Talk:Ralph Northam/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Second RfC on WTOP interview comments - Draft

This is a continuation of a previous RfC, which was closed without consensus. When that RfC initially opened, it didn't include all of the options that had been suggested during prior conversations about the matter. As such, when that RfC was closed, it was advised that any new RfC on the topic be first posted in draft form, so that anyone interested has a chance to add options before the RfC goes live.

The previous RfC included four options, but one of those options (Option A) had been suggested by myself, and I've since developed alternative options that I prefer. Another one of those options (Option C), was proposed by an editor, VeritasSapientia, who has been essentially inactive on Wikipedia for about two months. Neither Option A nor Option C gained any support in the previous RfC, so I've decided to omit both of them from this draft. Either option can certainly be re-added if anyone would like to see them included.

To keep things simple, I won't bother adding references to any of these options, but if anyone wants to see the references, let me know, and I'll add links to where the references can be found.

I'll leave the draft up for about a week. Anyone is welcome to add new options during that time. --Jpcase (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Options

Option A:

For third-trimester abortions, he supports the requirement that more than one physician attest that continued pregnancy would be "substantially and irremediably" harmful to a woman's health and opposes a provision of the proposed Repeal Act that would lower that requirement to a single physician. Northam opposes abortion after labor has begun but attracted intense criticism when he suggested that non-resuscitation and other measures were an option in cases of non-viable births with severe deformities.

Option B:

For third-trimester abortions, Northam supports Virginia's current law requiring certification by multiple physicians. In January 2019, Northam attracted intense criticism from Republican politicians when he suggested that non-resuscitation and other measures were an option in cases of non-viable births with severe deformities.

Option C:

(This option would be to simply omit from the "Abortion" section any discussion of the comments that Northam made during his WTOP interview. The controversial comments would still be addressed, briefly, in the article's "Governor of Virginia" section.)

Option D:

For third-trimester abortions, Northam supports Virginia's current law requiring certification by multiple physicians. During a January 2019 radio interview, Northam said that when third-trimester abortions are performed, "it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable." He further explained that if such a pregnancy results in a delivery, "The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother." This statement drew intense criticism from Republican politicians nationwide, many of whom accused Northam of supporting infanticide.

Option E:

For third-trimester abortions, Northam supports Virginia's current law requiring certification by multiple physicians. During a January 2019 radio interview, Northam said that when third-trimester abortions are performed, "it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable." He further explained that if a pregnancy resulted in the delivery of a non-viable or severely deformed infant, "The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother." This statement drew intense criticism from Republican politicians nationwide, many of whom accused Northam of supporting infanticide.

Option F:

For third-trimester abortions, Northam supports Virginia's current law requiring certification by multiple physicians. During a January 2019 radio interview, Northam said that third-trimester abortions may be done in cases of a non-viable fetus or severe deformity. If a delivery occurred in such cases, Northam further stated that, "The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother." This statement drew intense criticism from Republican politicians nationwide, many of whom accused Northam of supporting infanticide.

Comments

• Option D is acceptable, none of the "Option A, nor B, nor C" are acceptable - Because A,B ignore Northam's position that "The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother." Options A and B discuss "non-resuscitation", which is not part of Northam's response, and completely elide the heart of his controversial remarks, which is that the baby would be resuscitated "and then a discussion would ensue," in Northam's words.. The post-resuscitation discussion on whether to abort or not abort the infant is the core of the argument. Furthermore, Options A and B are worse than what is currently on the page because the various references are omitted. I understand the actual RFC will include all references currently extant in the article (where suitable), with no paring at all of current sources (where suitable). Finally, option C is untenable as the "Abortion" section on Northam should not omit his most noteworthy comments ever on the subject. XavierItzm (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC). Amended XavierItzm (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Note for clarity: The above comment by XavierItzm was edited subsequent to the following response. Option D did not exist at the beginning of this discussion: @XavierItzm: Thanks for the response! You're welcome to add a new option. Option A from the previous RfC quotes most of Northam's own words on this matter. We can re-add that option if you'd like, although as I've already mentioned, that particular option failed to gain any support in the previous RfC. So creating a new option might be better. During the previous RfC, it was generally felt that the "Abortion" section of this article should either omit any mention of Northam's WTOP interview, or else, only devote a few sentences to it.

I've attempted to incorporate your feedback by adding an "Option D" above. If you'd like to come up with your own option as well, feel free to do so.

As for references, like I said at the outset, I didn't bother including them here right now, because I didn't want to clutter up the page with a references section. But maybe that was a mistake on my part. References exist for all of the information above, and the intent was always to use those references in the actual article. I'll go ahead and include references in the official RfC. Keep in mind that this is just a draft of the RfC. --Jpcase (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to include what we've got as an option? Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I've asked the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to offer any comments they may have. Gandydancer (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Yes, if you have an alternative idea, you're more than welcome to add it above as a new option, alongside the others. I had been planning to only leave this draft up for a week, but I'll leave it up a little bit longer, in case you'd like to add your own option. --Jpcase (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Option D is acceptable, none of the "Option A, nor B, nor C" are acceptable agree w/ XavierItzm--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks for the response! Keep in mind that this is just a draft though. If you'd like to offer your input, make sure to vote in the official RfC, which should be opened in about a day or two. --Jpcase (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - I Like D&C. Sparkie82 (t•c) 14:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: So you would support Option D? If so, then there probably isn't any need to open an official RfC, as it seems that we're all in agreement here. --Jpcase (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: How do you feel about using Option D? It seems that everyone else is in favor of it, so if we're all in agreement here, then I suppose that there isn't any need to open an official RfC. --Jpcase (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I find option D confusing in that its not clear what "such pregnancy" is. It would make more sense to me if it said something like, "He further explained that if a pregnancy resulted in the delivery of a non-viable or severely deformed infant, 'The infant would be resuscitated..."--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mojo Hand: That's a fair point. I had wanted to avoid redundancy and hoped that it would be understood, but I can see how "such a pregnancy" may be too ambiguous. I'll add an Option E, incorporating your proposed phrasing and see what others think. --Jpcase (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: @Ozzie10aaaa: @Sparkie82: @XavierItzm: It seems like we were close to reaching a consensus in favor of using Option D, but Mojo Hand has pointed out that some of the language in Option D is overly vague. I'm inclined to agree with Mojo Hand on this. So I've added an Option E, which is almost identical to Option D. The only difference is that Option E replaces the phrase "such a pregnancy" with a description of the specific type of pregnancy that Northam was talking about. Can everyone who I just pinged let me know if you'd support Option E? If we can all agree on this, then I won't bother to open an RfC. --Jpcase (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Option "E" abounds in unnecessary redundancy ("D" is clearly superior in legibility, grammar, and conciseness) but if a majority select this poorly worded "E", then, in the interest of collegiality, wordy "E" would be acceptable. Barely. Otherwise, count me up for "D". XavierItzm (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with XavierItzm. I prefer D but will go along with E if it is the majority wish. Gandydancer (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: @Gandydancer: Thanks for the swift response! How would the two of you feel about Option F, which was added by Mojo Hand just a short moment ago? --Jpcase (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I like Mojo's version better. Gandydancer (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Concur w/ Gandydancer. Otherwise, D, otherwise, E.XavierItzm (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ above editors Gandydancer & XavierItzm--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Haha, the above edits remind me of something I just read on Mojo's page about his/her fav diffs: [[1]] What the hell, is WP going soft, or what??? Gandydancer (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Great! I agree that Option F is the way to go - I'd like for this to be unanimous though, so I'll give Sparkie82 some more time to respond. --Jpcase (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• I still believe that including this information violates WP:BLP. From WaPo, May 20, [...] he has never clarified his remarks. This must be added. wumbolo ^^^ 13:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: During the last RfC, you voted to omit any mention of the WTOP interview from the "Abortion" section, right? So is that why you feel that the other options would violate WP:BLP? If that's what you're concerned about, then I'm kinda in agreement with you. It doesn't seem to me that Northam's statement reflected his personal political positions. He was simply describing established medical practice, and so any mention of the controversy over his statement would be more appropriate to include in the "Governor of Virginia" section. If you feel strongly about this, then I can go ahead and open a new RfC - but the tide seems to be in favor of including this information in the "Abortion" section. Option F, proposed by Mojo Hand, seems to me like a very good consensus to settle on.

I'm not really sure what to make of that quote from The Washington Post. According to this earlier WaPo article, "Northam’s office later made clear the governor was talking about prognosis and medical treatment, not ending the life of a delivered baby." Meanwhile, according to this WaPo article, Northam himself "said later his reference to a post-birth 'discussion' referred to medical care." And of course, Northam's spokesperson released a statement clarifying Northam's remarks, which can be read in full, here. So while I suppose it's true that Northam himself has never made a public statement clarifying his remarks, his remarks have been clarified both in private, on-the-record conversations between himself and journalists, and through public statements released by his spokesperson.

I'm not really sure how to present all of that information concisely, but if you'd like to try, you're welcome to add a new option. --Jpcase (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jpcase: all of these are referring to the same statement by Northam's spokesperson. The different interpretations are just result of bias and the fact that "actions physicians would take" is as vague as it gets (WaPo itself essentially say it is vague). The "medical care" and "prognosis and medical treatment" are interpretations of the statement. And if the statement's vague, it does not provide meaningful content to the article. From the proposed options, I support Option F, and don't have anything more to add. wumbolo ^^^ 18:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: It's certainly possible that the two WaPo articles I cited were basing their claims on the statement issued by Northam's spokesperson, but I'm not seeing any definitive indication of that. The second article that I cited attributes the clarifying statement to Northam himself. Regardless, if you're willing to support "Option F" as it's written, then it seems that we have a consensus.

I'll give Sparkie82 one more day to respond, but at this point, it seems to me that Option F has enough support to be included in the article without having to go through an RfC. Thanks to everyone who responded for sharing your input on this. --Jpcase (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright - looks like we're going with Option F. I'll go ahead and make the change. Again, thanks to everyone who weighed in on this. --Jpcase (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I know we are not supposed to share personal feelings, but never-the-less thanks to all for working on this and especially Jpcase for seeing it through. The public for the most part does not understand what horrendous things can go wrong that result in truly grotesque infants or other physical complications that can not be medically fixed that doom the infant to death in a few hours. To force the already intensely grieving parents to hook these infants up to life support rather than to let them live for the short time that they may have in peace is truly cruel beyond words. Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jpcase: I restored the endnote link to the full quote which I believe you removed accidentally.

I'm fine with what you folks have come with. The only comment I have is that it implies that the criticism came only from "Republican politicians", but I believe there were responses from other segments of society as well. Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Since last night, this article has undergone persistent disruptive editing from two IP accounts. The first of these edits can be seen here The first IP account reverted four different editors multiple times and has been warned twice on his or her talk page to refrain from disruptive editing. The second IP account has continued to add the exact same content as the first IP account. Neither of these accounts had ever been used before last night.

I've always allowed other people to handle these types of situations, so I'm not really sure what should be done. Should both accounts be blocked? Or should the article be temporarily protected? Is there some other, third option that would be best? Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 7 days - hopefully that is long enough for the editor to move on to something else. With multiple IPs adding the same content, page protection is usually the way to go.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mojo Hand: Thanks for the help! --Jpcase (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)