Talk:John C. Willke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

news sources[edit]

Also this: http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rare-461 Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

medical training[edit]

"Willke earned his M.D. from the University of Cincinnati in 1948, and practiced as a family practitioner for much of his medical career." The quick source for this was Doximity, a doctors only site. While i think it is a reliable automatic database entry, it would be good to confirm and reference it from another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.14.241.253 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack or John?[edit]

See http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-todd-akin-touts-support-from-man-who-popularized-theories-on-rape-20120821,0,6626759.story

Cwobeel (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is John, despite some sources using "Jack" http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/health/rape-pregnancy/index.html Cwobeel (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Overemphasis on Wilke's Rape Position[edit]

The intro had a disproportionate emphasis on Wilke's position on the frequency of rape pregnancies was also laced with disdain. While it is appropriate to have this in the body of the article, it is not appropriate for the summary. It makes it just look like an "attack" piece, targeting an one opinion of Wilke's that editors find objectionable. The objective information about his running NRLC for numerous years and what he did in that time is all ignored.

Agree that the statement didn't belong in lead and read with disdain and as an "attack piece", a concern on BLP. It is notable that he made this statement, so it does belong in body of article and seems to be well covered in body.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice reverting without participation in talk page discussion. I'm not sure I agree that his opinion on rape belongs in the lead, but if we are going to include it, at a minimum we should address concern that it appears laced with disdain and makes it seem like an attack piece, a concern on a BLP. I replaced with neutral factual statement: "Wilke has made inaccurate and controversial statements regarding rape and pregnancy" which is supported by text in body of article--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be a summary of the body. Making false statements about rape is practically the only thing notable about Dr. Wilke. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BoboMeowCat, the wording you used in the lead does not accurately and fully represent his views on pregnancy and rape. His views aren't just controversial - they're repudiated by the medical profession, and to not say something about that is not neutral. Ca2james (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ca2james I agree Willke's views are beyond controversial. They're also inaccurate, which is why I summarized them as "inaccurate and controversial" [1]. I don't really feel strongly one way or the other about your recent change. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did he serve in the armed forces during WWII?[edit]

article says that he graduated highschool in 1942 (thus becomeing eligable for service in 1943) and took six years to complete medical school - thus it seems he may have served in WWII.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
maybe i am wrong about that - a combined BS/MD program would take 6 years--70.190.111.213 (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

The article currently appears to contain WP:OR/WP:SYNTH with respect to the following section: claiming that sexual assaults resulted in only about four pregnancies per state per year.[2][9] A study published in 1996 by the Medical University of South Carolina estimated that there are in fact approximately 32,000 pregnancies from rape in the United States each year, a pregnancy rate of 5% per rape among victims of reproductive age.[10].

Willke apparently made the claim that something he calls "assault rape"/"forcible rape" results in only about 4 pregnancies per state per year. [2] Next, a study which does not mention Willke at all, or restrict their analysis to Willke's def of rape is used to refute him [3]. This is done using editor commentary of "in fact". Appears to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Seems we should just delete that whole section. It's not necessary to the overall message in the article that Willke is wrong about prevalence of pregnancy from rape because we still have Willke's claim that pregnancy is rare from rape and medical experts strongly disagreeing with him with quotes such as "There are no words for this—it is just nuts." --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

after trying endlessly to find information about the doctor's life history i saw that sentence in endless articles - thus it is well cited on the internet - so i my self do not agree about your idea for its removal based on a claim of OR by the wiki editor who added it--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing it on the Internet is not a RS. At a minimum, it seems we should delete the text about the University of South Carolina study, which doesn't mention Willke at all, and does not attempt to study the accuracy of Willke's claims regarding pregnancy from what Willke calls "assault rape", which is apparently what he's talking about, because including that text violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If we keep Willke's claim about rape pregnancies being 4 per state per year, we should probably clarify that he is making this claim about what he describes as "assault rape" or "forcible rape" to accurately reflect source cited.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A number of RS do mention this study in conjunction with Willke's comments, though (in the context of the resurgence of this myth in the news following Todd Akin's comments). eg. [4] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, using that source seems to solve the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH concerns. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John C. Willke. 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:

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) 08:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_C._Willke&oldid=1208177737"