the information simply because you don't like it.Casprings (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Returning to the subject of the section, please Neither Salon nor USNWR authored any quotes in the article. The bizarre attribution violates WP:MOS "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named", and WP:RS. One of the keys to NPOV is proper attribution, which is why the bizarre attribution of partisan opinions or spin to publications in general, rather than the authors, and who they are, violates this principle. It also represents Opinion as fact, another egregious violation of NPOV, and thus probably WP:BLP. Please stick to the topic of this section. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Both authors, Brad Bannon and Irin Carmon are columnist for US News and Salon, respectively. Bannon's work can be seen here and Carmon work can be seen here. They are writing columns for both US News and Salon. I would have no problem, however, mentioning the authors. For example, Brad Bannon, writing in US News and World Reports, stated..... What I would have a problem is, is adding modifications to their names, to discount the fact that this analysis was in a WP:RS source. For example, Feminist Democrat Irin Carmon wrote in Salon that ........ . These analysis are in WP:RS. They should not be build up or discounted with language. They should simply stand on their on.Casprings (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is unusual to mention the paper, required that the AUTHOR be attributed. Neither writer is particularly noteworthy, so both really NEED a descriptor, but to fail to mention that the sole emphatically critical opinion is coming from someone working for the candidate's political opponent is emblematic of the editorial problems and editor behavior problems this lousy article represents.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think my arguments are sound and based on a wish to keep a neutral point of view. I see no point in responding to your accusations involving my conduct. If you wish to follow that line there are avenues such as arbitration. However I wish to keep this discussion focused on content. At this point I suggest your participation in discussion going on at the dispute resolution noticeboard.Casprings (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Willke quotebox

This doesn't seem to be compliant with WP:Close paraphrasing#Quotation of non-free text. I suggest that relevant portions be summarized and integrated into the background section. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

anchor

I dont know how to do that anchor thing. Can someone fix it up so that Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy gets redirected to the right section if the section title here gets changed again? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It does now. Casprings (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Should this article be reshaped and renamed

In a recent attempt to promote the article to WP:FA, it was suggested that the was WP:Coatrack. The article does go into many comments that would not be WP:notable, if not for the comments by Akin and Murdock. However, with that statement, the Akin and Murdock comments remain note worthy. Not only did they tip two Senate races, but it is still part of the political discussion in the United States. A google news search of "legitimate rape", demonstrates that fact. That said, what would be the thoughts of changing the article to only discuss Akin's and Mourdock's comments and any wider impact. Moreover, one could rename the article. Perhaps, Rape comments in United States Senate elections, 2012. That title would narrow the focus of the article and perhaps move the article passed criticisms concerning WP:Coatrack. At that point, the article could perhaps make it to WP:FA. Thoughts? Thanks in advance. Casprings (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we've all done a pretty good job of cleaning up a lot of the really tangential stuff. However, the ones we've left standing in "other controversial remarks" do tie in; news sources used them as part of the story of GOP candidates saying silly things about rape. Is that what you're suggesting removing, or is there something else? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That section is the majority of what I am talking about removing. They do relate, but it is a fair argument to suggest they are not very noteworthy. My major aim is to gain consensus to get the article to WP:FA, and this seems to be the only way I can see.Casprings (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what this has to do with notability. The notability guidelines are about whether or not a topic should have an article, not whether an article should include a topic. As WP:Notability states: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content." The test we should be applying is whether or not the content is relevant to the topic, not whether or not it is notable. Kaldari (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, it is not Wikipedia editors creating any "coatrack" - professional analysts keep connecting the dots and hanging more coats on Akin and Murdock. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats basically what I am saying. I think it is difficult to deny the importance of Akin and Mourdock's comments. I think it is the others that some people have issues with. I really don't have an issue with the material. However, if there is an issue with the article, it is with that.Casprings (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to write an article about the Civil Rights Movement that only covered events in Montgomery because everything else was coatracked. Yes, events in Montgomery played a key role, but that wasnt all that was going on. Likewise it would be silly to limit the scope of this article artificially when the analysts continue to make connections to the Akin and Murdock tentpoles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That is the other side of it. The material isn't as notable, but that doesn't mean it isn't connected.Casprings (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually think there has been a lot of good work done in removing the tangential material, but I feel Rivard should be removed. A state race that got mostly state coverage with only minor mentions in national media seems too tangential to warrant a paragraph. The others were each the subject of at least one lengthy national news story relating it to the other controversies from what I can tell.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to that.Casprings (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If one did take out Rivard, one could rename the article Rape comments during the 2012 United States Congressional election. A little shorter and better defines when and where the comments took place. Moreover, it describes most of the commentary on those comments.Casprings (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Akin and Mourdock got a lot of press. None of the others attracted as much, but if the title is "Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012" then any notable comment from someone involved in an election that year would seemingly make sense to include. Here's the thing, though: while Akin and Mourdock got people riled up, all of those others -- the ones spurring on the WP:COATRACK talk -- built the issue into something broader. By the end of the year, the broader topic wasn't "look at what these people who are running for office are saying about rape" but rather "look at what Republicans are saying about rape." What about renaming the article to be more broad in one or both of these ways: (a) something about "controversial statements about rape by members of the republican party," or (b) "rape and pregnancy controversies in united states politics in 2012." Examples of sources talking about the subject in these broader terms: Salon - Eight staggering GOP comments on rape and women; Daily Kos - one of several posts on the "Rape Advisory Chart"; Politico - GOP looks for ways to stop the rape comments; Huffington Post has several, but this one connects directly to Politico; CBS News - House Republicans Drop "Forcible Rape" Language from Bill on Abortion; PolicyMic - The 7 Most Outrageous GOP Explanations for Why Rape Victims Can't Get Pregnant; Philly.com - What's With Republicans and Rape; MSNBC - Republicans and rape rhetoric, redux; Addicting Info - The Party of Rape Culture; The Blaze - Why Do Republicans Insist on Making Dumb Comments about Rape?; Gawker - A Recent History of Republicans Talking about Rape; and, in the category of "notable but not reliable" Colbert's "dayswithoutagoprapemention.com" and Republicans For Rape ...
...If this has been brought up and settled already, I apologize. I just came across this page for the first time via the RfC. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, GOP politicians do continue to say dumb things about rape. One could make a article title Republican rape comments. However, I think that people would say that is WP:NPOV.Casprings (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's true that singling out one party in the title of the article is asking for endless disputes. What about something more neutrally titled like Controversial comments about rape in United States politics? It would -- at least I think it would, assuming NPOV based on the body of sources -- still be dominated by Republicans from the last few years, but it wouldn't single them out if some democrat came out and said something controversial about rape, too (or has in the past -- I'll admit I haven't gone out of my way to look). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's trying to convey a balance that the sources don't convey. Why be cagey? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Because when opened up beyond this particular time frame I don't think it would be appropriate to only look for Republican examples. If the sources don't show it, that would be clear in the article. But, for example, Colorado Democrat Sorry for Rape Comment in Gun Debate and Democrats' Collection of Insensitive Rape Comments Too Much to Stomach. To be clear, I'm not interesting in an argument over the content of those articles, which can happen when someone actually wants to add them; I'm just pointing out their existence on just the first page of ghits. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The other basic point about not broading it is the article does have a cut off and a cause and effect. If one makes it open ended, it does run into the same argument, WP:Coatrack. However, if not, the events have a grouping by time and event. They also have something they effect, the 2012 elections. Casprings (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't turn the article into some craplist of people who say offensive things about rape. The situation in 2012 was noteworthy because it was a major theme of the election season that got a lot of attention during and after the election season.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that statement. It will just get ridiculous eventually,Casprings (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The last time I was here this article was just a mess. Congratulations to all involved in taking a controversial article and upgrading it to GA status!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Alot of people helped. Can't seem to make it to WP:FA, however.Casprings (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

HI, RedPen; sincere question:

am baffled by what you mean by the comment - last time you were here, I agree, this Article was a mess, among the worst on WP, BUT, at that time, though you may not have realized, it actually WAS already a GA [[7]].

Did you mean to say that the promotion of the article (which had already occurred) that you saw then was a travesty Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012/GA1 , and that it has subsequently be improved by slashing, or do you mean that its promotion at that time (by a user that registered 2 days before, promoted this, and then all but disappeared from WP) to GA was appropriate. Just asking--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think the article should not have been promoted, here is the link to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. If you think there is something to investagate when it was done the first time, here is the link to either Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Casprings (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the question was directed to RED, not you. Red is an editor who has earned my respect in the past for slashing crap from articles, and assessing where there is common ground between myself and Red would be productive.Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to direct a comment to him and him alone, I would direct you to his talk page.Casprings (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2014

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus. It is unclear how omission of the word 'pregnancy' produces any natural subdivision of the topic. One commenter observed that inclusion of the word 'Congressional' is unnecessary precision. (See WP:PRECISE). EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 → Rape comments during the 2012 United States Congressional election – This move request is largely based off of the above RfA. In a pervious WP:FA request, it was argued that the article was WP:Coatrack. I started the RFA in order to think of ways to solve that problem. I think that Akin and Mourdock clearly need to be in the article. If one looks at the section, other controversial statements, I think you can also make a clear case for these to be included. The one exception is Roger Rivard, who was a state legislator and the comment received little national attention. I suggest that we rename the article Rape comments during the 2012 United States Congressional election and remove the comments by Rivard. I think this will limit the article to something that was clearly relevant in US politics. Moreover, I am hoping it will make a stronger case that the article is not WP:Coatrack. I also think one can remove pregnancy from the title. The comments all have to do with rape and a shorter title would be better. Casprings (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Strong support pretty much exactly per nom. It's more WP:CONCISE this way and clearly focused on one reasonable topic. Red Slash 03:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I read the comments above and I am not convinced that there is a need for changing the title. It was not about rape, it was also about pregnancy and it was (and still is) a controversy, and these were made during the 2012 elections, all of which are reflected in the title Cwobeel (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • (also note the very fitting categories: 2012 controversies, and Political controversies in the United States. The article needs to remain there for an easy way for readers to find it. If I was doing research on political controversies, I'd like to find this well written article. Granted, we can keep these categories, but why to change the tile for, when it is a controversy.) Cwobeel (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support, a title change is long overdue and this seems reasonable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. These linked controversies were explicitly about pregnancy as well as rape. Excluding the word "pregnancy" from the title would either narrow the scope, and restrict proper coverage of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The two oppose votes both have a problem with the removal of pregnancy from the title. One oppose wants to keep the word controversy. Would Rape and pregnancy controversies during the 2012 United States Congressional election. This at least allows the article to be limited to the major focus in 2012, congressional elections.Casprings (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Casprings: That would be a change from "United States elections, 2012" to "2012 United States Congressional election". Different word order, but essentially just adding the word "Congressional". Why do you want this restriction in scope?

Is this to exclude some specific material relating to state or county or Presidential elections? If not, the word "Congressional" introduces un-necessary precision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically, all the comments came from congressional races. It excludes the one case that came from a state house race. It narrows the topic a bit. This is in response to the claim that the article is WP:Coatrack.Casprings (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The public debate about comments in these different races took place at the same time and in the same media. Excluding one type of election is artificial, and impedes comprehensive coverage of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

About the headline?

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

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

Todd Akin takes back applogy

He is releasing a book where he defends the comment. This should be intergrated into this article and his bio. See link

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/todd-akin-new-book-108745.html?hp=f2

 Done –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)