Talk:Todd Akin

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mother's Nmae 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mark Lodes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Responses to the statement? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: Ok, let's get the ball rolling. What's in dispute? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The summery looks pretty decent to me Casprings (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Speculation section of this talk page. That's what's in dispute. ROG5728 (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection, Day 1 

message: Should we add this to the controversies section?   Qworty (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm going to suggest that it has a place in this article. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick trip to Google confirms that this story is notable. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pilgrims vs. Socialists in--1620??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other Sections in the Article? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  New Article: Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy 

message: There's an article on George D. Weber;  requesting wikilink to same.  84.203.39.242 (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Page is fully protected, changed request  to edit protected. RudolfRed (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad.  Thanks.  84.203.39.242 (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link request 

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

message: 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====
Casprings (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  Casprings (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done see  --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: Casprings (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  Casprings (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done see  --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy

message: 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)
replies: text: I like it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Better and more appropriate approach/tone. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. :) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The comment was widely criticized as false 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Edit Request 

message: 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.http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/todd-akin-s-deep-beliefs-and-loyal-base-are-hurdle/article_c41d61a4-eb4e-11e1-ad3e-0019bb30f31a.html
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.”http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/todd-akin-s-deep-beliefs-and-loyal-base-are-hurdle/article_c41d61a4-eb4e-11e1-ad3e-0019bb30f31a.html
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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edit request on early biography

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, so  Done, see . --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit requests (minor wording improvements) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy over rape and abortion should be in the lead section  

message: Replace the current introduction, quoted as follows:
William Todd Akin (born July 5, 1947) is the U.S. Representative for , 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 , 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):
 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed intro change #1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed intro change #2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit Request - Non Controversial 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Senate Race Polls

message: 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)
replies: text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request -- Capitalize "Senate" 

message: I think is is time to un-protect this article. Where can such request be made? Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Oh yes. Better. Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Semi-protection seems to be a pretty good idea. Nemissimo (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Oh my bad, I didn't realize it was fully protected. Semi-protection is appropriate here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unprotect 

message: * A Politician Whose Faith Is Central to His Persistence nytimes.com. Nemissimo (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Throughout his political career, Representative Todd Akin’s agenda has been driven by a belief that his mission came from God.”

message: 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 http://www.mdn.org/
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request on 22 August 2012 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of Scientific Understanding, Rape Controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Needs mention of the rape controversy in the intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Personal Life section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Referring to controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current event template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fraternity 

message: 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)
replies: text: Seems uncontroversial so . —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 30 August 2012 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the controversial opinion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tim Dreste 

message: 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)
thread_title: Fiscal Issues

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "claims" 

message: 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)
thread_title: anti-evolution

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified