Talk:Todd Akin

Controversy section removed

I removed this section, which lacked context and was just one sentence with a citation to Huffington Post. The source didn't even support the statement being attributed to Akin, the assertion is actually an extrapolation by the author of the piece. Also, titling a section "Controversy" is terribly uninformative and not normally conducive to a neutral point of view. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to then flesh out the controversy section rather than delete it? Myriad Wikipedia articles on political figures have "controversy" sections; that is in fact part of being politics, is it not?

Mother's Nmae

His mother's name should be listed as "Nancy Bigelow (née Perry)." The word "née" refers to the maiden name, not to the married name, so the way it's worded right now is the opposite of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.30.194.139 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Mark Lodes

Someone, I highly suspect the gentlman himself or a close friend/family, keeps trying to add the name Mark Lodes to potential opponents against Akin in the 2012 election. This information is supported by nothing other than a not very informative self-created website by Mr. Lodes. No Missouri or national media have mentioned his name at all in the context of being a serious candidate. No election paperwork has been filed. Until such time as his candidacy can be verified by an independent and reliable source I strongly urge his name not be included. What say you? Sector001 (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Jaco Report Quote

Need an actual reliable source rather than simply the "soundbite" type of media. -- Avanu (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Since people seem intent on re-adding this, I'll put the two sources that have been used thus far, plus a couple of sources that talk about stress during pregnancy. The statement made in the interview is unclear, and while there may be room for debate on how informed Mr. Akin is on human reproduction, without proper context, clarification, and analysis of the remark, it doesn't belong in the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/19/todd-akin-gop-senate-candidate-legitimate-rape-rarely-causes-pregnancy

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/19/4739501/rep-akin-pregnancy-from-rape-is.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/31/childrensservices.medicineandhealth

http://www.marchofdimes.com/pregnancy/lifechanges_indepth.html

-- Avanu (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Practically every mainstream news organization has a story about Akin's remark, including analysis. I don't understand why you're suppressing a well known, well documented remark. Here's the video, for full context: http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco-report-august-19-2012/ 68.163.246.35 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The video is a primary source, the secondary sources mention that Akin didn't explain his statement well, and the way it is being inserted into this article is following a very soundbite-type mentality. What analysis is there of the remark? Please demonstrate that via a quotation. And yes, before I even commented or retracted anything I went and watched the entirety of the primary source. -- Avanu (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, in case this isn't clear, it is a BLP issue. I wouldn't think I would need to explicitly say so, but given that people will feel the need to insert the material over and over without a consensus, I think it merits a mention now. -- Avanu (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the foggiest idea what Avanu's objection is. He/she is not articulating any real objection. He's on video. He said it. The context is there in the video and articles about.--JamesAM (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP violation by a longshot. It's not a remotely close case. It's perfectly verifiable. It's on video. Using his own words is neutral. --JamesAM (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As Euchrid points out below, it is not a 'BLP violation' to include whatever we like as long as we use care. I said 'BLP issue' because it is material that concerns a living person, this does not mean that anyone is 'violating' any rule, but simply that care needs to be taken when adding this material. -- Avanu (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible for the 'legitimate rape' comment to be documented here without violating BLP, so long as the text is neutral and sourced. It's a matter of public record, and I think that the enormous amount of media attention it's receiving, as well as the immediate retraction, make it clear that it's very much notable. That being said, I feel like it's a contentious enough element that wording and quotes should be decided upon here in Talk before we edit (or edit war) the article. Euchrid (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that sources are required to demonstrate the significance of these remarks before adding it in, and I believe that they have in two ways. In the first way, many sources have contextualized his remarks into his broader views on abortion, noting that he has called for "a total ban on the morning-after pill"(Talking Points Memo), apparently "Within hours of Akin’s comments Sunday, Democrats were tying Ryan to Akin and to H.R. 3:"(A separate Talking Points Memo article), H.R. 3 being a bill that Akin co-sponsored which featured the controversial wording "forcible rape" which was later removed, and multiple other sources that have compared these remarks to his anti-abortion stance even in the case of rape and incest("Akin is also staking out some of the most socially conservative territory possible on this issue. Missouri is pretty socially conservative, but even many Republicans believe in abortion exceptions for rape and incest "). In this sense it would be acceptable to include a section on his views, including his views on abortion, and including these remarks in the context of that section. As for whether or not the remarks are significant due to potentially derailing his campaign, various sources have offered analysis on how this may impact the political field:

Ryan’s abortion positions were already threatening to break out as a major issue in the campaign as Democrats seek to harness their advantage with women voters. Akin’s comments are likely to thrust a glaring spotlight onto Ryan’s views. (Hours after he made the comments, Akin said he “misspoke” amid a firestorm.) (Another Talking Points Memo)

Akin’s statement threatens to recast a Senate race in which he starts as the favorite

We should probably wait a few days for more sources before deciding whether or not his remarks may hurt his campaign, but in the meantime including a section on his abortion views would be perfectly legitimate, and those remarks could be placed there.AerobicFox (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. A section on his views on abortion are due. When done, we can move the comments there. Casprings (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with clustering into an abortion section. The story is moving too fast to do anything except present the statement. I'm leery of extensively using TPM as a source given their leanings, but there will no doubt be a large volume of sources in the hours and days to come. Rjp422 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That term "forcible rape" which AerobicFox mentioned as Akin having in his bill reminds me of this source, which I discovered after googling "rape and pregnancy" earlier. Akin's views seem to line up very closely with that article. I don't intend that to be a source for anything other than it providing potential illumination to the discussion. My problem with adding Akin's quote the way it was earlier, was the typical sound-bite 'gotcha' approach that the media takes when plucking out a quote of any public figure. We aren't here to synthesize what Akin meant from his statement, but a slavish repetition of the news media isn't called for either.

The source Todd Akin's rape fantasy http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/todd-akins-rape-fantasy isn't a reliable source or analysis, but an editorial or blog that doesn't even make an attempt to really discuss the issue.

The other source being added now is from Forbes. It actually quotes a few statistics provided by what we can hope are reliable sources as well, and attempts to put this somewhat in perspective. Some of the comments on that Forbes article show that people are misunderstanding what is meant by Akin saying "legitimate rape" (as opposed to statutory, one might guess?), and the ideas of whatever biological factors prevent a pregnancy are not explained by the interview. I included the sources above talking about stress, simply to provide some potential context. Again, the problem I have with things is more related to the gossipy nature of the way these things get inserted into our Wikipedia articles, and not the quote itself. If we are willing to provide high quality sources that provide legitimate analysis, that is fine, but simply adding the latest bone that the media has latched on to, without any real context or analysis is irresponsible on our part. (And before you claim I'm simply partisan on things, I would and have argued the same types of points on Democrat articles.)-- Avanu (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources. They can be added. Casprings (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If they meet the guidelines for Wikipedia, sure. -- Avanu (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, can we actually get a legitimate wording decided upon before people keep jumping in and putting whatever they like back into the article? The last wording gave a rather long version of the quote, without context, and said it was "widely criticized as being inaccurate". Which part was "widely criticized as being inaccurate"? I can assume it is the bit that says "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down". But what exactly is Todd Akin saying there? From the two sources I gave above, it seems the female body *does* have the ability to end a pregnancy based on stress alone. So should we include sources that are critical but potentially inaccurate? Or do we say that it was simply "widely criticized" rather than "widely criticized as being inaccurate"? How precise was Todd Akin being in his remarks? He used the term "legitimate rape", but he didn't clarify that in his comments during the interview. Has used that term before? Can previous remarks be used to clarify that term or do we need a new reliable source to analyze that? Do any of the newer RS actually take the time to analyze Todd Akin's remarks in full or do they simply focus on "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down"? What are we actually including here, and what exactly is the controversy about? -- Avanu (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Easy fix. Just take out the inaccurate part. -- Casprings (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be called 'edit warring', Casprings. "Inaccurate" is a matter of interpretation far too often. -- Avanu (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is edit warring. Editing out inaccurate provides a sentence that is non-POV. The question would be, what is a NPOV means to represent the criticisms. Casprings (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What is "inaccurate", Casprings? How about the lead-in sentence? "Akin was asked his views on whether women who became pregnant due to sexual assault should have the option of abortion". Akin didn't say 'sexual assult', he said 'legitimate rape'. He didn't say whether they should be allowed an abortion, but he strongly implied that legislators should punish rapists. Akin said it was "particularly tough sort of ethical question", which implies that he is very torn on what to do, but what does that mean he will do in terms of legislation? He said "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down", which is sort of scientifically true, but isn't all *that* true, Akin isn't a scientist, so what do we take from his statement? And what is "that whole thing"? Does he mean 'pregnancy'? I mean you're taking a semi-rambling, non-scientific statement and attacking it for scientific accuracy..... really? And later the same guy says "I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year." OK, so the guy has empathy... what does that mean he will do? In short, we have a bunch of fluff about who knows what. This is what I mean about ACCURACY, Casprings. -- Avanu (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not attacking anything. I am just trying to put a fair representation of what he said. I would have no problem adding more to the quote, if it provides more context, for example. Casprings (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Facts without context can produce POV. It is true that only 5% of rapes result in pregnancy. However, pregnancy only happens when the woman is fertile and then it isn't 100%. In other words, the 5% number prob. isn't far off from the number of pregnancy that would result from sex at a random time in the month. There is no evidence that the body or woman can prevent pregnancy when raped. THe 5% number given alone is therefore misleading. Casprings (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like one time non-rape sexual intercourse with no contraceptives has a 3% chance of pregnancy. http://www.sexinfo101.com/sh_pregnancyodds.shtml Maybe better Ref's out there but that was a quick find. 216.81.81.83 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

From http://www.springerlink.com/content/wp5cnp43k6byxj4d/ a 2003 article, accounting for birth control use the chance of pregnancy resulting from a single act of rape can be as high as 8%, much more than double the rate for consensual sex. Could an administrator (as the page is locked) incorporate this more current article next to the 1996 article giving a five percent figure in order to further reinforce the scientific matter the Jaco Report quote concerns. Mr Wave (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That does make sense. Consensual sex will much more often include active birth control precautions, whereas a rape situation involves uncontrolled and unprepared sex, leaving the woman at much greater risk of pregnancy. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The adjustment actually works the other way for this article from Springer. The consensual pregnancies are the result of women trying to get pregnant. They get around a 6% rate of pregnancy from rape compared to around 3% in consensual couples, but the 8% in rape accounts for adjusting for rape victims use of birth control which the consensual couples are not using as they want a pregnancy. Mr Wave (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Speculation

This content: "Political analyst Nate Silver indicated that the comments had the potential to swing the Missouri Senate race." is inappropriate. Nate Silver's opinion is very interesting, of course, but he isn't the Amazing Kreskin. It's non-encyclopedic fluff, not hard fact. Belchfire-TALK 02:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. However several have commented on the effect in the 2012 election. I added one more source and then took out naming Nate Silver. Casprings (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting the point. The issue here is unsupported speculation, not Nate Silver. Belchfire-TALK 05:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is written in a reliable source, that unsupported speculation (at least in your opinion) is WP:N. You can think it is crap, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a mention. Casprings (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The way you guys are approaching this is not about "getting the article right" (per WP:BLP), but simply getting material added. WP:N *actually* says:

The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

So it isn't just about whether the person is in a reliable source, it is about whether you are properly covering the material in question. -- Avanu (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Every article I have read has speculated on the effect this may have on the Senate race. While you may say that is crap, it would not a fair representation of the event, if the was not included. Casprings (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And getting straight to Belchfire's argument, cited speculation is not "unsourced" speculation. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a significant viewpoint; it's a wild-ass guess. The gaffe isn't even 12 hours old and it's 2-1/2 months until the election. Nobody can possibly make an informed, credible statement concerning what will happen because of this. It's not a fact, regardless of sourcing or anything else. It's just filler/cruft/B.S./nonsense that they put in the newspapers, and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Period. Belchfire-TALK 05:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate policy is WP:CBALL, which prevents editors from substituting predictions for reliable sources. It doesn't prevent us from reporting on notable predictions. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

But going along the same lines of WP:CBALL, Wikipedia is to be encyclopedic, and not a gossip mill. That being said, if polling starts to show such speculation is true, then maybe it is appropriate to put something in. But like others said, it's been 24 hours, and Akin might not even be a candidate in another 24 hours.Rjp422 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There are reliable sources right now that show this topic to be significant. It would take a crystal ball to determine that it will cease to be important at some point in the future. If it does turn out that way, we can always remove it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading is fundamental (it just isn't one of your strong points). " Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." Helpfully, the underlined portion is also quite instructive concerning the rush to include the prediction. The content under discussion thus fails both CBALL and UNDUE. Belchfire-TALK 05:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the way you read that Akin was just a "nominee"? Thanks for the comic relief. As for "creating undue bias", feel free to demonstrate that this is somehow relevant. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone object to rearranging this section to group the reaction comments from Romney/Ryan and McCaskill with the sentence about reaction? It would also isolate the questionable statement regarding the potential impact on the race (which is a separate idea). Could look something like this:

The comment was widely criticized. Related news articles cited a 1996 article in an obstetrics and gynecology journal, which found that 5% of women who were raped became pregnant, which equaled about 32,000 pregnancies each year in the US alone.[37] A campaign spokesman for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan said both disagreed with Akin's position and would not oppose abortion in instances of rape. Akin said, "In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year." His opponent in the 2012 Senate race, Sen. Claire McCaskill, responded via Twitter, stating "as a woman & former prosecutor who handled 100s of rape cases,I'm stunned by Rep Akin's comments about victims this AM."

Political analysts believe that the comments have the potential to swing the United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012.

Thoughts? Objections? Rjp422 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your last statement ("Political analysts believe that the comments have the potential to swing the United States Senate election...") is pure speculation and it is not directly supported by the two sources you cited. You would need to cite a source that actually says something to that effect. Instead, you cited a whopping two (2) political commentators who think the comment could swing the election. That does not give you license to make a general statement like the one quoted above. The statement should be removed completely unless you can find a reliable source that actually says something similar. ROG5728 (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

ROG5728: To be clear, that is not MY statement. That is the statement in question under the Speculation talk. Personally, I agree with you, as I have already stated. I left it in because I didn't want to unilaterally remove a contested statement without consensus. My real question is about the grouping of the reaction statements so they are more cohesive and represent a specific point about the topic itself. Rjp422 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the predictions are sufficiently noteworthy, consistent, and in compliance with WP:CBALL to be included. I have no opinion about compliance with WP:RS since I haven't taken the time to read the supporting references. In any case I think the McCaskill tweet should be omitted. This is an article about Akin the person, not about the election, and his political opponent should not get real estate to take potshots at him. McCaskill's tweet is basically devoid of substance and merits less weight that neutral political commentators because she's obviously as biased as one can get. Its inclusion violates WP:NPV and possibly WP:BLP. Now, in an article about the election, that might be another story. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Valid point about McCaskill, but I must disagree in that I believe a collection of relevant reaction statements is important for context. Since Akin is a candidate for the MO senate seat, I think it is important to include her. Maybe her formal statement is more appropriate. We should also add a statement of support to balance WP:NPOV? Otherwise we might want to consider removing all the reaction items. Rjp422 (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion a balancing statement would fix the WP:NPV issue but would still violate WP:BLP. An article about a person isn't the place for a back-and-forth about an election issue. A condemnation by one's opponents that adds nothing to the debate is never appropriate in a BLP. If McCaskill had made the initial attack then it would be appropriate, and Akin or his supporters would get a rebuttal. But here McCaskill was just commenting on a scandal that was already ongoing. Including her tweet, even with a balancing statement, would just be piling on. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand what your preference is but I can't seem to figure out your reasoning. What exactly violates BLP here? This is a public comment by a notable and related person. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly WP:GRAPEVINE. ("Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced.") McCaskill is as biased a source as they come, and therefore not reliable. Regardless of the policies, the statement is devoid of substance about Akin and says much more about McCaskill. It's therefore really not notable at all w/r/t Akin the person. In an article about the election it would be very notable. What does it add to this article? Nearly everything a politician says when running for office is his opponents. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it's sourced just fine. There's no doubt about who said it and that person is entirely notable. Moreover, we're reporting this with attribution, not as a bald fact. Sorry, there's just no support for your preferences in the policies you've mentioned so far. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Just because something is notable doesn't mean it should be included in the article. Wikipedia doesn't publish "all the news that's fit to print." --Nstrauss (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

'Comment WP:NOTNEWS. This prognosticating wont be worth a damn in 4 months.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I change my mind -- you're completely right. Predictions about an event in the near future are almost automatically WP:RECENTISM. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether it turns out to be correct, the very fact that this prediction was publicly declared is notable now and will remain so. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability isn't a substitute for compliance with WP:RECENTISM; it really has very little to do with it. Keep in mind WP:10YT. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we can agree that this line of text doesn't belong in the article. Unless someone can provide an acceptable to reason to keep it, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. The sources that are cited do not support the statement, and even if they did it is completely speculatory. ROG5728 (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Responses to the statement?

Should we start to get wording on the responses to the statement? I believe Romney 's campaign and Claire McCaskill have comments concerning this. Casprings (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Rape Study

Why include the study? It seems to be WP:Coatrack. Plus, adding it without context adds POV. To the average reader, 5% sounds like a small number. However, pregnancy requires sex when the woman is fertile and even then it isn't a 100% thing. TO make this not POV, we need to dive into another area. Casprings (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The scientific facts about how often pregnancy occurs through rape are important. Articles that involve the intersection of science and politics are vastly improved when they include scientific fact rather than just a political "he said/she said". It's not WP:COATRACK, which is about an article created for the purposes of POV. Facts and figures are not POV. It's germane to the issue in dispute and the study is specifically cited in the news articles about the controversy. --JamesAM (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And this isn't just your opinion; our sources are quick to jump in and give actual numbers to dispel Akin's bizarre notions StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I already put comments on this above, but I'll address your specific concerns. I don't know that you speak for the average reader. To me, the 5% figure made it pretty clear that Todd Akin was way off-base on the science. To me, 5% of intercourse resulting in pregnancy doesn't sound small. Women who have had sex hundreds of times may have had a couple of pregnancies. To use an analogy, some readers might think an increase in global temperature of 1.7 degrees Farenheit since 1980 is small. But that's not a failing in the science or a reason to exclude that fact in an article about global warming. That simply means the reader doesn't realize the significance or the discussion should be expanded to add context. It sucks when politicians avoid science facts. You thinks the stats make Akin look good. I think the numbers unequivocally show him to be grossly ignorant on issue. Either way, the numbers are the numbers and they are way more important that wishy-washy opinion. WP:Coatrack has nothing to do with the addition of the study. Coatracks are whole articles created by an editor to be a parallel POV home for something that's already dealt with in article. Plus, insertion of facts from a journal article doesn't seem very POV. --JamesAM (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's so high, given that it's from a single sex act. Consider how many women are raped when they're not at a fertile point in their monthly cycle as well as how many are on hormonal contraceptives or something similar. Exclude the ones who are too old, too young or just plain infertile, and you have even fewer candidates for pregnancy. Given the fertility curve for women, I suspect that rape victims trend young. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not that I disagree with either of you. The number does show that Akin is wrong. However, I have a low expectation for the average reader. The number without context may make the average reader think that Akin is right. Casprings (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your change and I don't have any problem with it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This article has more information analyzing Akin rape & pregnancy claim which could be briefly incorporated here: http://news.yahoo.com/rape-trauma-barrier-pregnancy-no-scientific-basis-235231028.html --JamesAM (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Protection, Day 1

Ok, let's get the ball rolling. What's in dispute? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The summery looks pretty decent to me Casprings (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

See the Speculation section of this talk page. That's what's in dispute. ROG5728 (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pilgrims vs. Socialists in--1620???

Should we add this to the controversies section? [3] Qworty (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if more sources cover it and provide analysis. It certainly sounds like a rather dumb statement. But that's just my personal opinion, not a reliable source or anything. - Avanu (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that it has a place in this article. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick trip to Google confirms that this story is notable. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Must be using a different travel agent than me. I see it covered by a lot of blogs but little else. What I did find more interesting on the Salon.com article about Todd Akin was the statement that "Akin won the primary with McCaskill's unsolicited aid", which tells me that the Democrats aren't trying to win the race here based on a legitimate contest, but using whatever tactics are available, including funding opposition candidates. To quote Salon: "probably because (McCaskill) thinks (Akin's) a polarizing figure who'll turn off swing voters with his strange religious and historical views." Not sure about the voters of Missouri, but I think I'd vote for the guy just to tell political machinists that they need to stick to the issues, not spend time monkeying around with the political system. -- Avanu (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate your opinion, it cuts both ways. The GOP does the same thing, so the comment really adds nothing of worth to improving this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not this article, but possibly the 'United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012' article. Doesn't matter if "they all do it". Akin was helped into his spot as a primary winner by his rival in the race, this point was brought up several times by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. It is a newsworthy and noteworthy thing that a political enemy would spend money to support their rival in order to 'rig' the race to their favor. While it may be common for the parties to play such games, it is not well-advertised by the parties, I think mostly because the electorate would find it to be unsportsmanlike. -- Avanu (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

Why is this line in the piece? "A campaign spokesman for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan said both disagreed with Akin's position and would not oppose abortion in instances of rape." This is not about Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. This seems to be here to allow other back door comments about them or from other people to enter. I think it should be removed. 216.81.94.71 (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a notable reaction to the initial statement. I think it belongs, but could be placed better with other reaction statements. Rjp422 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea there are others "The comment was widely criticized" in the section but not tied together; also it needs a referance. Maybe someone can add a referance and tie those 2 parts together so it does not make any one more larger than another? 216.81.94.68 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have brought up a potential fix in the talk above about the the Jaco Report, since it's tied to another disputed statement in that section. What do you think? Rjp422 (talk) 15:36, August 20, 2012‎ (UTC)

IP216, your concern about coatracking is, in principle, a legitimate one, but documenting reactions is also part of the legitimate scope of this matter, and that includes both positive and negative reactions, so the Romney/Ryan reaction is appropriate. It's even surprising, considering their previous stances on the subject. OTOH, there are actually GOP members who have defended(!) Akin's remark! Maybe they should be included too. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are a couple examples of a defense of Akin's remarks:

• Dave Catanese, Politico Reporter, Defends Todd Akin Rape Comments. The Huffington Post, By Alana Horowitz, 08/20/2012

• CNN "contributor" and KFTK's Loesch defends Akin's idiotic "legitimate rape" comment. Daily Kos, by JGibson, August 19, 2012

Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Catanese isn't merely defending Akin, he's claiming that Akin was right about rape being less likely to lead to pregnancy than consensual sex. This isn't a minor opinion, it's completely fringe. We have reliable medical sources that refute it. So, while it's ok to include Catanese, we can't let that falsehood stand. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As for Loesch, her comments have been so ridiculous as to get their own criticism. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There have also been calls from two Republican Senators for Akin to withdraw from the race and Missouri guidelines give him until 5 pm Tuesday to withdraw from the race, after which the GOP would choose a new candidate. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 19:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is very much notable. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

After the protection expires, we ought to add this where Ryan is mentioned: Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan co-sponsored a bill with Akin in the House of Representatives that would have changed the legal definition of rape to "forcible rape" to narrow access to federal funding for abortions.

Other Sections in the Article?

I think that the article is a little thin. There should be be a section that detail Rep. Akin's views in greater detail, for example. Casprings (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, especially if we can get a secondary source to collect it for us, allowing us to avoid original research. I'm all for this article having some meat on it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama response

Obama has given a response to Akin's 'forcible rape' comment, if anyone wants to add it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57496599-503544/akin-apologizes-for-rape-comments-obama-says-rape-is-rape/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19326638

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/08/20/obama-akins-rape-comments-way-out-there/

Euchrid (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Once page protection is lifted, we will. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

New Article: Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy

This Todd Akin comments has enough coverage and enough reactions and fallout to give it its own article. I invite you to edit Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy . I suggest that we create a short summary here (as already exists) and then link the page. Casprings (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That article is loaded with RS and NPOV violations and so is the section in this article. This is being discussed in the Speculation section of this talk page. Major changes will be needed to bring this content in line with Wikipedia policy. ROG5728 (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than Todd Akin saying it, what sort of coverage do you expect it would include? Don't need to fork everything and it needs a legitimate focus. --- Avanu (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The event and the fallout. There are calls for him to get out and their is speculation that this could effect the Senate race and even the presidential race. I see it covering the comments and any repercussion of those comments. Casprings (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel the section should link to Effects and aftermath of rape#Pregnancy but can't determine the best way to do it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I see no need to have a separate article at all, we should merge it back into this one. A standalone article like that is mostly non-notable, it is only important in context to this article. We're not going to have separate article for every gaffe that someone esays, mentioning them in the person's main article is sometimes, fine, but not a separate article. Silverseren^C 01:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The proper place for this is the article about the election. A sentence, maybe two, should go in the corresponding section of this article, reflecting the magnitude of the fallout. There's no reason for a separate section, let alone an article. Brithon (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is free to take this to WP:AfD. I would just argue that this new article meets WP:N and it it involves more then Rep. Akin. Casprings (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's become a big thing, perhaps big enough for an article of its own. Regardless, I think the seven-day full protection of this article is inappropriate, given the circumstances. GreenReaper (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a seven day page protection. It is a 3-day full protection. Some editors are seemingly unwilling to work collaboratively and are focused on sensationalism rather than substance. -- Avanu (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I do wish that Casprings would actually take time to work on consensus versions of material rather than simply doing whatever he feels like and pushing constantly to ramp this up. While it has some notability, the effects, if any, of these remarks, remain to be seen. Casprings seems driven to make sure this particular event is given excessive weight. In just a few days, the Republican National Convention will likely overshadow all of this, and the media will want to move on. But for now, Casprings wants us to believe this is the deciding event of the 2012 election season. -- Avanu (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want you to believe anything. As I said, if WP:N of the the new article is in doubt then go to WP:AfD . I think that this could be given to much weight in an article on Akin, so I created a new Article. Casprings (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Link request

There's an article on George D. Weber; requesting wikilink to same. 84.203.39.242 (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Page is fully protected, changed request to edit protected. RudolfRed (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks. 84.203.39.242 (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Climate change sceptic

Suggestion for sub-section on Akin's position on the science of climate change. Source: [4] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Linking the article to the expanded article "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy"

I would suggest that the following would be a good summery and link to Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy article. I suggest that we work on a summery and then edit it in.

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy

Main article: Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy

The Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy involves comments by Todd Akin and the controversy that resulted from the comments. Todd Akin is a a representative from Missouri and current candidate for the US Senate (See United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012). In an August 19, 2012 interview aired on St. Louis television station KTVI-TV, Akin was asked his views on whether women who became pregnant due to sexual assault should have the option of abortion. He replied:

Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

The comment was widely criticized as being misogynist and inaccurate. Related news articles cited a 1996 article in an obstetrics and gynecology journal, which found that 5% of women who were raped became pregnant, which equaled about 32,000 pregnancies each year in the US alone. A separate 2003 article in the journal Human Nature estimated that rapes are twice as likely to result in pregnancies as consensual sex.

Edit Request

Request you change the name of the section that talks about his comments and provide a link to an expanded article. I request the following edit:

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy

Main article: Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy

Casprings (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This article most certainly needs a link to the controversy article as it has become the defining and most public story in this person's biography.--Oakshade (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed section title; there's no reason to include Akin's full name in a heading on his own article. I would find "Rape and pregnancy controversy" or "Rape and pregnancy comments" to be better headings than the current one ("Comments on abortion in cases of rape"). Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Casprings (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Done see here --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The comment was widely criticized as false

The comment was widely criticized.[34][35][36] Related news articles cited a 1996 article in an obstetrics and gynecology journal, which found that 5% of women who were raped became pregnant, which equaled about 32,000 pregnancies each year in the US alone.[37]

Surely this can be improved? The comment was widely criticized not because people don't agree with an opinion he expressed, but because medical experts say his assertion that women are less likely to get pregnant via rape is flat-out wrong. See this New York Times article, in which four doctors debunk his statement, calling it "nuts," "absurd" and "nonsense." There is also this detailed debunking from Scientific American, and this story headlined Doctors appalled over Rep. Akin's comments that 'legitimate rape' prevents pregnancy from NBC.

Why don't we try something like this:

The comment was widely criticized as false. Medical experts say there is no evidence to support the assertion that women are less likely to get pregnant from rape compared with consensual sex, and a three-year longitudinal survey of 4008 adult American women, published in 1996, found that rape-related pregnancy occurred with "significant frequency."

--Sue Gardner (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I like it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Better and more appropriate approach/tone. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So, as per the conversation above, can I ask an admin to make this edit?

Replace this: The comment was widely criticized. Related news articles cited a 1996 article in an obstetrics and gynecology journal, which found that 5% of women who were raped became pregnant, which equaled about 32,000 pregnancies each year in the US alone (comparative from pregnancy studies: likelihood for any single act of intercourse is around 1% - 10% depending on timing, averaging around 3%).

With this: The comment was widely criticized as false. Medical experts say there is no evidence to support the assertion that women are less likely to get pregnant from rape compared with consensual sex, and a three-year longitudinal survey of 4008 adult American women, published in 1996, found that rape-related pregnancy occurred with "significant frequency."

FT2, I would be fine with you or someone else merging in some of the other stuff that's in the original paragraph if you want -- I'm not saying it shouldn't be there. Just wanted to stick with the exact text proposed here, for the purposes of asking an admin to make the edit. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Another Edit Request

I request that an Admin update the format of the Succession Box, such that for his current office it would say "Incumbent," instead of "Succeeded by Incumbent" almost as if Incumbent were a man's name. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

From looking at Template:USRepSuccessionBox, I think making this change would just involve removing the "| after=Incumbent" parameter from the template's use on this article; if the parameter isn't there, the template automatically fills the last box with "Incumbent" (I think). And I agree that this change should be made and should be non-controversial, as what the template currently shows (that Todd Akin was succeeded by the Incumbent) is plainly incorrect. Theoldsparkle (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on early biography

I request that the Admin add some additional biographical information which I believe is non-controversial To whit:

Akin grew up in the St. Louis County home that his father owned in Town and Country, Missouri. He home schooled his children in the Town and Country house. When his father sold the house he moved to Wildwood, Missouri.

and

On the night he won the primary on a rainy day in the tight 2000 Congressional race he said, "My base will show up in earthquakes.”

I wish I could add that his father Paul B. Aiken was president of Laclede Steel (which in fact is the case). I could find various reputable one that say there was a Paul Aiken who was president of Laclede Steel but can't off hand find one that states categorically the relationship. Thanks.Americasroof (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Could you be more specific about where you want your changes to be inserted, and perhaps edit the surrounding sentences so that the passage flows better? And it would be great if you could use {{cite web}} templates instead of bare urls. Also, I'm not sure that the "earthquake" comment is really all that relevant. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that it is semiprotected I added the info and used reflinks to clean up the citation. Thanks.Americasroof (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests (minor wording improvements)

1. In the phrase "Media columnists considered the comment had not been mis-spoken", change "columnists" to "commentators". More accurate as not all the commentors on this incident are columnists.

2. In the same phrase as above, change "mis-spoken" to "misspoken", for correctness and also consistency with "misspoke" as used in the previous sentence.

3. In the sentence "His opponent in the 2012 Senate race, Sen. Claire McCaskill, responded via Twitter, stating 'as a woman...'", change the middle to "responded via Twitter that 'as a woman...'" It's simply smoother and more efficient phrasing. Theoldsparkle (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, so Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy over rape and abortion should be in the lead section

The press in Finland has reported this man's bizarre opinions - about both rape and abortion. It seems also to have been reported in the national press in Australia, Britain, South Africa, Canada, France, and Germany (the ones I have checked). This being so, the man now has global renown and these facts about him should at least be mentioned in the lead paragraph and not buried down at the bottom.--80.223.105.147 (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This comment will be Todd Akin's enduring legacy and what he will be remembered for. It should be in the first paragraph. Mkcmkc (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps but wait (a long time if needed) and see. We don't have to rush something like that, and time - not Wikipedia speediness - should be what tells what he is "remembered" for. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Google News Archive for "Todd Akin" gives 1,270 results for his entire prior career. Current Google News for "Todd Akin" rape gives 157,000 results. There's no reason to wait a "long time" to verify what we already know--this incident made him internationally famous, and as with any highly notable incident, needs to be mentioned in the lead. To put this another way, does anyone seriously contend that Todd Akin is better known for the fact that his district "includes the western St. Louis suburbs of Ballwin, Kirkwood, Chesterfield, Wildwood, Town and Country, and Des Peres located along Interstate 270 in western St. Louis County (West County) and the northwestern exurbs of St. Charles and St. Peters in St. Charles County"? The "rape" incident is more notable by a factor of hundreds; I see no reason not to give it its WP:DUE weight. If another 157,000 sources appear on another aspect of his career, we can restore the balance at that date. Khazar2 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that he will be primarily identified with this controversy for a very long time. I don't see the logic in waiting for years to make sure he doesn't do something else MORE notable before we can acknowledge this as a very notable event in his career. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed intro change #1

Replace the current introduction, quoted as follows:

William Todd Akin (born July 5, 1947) is the U.S. Representative for Missouri's 2nd congressional district, serving since 2001. He is a member of the Republican Party.

The district includes the western St. Louis suburbs of Ballwin, Kirkwood, Chesterfield, Wildwood, Town and Country, and Des Peres located along Interstate 270 in western St. Louis County (West County) and the northwestern exurbs of St. Charles and St. Peters in St. Charles County.

He won the 2012 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat in a crowded field. He will challenge Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill in the general election.

with the following:

William Todd Akin (born July 5, 1947) is the U.S. Representative for Missouri's 2nd congressional district, serving since 2001. He is a member of the Republican Party. He won the 2012 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate and will challenge Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill in the general election.

Directly underneath the heading "U.S. House of Representatives", place the following (moved from the current intro):

Missouri's 2nd congressional district includes the western St. Louis suburbs of Ballwin, Kirkwood, Chesterfield, Wildwood, Town and Country, and Des Peres located along Interstate 270 in western St. Louis County (West County) and the northwestern exurbs of St. Charles and St. Peters in St. Charles County.

These changes have nothing to do with the current controversy; they're just cleanup. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed change is indeed just a cleanup in my view, so I made the change after the full protection was lifted. The minute details of the congressional district boundary, (including that it runs along a certain interstate) are not lead material, particularly where the lead is very short. KeptSouth (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed intro change #2

As a new paragraph at the end of the intro (hopefully along with the changes above), add the following:

In August 2012, after winning the primary, Akin drew widespread attention for commenting in an interview that women were unlikely to become pregnant due to what he referred to as "legitimate rape."

I am open to other wording suggestions; one of my goals was to try to be as neutral and objective as possible to encourage reaching consensus on including something relatively quickly. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support something along these lines, though it also seems worth mentioning that the national Republicans have effectively disowned him as a candidate, as well as the major international story it became. Perhaps, "In August 2012, after winning the primary, Akin drew international attention for commenting in an interview that women were unlikely to become pregnant from 'legitimate rape.' The Republican National Committee withdrew advertising funding from his campaign and pressured him to quit the race, as did a number of state and national Republican figures." A source for the "international" part can be found here[5], and obviously countless examples can be given from non-US media. The pressure from state and national republicans can be seen at [6]. More sources can be provided if anyone's skeptical that this is true. Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it requires a much more prominent paragraph. This is not just a gaffe and has very substantial political implications. Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Give it time. There is no deadline. This is not a reactionary news service. There is already undue weight given. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify what in WP:UNDUE you see as applying here? Reliable sources do not expire, and Google searches suggest that out of every 100 sources ever written about Todd Akin, at least 99 focus on the rape controversy. If anything, this article still gives undue weight to everything else about his life. Khazar2 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - Non Controversial

Would someone substitute in the table below for the tables currently in the article? under the "Electoral History" section. This table includes missing information on elections and updated sourcing with current links. It does not include anything new that has occurred since the full protection on the article. Thanks. KeptSouth (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

==Electoral history==

Year	Office	District	Democrat		Republican		Libertarian		Ref
2000	U.S. House	Missouri 2nd	Tedd House	42%	Todd Akin	55%	James Higgins	1 %
2002	U.S. House	Missouri 2nd	John Hogan	31%	Todd Akin	67%	Darla Maloney	2 %
2004	U.S. House	Missouri 2nd	George Weber	33%	Todd Akin	65%	Darla Maloney	1%
2006	U.S. House	Missouri 2nd	George Weber	37%	Todd Akin	61%	Tamara Millay	2%
2008	U.S. House	Missouri 2nd	William Haas	35%	Todd Akin	62%	Thomas Knapp	2%
2010	U.S. House	Missouri 2nd	Arthur Lieber	29%	Todd Akin	68%	Steve Mosbacher	3 %

Not done for now: It looks like we would lose the information about the raw number of voters if we made this change. Maybe you can fit these numbers into the table somehow? Please reactivate the editprotected template when you're ready, or if you would like a second opinion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I may do an expanded version with the #s of votes, at some time in the future. Reactivating templates, getting second opinions.... sounds like you're anticipating a long-term complete lock down of the article.KeptSouth (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, nothing like that - it's just that changes made to the article while it's locked need to be supported by consensus. This one looked like it might be controversial, and no-one else has commented yet. If you have the updated stats for 2008 and 2010 in the same format as the others, though, I would put that in without any further discussion, as I can't see that anyone would disagree. Similarly, I don't think it would be controversial to just change the look of the tables if no information is lost. If we lose information from the article, though, I can see other users complaining if I just update the article with no time allowed for discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is moot now, but really, I can't see how updating a table such as this with good sourcing (official blue books, etc), can be at all controversial. Just thought I'd comment on this because of my section title "non-controversial". I've added the material to the article, with vote counts. KeptSouth (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit after protection

The Devil's Advocate has pointed out on my talk page I added material on the recent matter after protection. He's right, I hadn't noticed protection. So I'm bringing it here for eyeballs and a decision to keep or remove.

DA's post:

Would you please not add contentious material to a protected page without consensus? This edit is highly inflammatory for a BLP, especially the claim of "Akin's scientific ignorance", the edit about "distrust of rape reports" is similarly inflammatory, and this edit is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Per WP:PROTECT you should only be making changes to a protected article if they are uncontroversial or have consensus on the talk page.

In terms of WP:BLP on controversial issues, I don't think the sentence added diverged from sources, though I'm open to disagreement. They accurately and validly state exactly what sources state with no elaboration or synthesis. I gave 3 sources for a statement of how a significant part of the "columnist" or "media" landscape is perceiving and responding to his self-correction, since it's useful to show that the views are in multiple reputable sources, not just one. (There were numerous others)

What they said	What I characterized
(WP) "politicians seem prone to misstatements ... the politician claims to have "misspoken"... Rep. Akin contends he had “misspoken.” ... we must regrettably conclude that he is pretending to have misspoken to avoid the consequences of his actions" (HP) "He did not "misspeak." Misspeaking is defined as "Express oneself imperfectly or inaccurately." He was very clear" (SL) "He later took it back, but this wasn’t a misstatement. It wasn’t a gaffe or a stray bit of medical misinformation that could have attached itself to any one of us. The statement was a crystallization of Akin’s worldview: sexist, blame-shifting, and profoundly ignorant."	Media columnists considered the comment had not been mis-spoken but a reflection of personal belief taken back for political expediency...
(HP) "It's part of a reactionary, fundamentalist backlash to modernity. It's a war on science ... The amount that this man doesn't understand is staggering. He shouldn't even try putting the words "doctors" and "understand" in the same sentence." (SL) "It takes a lot of work for a member of the House science committee to cultivate an ignorance of science as profound as Todd Akin’s"	...with attention drawn to Akin's scientific ignorance...
(HP) "yet another Republican Congressman unwittingly revealed his party's contempt for and distrust of women ... His statements reveal several ideas about women, who bear the immediate and obvious brunt of this type of assault on reason ... That women lie about their rapes ... These ideas are really important to Akin and others, like Paul Ryan, both of whom co-sponsored a bill to change the word "rape" to "forcible rape" in legislation about federal funding to abortion ... [His] statement and philosophy are consistent with conservative's deep mistrust of women" (SL) "... the Congressman has long suspected that rape and abortion laws are less likely to protect women from abuse than to allow them to be abusive ... [His] past includes praising a militia group linked to anti-abortion extremism in the 1990s and voting against creating a sex-offender registry in 2005. Back in 1991, as a state legislator, Akin voted for an anti-marital-rape law, but only after questioning whether it might be misused “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband,” according to a May 1 article that year in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch"	...and distrust of rape reports and past actions and statements consistent with this belief.
	I also added a brief note from clinical research from a very highly regarded series of studies into pregnancy, which analyzed exactly the question at point - how often would a single incident of intercourse at random be expected to result in pregnancy. It's certain this is information that a reasonable reader would expect in this controversy (to compare to percentage of rape victims), and is very highly sourced.

Collapsed to avoid publicizing the original article quotes. Eyeballs please, and apologies again (and thanks to DA) for not noticing the protection. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your summary seems to be a fair representation of the source content. I'm not seeing any SYNTH and OR problems but this may very well be because my retinas are still ringing from reading Akin's comments. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My issue with that wording is that the article refers to "Akin's scientific ignorance and distrust of rape reports" in the editorial voice, implying these are factual statements about Akin. However, the sourcing for the material in this case is clearly partisan opinion and even if it were not we should avoid stating that someone is "ignorant" in the editorial voice. The very wording "distrust of rape reports" is loaded and has a lot of negative connotations, with the context of the source being even more incendiary. It is not entirely clear that is even the most accurate summary of the sources as they also claim a general distrust of women. What we have are sources criticizing Akin in a very incendiary manner, so their claims should not be repeated in the editorial voice. The material as written mentions commentators "drawing attention" to these things, without clearly noting that these are the claims of the commentators themselves rather than undisputed facts. I think mentioning these criticisms as criticisms would be appropriate, so rewording the material to clearly reflect that these are claims about Akin would be satisfactory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is an alternative wording I just worked up:

Commentators critical of Akin suggested the comment had not been misspoken but was instead an accurate reflection of his personal beliefs and that he rescinded the remarks for political expediency. These commentators claimed Akin's past actions and statements were consistent with the comment and constituted evidence of scientific ignorance as well as a general distrust of women.

That would reasonably satisfy my concerns.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that the commentators are critical of Akin and not just his comments and related actions? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I read the quotes in the collapsed section that's how.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's close to circular arguing ("They must be critical of him and not just of his comments. We know this..... because of reading their views on his comments"). Characterizing commentators in uproar as "commentators critical of Akin" misses the point, because it suggests these are something like voices of existing critics. We're aiming to summarize "what was the general media view on his apology". The general media view was varied but a major theme in mainstream media seems to be sentiment along the lines of, "he's shown his deeper opinion on women and rape, and it wasn't a mistake as claimed, it's appalling". His party seems to agree that it would going to be seen as appalling too, judging by their actions and comments, and that's a big hint this isn't a mere selective view of the media response. They judged it bad enough to swing a major election or cut funding and to take big damage avoidance measures almost immediately. So implying the response is just the "suggestions" of "critics" wouldn't be a good representation. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't circular at all. Comments such as "yet another Republican Congressman unwittingly revealed his party's contempt for and distrust of women" and "The statement was a crystallization of Akin’s worldview: sexist, blame-shifting, and profoundly ignorant" are hardly limited to just criticizing these recent comments. The HuffPo source, in particular, is an obvious partisan screed. Looking into the authors it is also pretty clear they fall on the other side of the fence and not merely in the "I disagree with your opinion" sense, but in the "I will demean and degrade you for disagreeing" sense.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The three sources cited above are representative of the mainstream reaction to Akin's comments. Writing that it's just "commentators critical of Akin" is deceptive wording because it implies that this is a minority view held only by people "critical of Akin". There is also the fact that you and I disagree on whether all commentators are critical of Akin or his actions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If they are actually representative of the mainstream reaction across partisan divides, then it shouldn't be difficult to find sources that would normally be favorable or neutral to Akin describing him as ignorant or as distrustful of women. Unless you can demonstrate that, then we should regard these articles as the partisan opinion pieces they evidently are and clearly note that these comments are claims from sources critical of Akin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Abortion and slavery

On January 22, 2008, Todd Akin addressed the House of Representatives with a long speech condemning abortion.

In his speech, he drew comparisons between abortion and slavery — even going so far as to suggest that abortion is fundamentally more "un-American" than slavery. "We have one of the most polarizing issues that has confronted our nation since the days of slavery. And yet, just as slavery is fundamentally un-American, so even moreso, anything that violates the most fundamental right -- the right to life -- is contrary to everything that Americans have stood for and fought for." Akin goes on to say that "we have terrorists in our own culture called 'abortionists,'" and that abortionists are "heartless doctors."

http://www.businessinsider.com/todd-akin-abortion-is-more-un-american-than-slavery-video-2012-8 Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Senate Race Polls

Here are links to all the polls for the 2012 Senate race Akin vs. McCaskill

Senate - Akin vs. McCaskill RealClearPolitics

2012 Missouri Senate: McCaskill vs. Akin Huffpost DLH (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request -- Capitalize "Senate"

Please capitalize "senate" in this sentence since it is a proper adjective describing the election as one for a seat in the United States Senate, which is a specific entity whose name is always capitalized. Thanks!

Political analysts believe that the comments have the potential to swing the 2012 United States Senate election in Missouri;[39][40] the Washington Post reported a "stampede" of Republicans dissociating from Akin as part of damage limitation, with NRSC chairman John Cornyn saying the GOP would no longer provide him senate election funding and describing Akin as "endangering Republicans’ hopes of retaking the majority in the Senate".

5reided (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unprotect

I think is is time to un-protect this article. Where can such request be made? Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP, or message the protecting admin. Are you sure about that though? This article drew 80,000 page views yesterday. I'd think there's a big chance of IP vandalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been a lot of work done at Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy‎ so most of this controversy has been processed already. With 80,000 page views, we ought to give readers the material they are looking for. Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not semi-protect first? If there is a large interest in a page then the page will likely not stay up to date if admins have to make the changes. Jimerb (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. Better. Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection seems to be a pretty good idea. Nemissimo (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I made a request to semi-protect from the protecting administrator User_talk:The_ed17#Todd_Akin Cwobeel (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I didn't realize it was fully protected. Semi-protection is appropriate here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've unlocked the article, but will be watching in case the edit warring resumes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

“Throughout his political career, Representative Todd Akin’s agenda has been driven by a belief that his mission came from God.”

• A Politician Whose Faith Is Central to His Persistence nytimes.com. Nemissimo (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2012

As a long-time member of the Missouri Libertarian Party, I'd like to ask for an inclusion of _all_ the candidates in Rep. Akin's congressional races. All data below from

2000 House, Ted DEM 126,441 42.4% Akin, Todd REP 164,926 55.3% Higgins, James LIB 2,524 .8% Gimpelson, Richard J. REF 1,264 .4% Odell, Mike GRE 2,907 1.0%

2002 Hogan, John DEM 77,168 31.1% Akin, Todd REP 166,696 67.1% Maloney, Darla R. LIB 4,547 1.8%

2004 Weber, George D. DEM 115,366 33.0% Akin, Todd REP 228,725 65.4% Maloney, Darla LIB 4,822 1.4% Leefe, David CST 954 .3%

2006 Akin, Todd REP 176,452 61.3% Weber, George D. DEM 105,242 36.6% Millay, Tamara A. LIB 5,923 2.1%

2008 Akin, Todd REP 230,976 62.3% Haas, William C. (Bill) DEM 131,303 35.4% Knapp, Thomas L. LIB 8,576 2.3%

2010 Lieber, Arthur DEM 77,467 29.2% Akin, Todd REP 180,481 67.9% Mosbacher, Steve LIB 7,677 2.9% Cannon, Patrick M. WI 7 .0%

Hsemerson (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Thanks for the statistics. Do you have a better reference for them? The Missouri Digital News page doesn't look like it would count under Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. If we can cite this change to a source that meets the guidelines then I will put it in the article for you. When you reply please change the text at the top of this section from "answered=yes" to "answered=no", otherwise I won't see the request. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Scientific Understanding, Rape Controversy

Many immediately decried both the insensitivity of the comments, and the lack of scientific understanding they reflected.

Professor Erica Frank, MD, MPH (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Needs mention of the rape controversy in the intro

This article needs a mention of the Akin rape controversy in the intro: something NPOV like "In August 2012, Akin became the subject of media controversy regarding his comments on abortion and rape" would do. Akin has catapulted himself to the centre of the U.S. political agenda by his remarks, to the point where they currently overshadow other campaign narratives about both the Senate and presidential elections. Not to mention this in the intro is ignoring the elephant in the room. -- The Anome (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. But we need to better summarize Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy‎ in the Todd_Akin#Rape_and_pregnancy_comments section. Cwobeel (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal Life section

Most political biographies of politician that are in national office have sections on personal life. Has his section gotten lost in all the recent editing? While you all are here focused on the controversy I would request you update the Personal Life section. Thankyou. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If you'd provide some reliable sources, I could potentially try my hand at this later in the weekend, or another editor might be willing to do this later. It's possible Akin's article never had one due to his much lower notability before this incident. Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Born in 1947, Todd grew up in Missouri’s second district and attended local schools. He met his future wife while working at IBM and married Lulli in the summer of 1975. Todd and Lulli have six children: Wynn, Perry, Micah, Ezra, Hannah, and Abigail. Eight grandchildren have also joined the Akin family. Todd commutes from St. Louis to Washington every week to be with his family and to meet with constituents, business leaders and other elected officials throughout the greater St. Louis community.

Today, Todd continues to write and lecture on the principles of America's Founding and Heritage. He is active in the Boy Scouts of America, a leader in his local church, a former board member of Missouri Right to Life, and sits on the board of the Mission Gate Prison Ministry."[1]

Another reference:

Family: Wife: Lulli; 6 Children: Wynn, Perry, Micah, Ezra, Hannah, Abigail

Current Legislative Committees
    * Armed Services, Member
    * Budget, Member
    * Science, Space, and Technology, Member
    * Subcommittee on Energy and Environment (Science, Space, and Technology), Member
    * Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, Chair
    * Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Member
    * Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, Member

Education
MDiv, Covenant Seminary, 1985
BS, Management Engineering, Worchester Polytechnic Institute, 1971
Professional Experience

Management Director, Laclede Steel Company, 1977-1980
Officer, United States Army, 1972-1980
Marketer, International Business Machines, 1974-1977
Teacher

Political Experience
Representative, United States House of Representatives, 2000-present
Representative, Missouri State House of Representatives, 1989-2000
Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees
Member, United States Constitutional Bicentennial Commission, 1987
Member, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Member, Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus
Member, Republican Study Committee
Member, Tea Party Caucus

Organizations
Assistant Troop Leader, Boy Scouts of America
Board Member, Mission Gate Prison Ministry
Member, Executive Board, Missouri River Township Republican Organization
Former Board Member, Missouri Right to Life
Additional Information

    * Astrological Sign:
       Cancer
    * Awards:
      -Guardian of Seniors Rights, 60-Plus Association
      -Hero of the Taxpayer, Americans for Tax Reform
      -Champion of Small Business, Small Business Survival Committee
[2]

97.85.168.22 (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Ballotpedia Wiki has a section of external links which you can raid for sources: external links section 97.85.168.22 (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Apology/clarification of comment

(I'm starting this section pre-emptively just in case there's danger of an edit war over this.) In the lede, I just changed this:

"The comment led to widespread calls for Akin to drop out of his Senate race. Akin apologized, clarified his comment, and said he would continue his campaign."

to this:

"He later said that he "misspoke." The comment led to widespread calls for Akin to drop out of his Senate race. Akin said that he would continue his campaign."

I did this because the lede should not contain material, especially uncited material, that is not included and cited elsewhere in the text. From what I can see, all the text currently says about Akin's reaction is: "Akin said, 'In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.'" This does not explicitly include an apology, nor a clarification (simply saying "I misspoke" does not clarify what you were intending to say). If he has apologized and/or clarified, that should be added and cited in the body of the article and then I have absolutely no objection to mentioning such in the lede. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, he misspoke in the sense of using "legitimate" in the place of "forcible", but not otherwise. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your concerns of an "edit war" were without foundation because as you admitted in your edit commentary, you were aware that he had apologized. [7] Therefore the statements could have been explicitly supported, and this matter could have been settled without "pre-emptively" accusing me of edit warring on this talk page and on my personal talk page. KeptSouth (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me to be accusing you of edit warring; what I meant to communicate is that because the article had so recently been unprotected, it seemed best to try to open a productive discussion very early on in the disagreement, rather than waiting to see if the disagreement persisted. I don't know you and I had no idea if you might react to my removing the content by simply replacing it, in which case I would have removed it again for the same reasons, and so on. (If I was accusing you of edit warring, I was accusing myself of edit warring as well. Also, I never mentioned anything about that on your own Talk page; I just wanted to make you aware that I'd brought up the issue here.)

What I said is that I thought I remembered, from my own reading about the story, seeing that Akin apologized, and I didn't think I remembered seeing that he had ever clarified the comment. I initially said the same thing here, and then removed it, because it really is irrelevant what I happen to remember; what matters is whether it can be cited. When I encountered the uncited text you added, I did not feel the obligation to research it, and potentially cite it, myself. Others may have the opinion that if User X posts uncited content, and User Y sees it, that User Y should refrain from removing it until User Y has taken on the burden of researching and citing it if possible; that's not an opinion I share. If you think it should be included, you're welcome to add it to the article text with proper sourcing. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's remove the quotes on medical topics from people with no medical expertise

A representative of the American Family Association cited a 1999 article by Doctor John C. Willke to argue Akin "was exactly right".[45] Pro-life theologian Pia de Solenni called Akin's remarks "idiotic", but also claimed that there is "no solid data" on the question of whether rape inhibits pregnancy, and opined that it was not a "far stretch [from effects of long-term stress on fertility] to wonder if women who are raped might have a lesser rate of pregnancy resulting from the rape".[46] Robert Fleischmann, director of pro-life group Christian Life Resources, similarly argued that Akin's point was plausible but lacked data ("I have yet to see a study that demonstrates some sort of contraceptive effect from a rape. I do believe, however, it is not an unwarranted conclusion." and "Statistically speaking, it appears something happens in a rape, either with the victim or with the perpetrator, that reduces the incidence of pregnancy.").[47]

I think this section should be removed from the article. These are people being quoted on medical topics who have no medical expertise. It's fine to have them give their views on topics about which they have a particular expertise (politics, religion, etc.) but there's no reason to include their comments on issues they know nothing about. Sue Gardner (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the entire section on the recent controversy is way too long per WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE. I do believe we should acknowledge he was defended per WP:NPOV. On Pregnancy from rape, the current version summarizes Akin's defense with one sentence: "Akin's suggestion that rape might inhibit pregnancy was defended by some prominent individuals and groups which oppose legal abortion," followed by links to sources about defenders. That's plenty. I also believe a similarly brief summary of negative reactions in proportion to the defenders will suffice if we are to have a longer main article on the incident. Jokestress (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea, Sue. You should chime in at the deletion discussion; this entire thing is based on the comments made by some moron with no medical expertise. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't object at all to the inclusion of comments supporting him or agreeing with what he said. I would be fine with these sentences staying in:

Akin has been defended by some social conservative organizations and notable Republicans, including the Family Research Council and Mike Huckabee. A spokesman for the Council said that "We feel this is a case of gotcha politics... We know who Todd Akin is. We've worked with him up on the hill. He's a defender of life."[43] Akin's remarks were also defended by the evangelical Christian activist Kirk Cameron.[44] In response to Republican demands that he resigns, Personhood USA spokeswoman Jennifer Mason said that Akin's position "is an integral part of the Republican Party platform, the same position that was held by President Ronald Reagan" and that "[we] are left with Reagan Republicans, who agree with the Republican Party platform on abortion, and Romney Republicans, a fringe group of liberals who compromise on human life."[48][49] Mike Huckabee supported Akin by soliciting donations for his Senate campaign, in which he accused the "Republican establishment" of a "carefully orchestrated and systematic attack."[50]

or with the inclusion of some general sentence(s) about him receiving support (as Jokestress said).

I just think there's no point in including opinions on the medical aspects of this story, from people who have no medical expertise. That Akin said it is clearly newsworthy and notable. But who cares whether a theologian thinks the medical studies on this question are "solid"? Similarly with Christian Life Resources. Their opposition to abortion is religious in nature: who cares whether they find Akin's statement about human physiology medically "plausible"? They have no expertise, so why would we quote them as though they do? Sue Gardner (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

These opinions may be useful to illustrate that he said was not a gaffe, and that are others like him who hold these notions as true and that came to his defense. Cwobeel (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Referring to controversy

There has been some back-and-forth about how to refer, in the introduction, to the controversy caused by Akin's comment. The two versions that have been used are:

"Akin made a controversial comment..."

vs.

"His comment caused media and political controversy"

My preferred version is the former, which seems clear and succinct. To me, the latter seems awkward and fairly meaningless; what is "media and political controversy"? Controversy that is reported by the media and involves politics? Both those attributes seem like they could be pretty well assumed by the reader.

Other opinions? Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, "controversy" is preferable to "media and political controversy". I am not sure what the latter is, and in any event, the link goes to an article that provides further information to the reader. KeptSouth (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A "controversial comment" is different than a "comment that caused controversy in political debate and in the media". That is why I think we need to better describe what happened. Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Current event template

I have removed it because the article on Akin does not meet the criteria: "The current event template may be used optionally to warn the editor or reader about the great flux of edits and the fast-changing state of the article", see, WP:Current event templates

There is not a great flux of events going on, nor are there a huge amount of edits. He is either going to get the court order and resign from the race or he is not, which is not exactly a great flux of events. Besides, the situation now is in limbo, with Akin still campaigning as the party nominee. Please discuss here if you disagree and wish to re-add the template. KeptSouth (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Fraternity

I couldn't find a source for this after looking diligently, so I removed it

During college he was a member of Phi Gamma Delta fraternity.

Hopefully, someone will see this note, provide a source and re-add the material to the article.KeptSouth (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems harmless, but then again, it's a BLP so you did the right thing. And, to be frank, this doesn't seem so important anyhow. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 August 2012

In External links, CongLinks template, please fill out the nyt parameter with a/todd_akin 184.78.81.245 (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial so  Done. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

the controversial opinion

at the start of the second paragraph, it is written that Akin expressed a controversial opinion. I was surprised to hear it described that way because it entails an element of subjectivity where none exists. It isn't an opinion like his opinion on which genre of music is best, and he wouldn't be "entitled to his own opinion" in this matter, so the saying goes. I'm not saying he doesn't genuinely believe it, but I mean it's recognized to be not a matter of opinion, but one of scientific inquiry and that his idea of how biology works is genuinely incorrect.

Can I propose that that word be changed to something like comment or statement, so there isn't any ambiguity about whether it's fallacious or not?

THanks71.234.13.90 (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• as further clarification, the point I'm trying to make is that to use the word opinion like that makes it so we can't differentiate between things we have knowledge of and things we believe, when in fact, there are ways to distinguish between the two like deduction, empirical measurement, etc.

You may believe that 2+2=4, but in addition to that attitude you're able to have knowledge of that fact by external confirmation, whereas with an opinion or belief, you are capable of having the attitude, but not progressing any further into certainty.

So, he definitely believes that, but it's not his opinion because it's not open to interpretation. 71.234.13.90 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Fewer words tend to be clearer. – MrX 18:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Tim Dreste

Perhaps we should delve into the relationship between Akin and Tim Dreste, an man who in the early 1990s made several threats against abortion clinics and doctors working there and who Todd Akin donated $200 toward his election campaign in 1992. What is a guy who wants to run for senate doing giving money to a domestic terrorist? --Bushido Hacks (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

National Guard?

Akin went into the military in 1971, in the middle of the Vietnam War. His bio says he was in the U.S. Army, which has to be true for a small part of his career, at least - when he was on active duty to go the Engineer officer basic course. But two different sources say that he was in the National Guard, something not in the Wikipedia article:

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/akins-congressional-legacy-small-but-his-support-among-christian-groups-is-big/2012/08/22/b2c2d98e-ec75-11e1-aca7-272630dfd152_story.html
• http://www.firedupmissouri.com/mopedia/todd-akin

Being in the National Guard rather than the U.S. Army is a big difference (see, for example, George W. Bush military service controversy, Dan Quayle). If Akin was in the National Guard for a while and then transferred to the Army Reserve, the article should be revised to say that.

Also, the second source says "rank of lieutenant (1971-1980)"; it would be nice to add his rank to the article, but more detail is needed (and a better source): there is no rank of "lieutenant" for Army officers; it's either 2LT or 1LT.

So, to repeat: it would be helpful if the article stated how many years he served on active duty; a typical commitment for an officer (via ROTC) would have been 2 years active duty and then 6 years in the Reserve. But if he was in the National Guard, he would have been on active duty only long enough to do go through officer basic school, and then he would have had a monthly drill obligation in the National Guard. (The article wording now gives no clue as to the date of "his discharge from active duty".) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Fired Up Missouri should qualify as a good source for attribution. It has ties to the Missouri Democratic party, or at least is very heavily biased in favor of Democratic candidates and issues. I ran across it while researching some of the Tim Jones "birther" stuff and it (the website) really seemed quite biased. Is there another reliable source besides the Post? Sector001 (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Washington Post is a reliable source though, so National Guard is adequately sourced. I believe I came across a reference stating he was on active duty for one year, and will look for it later.-- KeptSouth (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Roll Call profile says Army 1 year 1972, Reserve till 1980.--KeptSouth (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. Just a quibble - it says Army Reserve from 1972 to 1980. In other words, he was on active duty for less than a year, from 1972 to 1972. So, again, most likely he was on active duty just for the officer basic course for Engineers. That probably would have been nine weeks or so of training, per this source about engineer officer training in 1967, five years earlier. Atkin's Congressional bio, here, says he was on active duty at Fort Belvoir, which is where the Army Engineer School was (and thus where the officer basic course was) until the 1980s (per the Wikipedia article), so that's consistent with a short active duty period.

But I'm satisfied with the revised wording in the article, given the paucity of sources about this matter, since it doesn't mention his active duty period at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Fiscal Issues

The first sentence under fiscal issues, while accurate, seems obviously written by someone who doesn't like Mr. Akin. It says that he brought earmarks to his district, voted for an unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit, and voted to raise the debt ceiling, clearly implying that Akin is not fiscally responsible (which may, in fact, be true). However, I would say that most members of congress earmark pork for their districts, support raising the debt ceiling, and did or would have voted for the prescription drug benefit. I don't see other politicians getting treated like that on Wikipedia, and I doubt ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' would write it that way. Is there any way to clean up that sentence?24.6.40.199 (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Defense of legitimate rape and New book

He is releasing a book where he defends the legitimate rape comment. This should be intergrated into his bio. See link:

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Todd Akin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105005549/http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com:80/archives/2012/11/records-show-ak.php to http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2012/11/records-show-ak.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921175558/http://akin.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1629 to http://akin.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1629
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008133211/http://www.heartlandconnection.com/news/politics/story.aspx?id=620566 to http://www.heartlandconnection.com/news/politics/story.aspx?id=620566
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004223738/http://www.news-leader.com/article/20120306/NEWS06/303060072/Filing-Day-across-Christian-County-nixa-ozark-missouri to http://www.news-leader.com/article/20120306/NEWS06/303060072/Filing-Day-across-Christian-County-nixa-ozark-missouri
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314060633/http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Missouri-Rep-Akin-voting-living-at-different-places-122872884.html to http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Missouri-Rep-Akin-voting-living-at-different-places-122872884.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110220103631/http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/allresults.asp?eid=300 to http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/allresults.asp?eid=300
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115072604/http://enr.sos.mo.gov/ENR/Views/TabularData.aspx?TabView=StateRaces^Federal%20/%20Statewide%20Races^011656688155 to http://enr.sos.mo.gov/ENR/Views/TabularData.aspx?TabView=StateRaces

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"claims"

Do we really have to have all this BS about "many scientists don't accept his theory"? He's wrong, blatantly wrong, and "from what he understands from doctors" is BS because that's not what doctors are saying. He lied, are we not allowed to point that out anymore?204.11.142.106 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

anti-evolution

I was watching a channel on NEWSROOMMSNBC on youtube. The address is 51mi7dDbitk and this guy's name came up. He says "I take a look at both sides of the thing and it seems to me that evolution takes a tremendous amount of faith. I don't even see it as a matter of science because I don't know if you can prove....". It starts at 0:30. It looks like anti-abortion, anti-women's rights, anti-evolution, young earth creationism, anti - separation of church and state goes hand in hand. Can we have a section about this? Vmelkon (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Todd Akin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824000846/http://akin.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=2 to http://akin.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2012/11/records-show-ak.php
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121212115146/http://enr.sos.mo.gov/ENR/Views/TabularData.aspx?Status=SpecifyARace to http://enr.sos.mo.gov/ENR/Views/TabularData.aspx?Status=SpecifyARace
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://enr.sos.mo.gov/ENR/Views/TabularData.aspx?TabView=StateRaces%5EFederal%20%2F%20Statewide%20Races%5E011656688155
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110116112037/http://www.akin.house.gov/ to http://akin.house.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)