Is Sue Gardner an Idiot? Options

[Ottava]

Sue Gardner opens her mouth but doesn't know what she is talking about.

Todd Akin went off a doctor's claim that less than .1% of rape victims get pregnant and declared pregnancy after rape to be "rare." I've showed that the only study contradicting that to be bunk because they did not apply a proper control group nor try to see if their results were logical.


But there is something even more basic.

The study saying 5% of rape victims become pregnant only has rape victims that had semen left inside of them (not that common, actually, as many rapes are not finished, or have full ejaculation) and there was no birth control used before, during, or after. Furthermore, they only accounted for "fertile" women, and there are rapes of post-menopausal and those too young to get pregnant.

Thus, the "5% claim" doesn't actually contradict the less than .1% of all rapes. She is wading into a major topic whose title suggests Todd Akin raped someone and is spouting off stuff she really doesn't know. She should have known better.



Bonus: The Executive of the WMF doesn't know that "I disagree with him politically" is not a legitimate keep rationale.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Ottava]

JoshuaZ doesn't want Ms. Gardner's ignorance to be the most objectionable, so he valiantly jumped in with this doozy:

"The article title isn't controversial or offensive. He made comments about rape and pregnancy. Any cursory reading with minimal reading comprehension can see that's what it is. BLP doesn't require us to presume that readers are absolute idiots. And even if one thinks there's a BLP problem with the title it is easy to change that to something like "Todd Akin comments about rape and pregnancy controversy" so this isn't a relevant argument for the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"

So having an article called "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy" does not suggest he raped and got someone pregnant? The article isn't "Todd Akin comments controversy" or even "Todd Akin's comments about rape and pregnancy controversy."

Why is JoshuaZ not immediately blocked for such a BLP violation and gross-disruption?



By the way, The similar page on an Obama controversy gets a generic title "2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech." This was then renamed to "You didn't build that," which, at least, is a quote. At no time was the page "Barack Obama denying businesses credit controversy" or something similar.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[victim of censorship]

I make the contention that Sweet Sue's Wikipeidia is this large, Frankinstein of a monster, who is raping and and doing rape and violence to the body politic of the internet.

Wikipedia, for me represets the symbol of Violance, Moral Depravity and Lies, and is chock full of the most repugnet, despicable, moraly bankruped, criminality inclined individuals, this side of satan's hell.
or a super max prison.

Wikipeida , as it is now, IMHO is a Criminal enterprise, run by those who only care about Money, power and megalomania.

IF i could, I would throw all wikipediots in prison as enemies of humanity.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: