Talk:Planned Parenthood

Verifiability of Criticisms

I would like to delete some of the Criticisms, but I'd like to get feedback first. For each entry under "Criticisms," the only sources are pro-life websites. I think the Superhero for Choice is the most dubious entry - there is no mention of it in any third-party sorces. Pro-life websites cannot count as credible, third-party sources, since they have a vested interest in the matter. There's no doubt that Planned Parenthood is a controversial enterprise, but I would like to see controversy and criticism limited to reactions to acts by the organization that have been recorded in the legitimate media. Margrietta 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The first page of results at Google news yields two stories from reliable sources about people protesting a PP clinic in Minnesota. There's some information there about specific criticisms, and that's just looking at this week's news. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You've got a big problem with prejudice. You are saying "Pro-life websites cannot count as credible" merely on the grounds that they don't agree with your viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not prejudice - it's what constitutes a reliable source for a topic touching on controversy. Why don't you read up on it WP:RS and the section on "Extremist and Fringe Sources". Mattnad (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the critics of Planned Parenthood are primarily pro-life. Therefore it shouldn't come as a suprise that a majority of the references in a criticism section come from the group that is most critical of Planned Parenthood. To say that "Pro-life websites cannot count as credible, third-party sources, since they have a vested interest in the matter" is equivalent to saying that we shouldn't cite pro-choice sources (including PlannedParenthood.org). --Lacarids (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Planned Parenthood could not be used as a source for criticism of say the "anti-choice movement" or something of that nature. Any criticism has to come from reliable sources, and not be given undue weight. Also, I would note that Planned Parenthood is a mainstream organization that receives government funding and engages only in honest business practices, the same cannot be said of most pro-life organizations. Many of them are even listed as hate groups by the SPLC. _WikiMan^One 19:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you meant to write "the same cannot be said of most pro-life organizations..." I would argue that most pro-life orgs are "honest". Some of the them include mainstream religious orgs. How about we don't get sucked into Fox News vs. MSNBC rhetoric - there are enough Palin/Oberman wannabees in Wikipedia already.Mattnad (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I made the edit to my comment. I would disagree with your characterization of anti-abortion organizations, but then, I think that any organization that calls itself "pro-life" is being dishonest since there is no scientific basis to say life begins at that point, which is what I generally rely on to draw my conclusions. As for MSNBC vs. FOX, see my userpage. :) That being said, what's the discussion on? Let's build consensus to have a good version of the controversies and then ask an administrator to add it since the page is protected. _WikiMan^One 21:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiMan, anyone who believes differently from you is dishonest? And I find it laughable that you would bring the SPLC into this, seeing as their definition of "hate" is anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I will agree with using major news sources (Reuters, AP, FOX News, NBC, NY Times, etc.) as opposed to pro-life websites when possible. Since this is about controversies/criticisms, it is permissible to mention a press release by the NRLC criticizing on a specific ground, but even better I think to find this claim referenced elsewhere in the media for a more neutral and prominent media organization. Still, the NRLC is by no means a 'fringe' group as it's the most prominent pro-life organization in the world. As such, it should be okay to quote them as a source of criticism, and simply state their criticisms. However, it may be necessary to cite Planned Parenthood's defense and related press release as well. I would say it appropriate so long as both sides have their views on the criticism presented. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Political Correctness

I've noticed that in this article (and all the abortion articles on wikipeida) that the politicly correct termanology, 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' is used. I object to this because these are loaded terms designed to create an emotional responce and the non-sugar coated terms, pro- and anti- abortion, anyone who has heard of abortion can know what they mean. 110.32.136.190 (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Planned_Parenthood#Pro-life_vs._Anti-Abortion. This is an old and well resolved discussion. It's not Political Correctness, but what's being used in the media and how each group represents itself.Mattnad (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, "well resolved"? There was about a paragraph of unconstructive arguments there none of which, like you, addressed my point! 110.32.137.250 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason we don't use "pro-abortion" is that it doesn't adequately describe the position of people who want abortion to remain legal. If there are any people around who are in favour of abortion, then perhaps those people could be described by "pro-abortion". But the opinion that abortion should remain legal is not an opinion that abortion is a positive and good thing. People who desire the continued legality of abortion generally object to the label "pro-abortion" for this reason. Because of that, it's only used by people who oppose the legality of abortion. Therefore, if Wikipedia used it, it would be taking sides. The Wednesday Island (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We're not taking sides if we use that terminology for both sides, both pro and anti abortion. 110.32.131.89 (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It's atypical and not consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. The US debate is framed around those in favor of allowing a woman to chose when she will have a child, and those in favor of protecting the unborn. Planned parenthood also provides birth control and family planning services which is also part of "Choice". Calling people who are in favor of allowing access to abortion "pro abortion" is a distortion designed to present their position in a negative light which I believe is your intent. Your argument would be akin to saying people who support an individual's right to self-defense as "pro-killing" since the exercise of this right could be the death of another person.

And frankly, your persistence on this matter strikes me more of an effort to engage in politicized debate on this discussion pages rather than improve the article. I think this discussion has run its course.Mattnad (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Calm down; you need to take a wikibreak.There is no need to give me thinly vailed accusations. I actually support abortion. Your point about it being atypical only applies if we do it to just this article. Yet again you did not adress any of my points. 110.32.131.13 (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And persistance? I had posted three times, which is dozens of times less than what (in my experience) it takes to make any major change to an article most often. 110.32.131.13 (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered. I will add that if you do an internet search with "Planned Parenthood" and "Pro-abortion" the results are uniformly from groups that oppose abortion. So if we were to take your advice, we'd be violating WP:NPOV. You'd also have more credibility if you were not hiding behind an anon-IP that edits only this talk page and one other.

So, if you want a debate about the semantics of the terms around abortion, join a debate club. How about you go to other talk pages an this topic with this effort and see if your reception is any different. Mattnad (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, if we change BOTH pc terms then there it's still NPOV. Debate club? Is that supposed to be a thinly vialed personal attack? For god's sake stop missing all the points I make and introducing irrelevancies. If you say "its violating NPOV" don't give the same discreated reason or I will just say PRATT. 110.32.136.108 (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed terminology (Pro or Anti Abortion) does not accurately represent either group. Your assertion that they are equal and therefor NPOV is not supported by anyone but you. "Pro-Abortion" is used to paint Pro-Choice/Abortion rights supporters in a negative light which is why group like Operation Save America use the term (see "Pro-abortion Forces to Terrorize OSA National Event"]). By contrast, here are examples from recent article on the Abortion from Fox News, The New York Times, and Time Magazine. Here we see that Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are the conventional terms when someone doesn't have an ax to grind.Mattnad (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence has no evidence. Your second is an argument by popularity, and even then with a sample size of three (including me). Your links aren't relevant; the most common term is not necessarily the right one. In fact, the Fox News link proves my point, it has a pro-abortion group call a bill "anti-abortion", showing that both terms are used by those not of that position. 110.32.155.163 (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

However, it doesn't show that anyone but the pro-life movement calls the pro-choice movement "pro-abortion", and with good reason: nobody else does. Please try to understand that the pro-choice movement does not call itself "pro-abortion", because this would mean it was in favour of abortion. Please try to understand that nobody but the opponents of the pro-choice movement uses the term "pro-abortion", and that they use this term because they wish to present the idea that the pro-choice movement is in favour of abortion. You may verify these facts for yourself with a simple Google News search. Please try to understand that the use of a term for a group which is used only by the political enemies of that group is not conducive to a neutral point of view. The Wednesday Island (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, I know. That is just PRATT. You need to check out WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT. 110.32.155.163 (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny, WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT seems to be more applicable to you since you completely reject precedent and rationale for the status quo inside and outside of Wikipedia. I think we understand well what you are trying to do here, and it's not about improving the article. Unfortunately for you, you have not been able to build any consensus for your attempt to reject how non-partisan parties present this topic. It's not going to happen here. Mattnad (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that Wikipedia also has established naming guidelines for article titles that parallel your ongoing complaints that the terms are PC and not precise enough for you: Wikipedia:NC#Non-neutral_but_common_names. If we were to adopt your unique POV on the terms in this article, we'd also need to change the articles related to Pro-choice and Pro-Life. So why don't you start with those, both in title and how they refer to the positions inside the articles. If you can get those changed per your concepts of what's right for the world, I'll back you up 100% on Planned Parenthood. Mattnad (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now giving me thinly vailed insults, the most graceless way of admitting you have lost the argument. You have no consensus either; 2 on 1 is not a consensus. Likewise, you are the one rejecting "precedent and rationale" as all you have given me is an argument "its not neutral" that I've refuted a thousand times, some insults and baseless accusations, and a link to a PROPOSED Wikipedia policy. If you point out a real one, I will certainly drop the subject. Likewise, if you point out a policy on where to start a multi-page change, I will shift this debate over to the suitable talk page. Last of all, please take a wikibrake, at least from here, as you seem to be too angry to have a constructive argument. 110.32.143.42 (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Mattnad that you haven't presented any convincing reason to change our current descriptors. I also think Mattnad has been fairly calm in responding to you, so I don't see that he urgently needs a wikibreak. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On your first sentence, I have, as seen on my original post. On your second, Mattnad has continually given me insults and accusations, so even if he is calm, he still needs to take a break. 110.32.143.42 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Outdent - Per MastCell, you haven't presented any convincing reason to this board. While you may have convinced yourself, ALL other editors who have weighed in don't agree with you. You may want to take this to another forum, including a formal RFC, or perhaps Wikipedia:Third opinion Mattnad. (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet again you don't address my points, and this time you are again going for a argument by popularity with a spectacular result of three on one. 110.32.143.42 (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your points have been addressed over and over again. Continued positing that it is not so does not change this fact. The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That is extremely ironic coming from you, and to Mr Angry, all he now seems to be saying is a euphemism for "La la la can't hear you". If you have refuted me, then could you please point out, phrase by phrase, where each of the arguments in my original post have been refuted, without posting 'refutations' that I have refuted. Thank you. 110.32.143.42 (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, since no-one has posted in almost a fortnight, I'll give you guys three days to come up with something constructive. If not, I will make the proposed changes. 110.32.141.130 (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The very first reply to your original request was constructive, you just didn't like the answer. Many other following responses were constructive also. Feel free to make the changes if you must, but try not to be too upset when they are correctly reverted. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you didn't explain how it was constructive, your post was unconstructive too. (Note, you are doing the same thing as The Wednesday Island). QED. 110.32.142.38 (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this again from the top.

1. There is no consensus to make this change. Therefore, if you change it you will be reverted on sight.
2. There is a policy about the use of such names. Your changes would contravene this policy. Therefore, they will need to be reverted if you make them. You might do better to try to change the policy.
3. There is no better term to use than "pro-choice". "Pro-abortion" is not a better term, for two reasons:
   1. It misrepresents the pro-choice position, because it implies that the pro-choice position is a position in favour of abortion.
   2. In the real world, the term "pro-abortion" is only used by those who oppose the legality of abortion to describe people who wish abortion to be legal. Its use in Wikipedia would therefore be biased.

Which of these points are you disagreeing with? The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see:

1. PRATT
2. PRATT
3. I'll go for specifics like you here:
   1. True, but there are so many other reasons (that I posted in my first comments, as well as the 'choice for what question) not to go for 'pro-choice' it's a pretty clear case of the lesser of two evils
   2. PRATT

In short, you are continually repeating yourself, and refusing to accept that all your arguments (bar 1) have been destroyed over and over and over again. 110.32.142.38 (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I see we're getting nowhere, so how about a compromise. Instead of "lobbies the U.S. political system for pro-choice legislation", we could have "lobbies the U.S. political system for right to abortion legislation", "lobbies the U.S. political system for reduced restrictions on abortion legislation" or something similar. It would be helpful if you suggest some things yourself. 110.32.142.38 (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It might help if I knew what "PRATT" meant. The Wednesday Island (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Point Refuted A Thousand Times. 110.32.142.38 (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I've been watching this for the past couple of weeks, I will join the chorus and say I will be one of those that I agree with the current naming convention of this article and will revert anything outside of the established norm. Just saying.--Hourick (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this has run its course, and we're well into don't-feed-the-trolls territory at this point. MastCell ^Talk 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Some more insults was all that was. Since no-one is going for a compromise I can do that either. 110.32.142.38 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Will agree with the use of terms 'pro-life' and pro-choice'. Politically correct terms for an online encyclopedia are the best way to avoid loaded language, and a suitable alternative for both sides. It's best to portray both sides with terms they'd agree with, and the pro-choice community objects to the term pro-abortion for some reason. While I might find the term fitting, I recognize the validity of using neutral terms for an online encyclopedic community. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticism

The first sentence of this section reads as follows: Pro-life groups have accused Planned Parenthood of failing to report potential cases of statutory rape, or following parental notification laws in some states.

The next sentence currently reads as follows: Although there are few known instances of actual broken laws, some pro-life activists have created sting operations to substantiate their claims...

The initial clause of the second sentence has the following issues: (a) dubious; (b) arguably POV; and (c) no citation. I have tagged it multiple times and tried to revise it, but only reverts result. If the initial clause is going to stay in, it at least needs to be sourced--but I think it should come out. Thoughts?184.74.22.161 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at that section before, but I didn't know how to edit it for the very reasons you encountered. While the "sting" is cited in the first example, it can be used to also cite the ending sentence of "sting operations". I think it needs a bit of a rewrite, but I would have to leave it to someone that is fairly neutral on the matter and read and judge it after the fact.

Both sides on this matter have a tendency to be rather "enthusiastic" and that's why I usually just watch the page. --Hourick (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If the anon editor had bothered to read the references in the succeeding paragraphs, he or she would have read this Salon.com article [3] which highlights how actual laws were not broken (except by the anti-abortion callers) and includes this "...Suspected abuse can be reported either to the police or child protective services. And in 2005, a federal inspection conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services found that that's exactly what happens when a child who may have been abused comes into a family planning clinic. The inquiry yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest." I've repeated the reference so it's closer to the statement that the editor was attempting to remove for lack of citation reasons. Mattnad (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and work on editing that today. _WikiMan^One 19:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism rewrite

The following is all taken from the article, we can work on making it meet WP:NPOV standards here and then re-include it in the article. (So as to avoid any major edit wars breaking out in the article, we can reach consensus here first..) _WikiMan^One 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

Although a 2005 federal inspection by the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest", some anti-abortion activists have created elaborate "sting" operations in attempts to substantiate their claims. These "stings" have been decried as "James O'Keefe-style 'sting' in which deceptively edited Internet videos would prove that some organization dedicated to providing services to the poor or otherwise non-privileged was in fact engaged in high crimes and conspiracy against freedom." Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates.

Discussion

Please note changes you make here and discuss further improvement, look at previous conversation for concerns. _WikiMan^One 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "Pro-life groups have accused Planned Parenthood of failing to report potential cases of statutory rape, or following parental notification laws in some states." The source simply doesn't substantiate it being multiple groups accusing it and the problems occurring in multiple states. All it verifies is one lawsuit against one clinic in one state, and if that is the best source we have, it appears it might constitute "undue weight" on that incidence. _WikiMan^One 20:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted material on controversies was removed due to its mention on Huffington Post in relation to a recent controversy. Material is being covered up to avoid embarassment to the institution until news relevance has passed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/fbi-planned-parenthood-hoax-suspects_n_817201.html

As such, vandalism by HuffPost user reverted until consensus reached. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that your conspiracy theories regarding the editing of this article are laughable. In fact, maybe you should actually read the "HuffPost" article and see what it says and doesn't say. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So it's just coincidence that the controversies have been mentioned on this page for what, months? Years? And within minutes of my citing them in the comments for a recent news article, they're suddenly removed by a 'revision'? I believe in coincidence, not being stupid. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be the handiwork of HuffPost user 'BannedFromCommenting' or another Planned Parenthood proponent from the discussion there, trying to prevent readers of the article comments from seeing the controversy until this incident's newsworthiness dies down. Otherwise, why the attempt to remove the controversies until consensus has been reached, rather than trying to reach consensus first? The whole section was removed within minutes of my citing it on a recent Huffington Post article, clearly to prevent this from achieving public notoriety. It is a clear case of a liberal activist attempting to prevent public display of information embarrassing to their favored institution until controversy has died down, in the same way that activists sought to remove mention of controversies on the Obama and Global Warming pages here on Wikipedia when both were particularly newsworthy as well. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User WikiManOne's profile lists them as a political donor to Planned Parenthood with an apparent bias. This bias is evidently manifesting itself in seeking to silence visibility of controversies related to Planned Parenthood until such newsworthiness has passed. I have seen this tactic used repeatedly on Wikipedia in the past to protect liberal institutions and anybody with a brain can see it happening all over again. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Previous cases have consisted of 'consensus' reached by a traveling band of the same Wikipedia members who agree on removing all mention of controversy surrounding liberal institutions or individuals without any basis for such consensus other than that they didn't want it there, essentially Wikipedia-owning pages. They will attempt to begin edit wars to force revision of their vandalism so they can have their opponents perma-banned one by one from Wikipedia. I'm familiar with the tactics. Case closed. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theories have nothing to do with reality. Please keep the discussion relevant to the article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you might find people more responsive if you addressed them civilly and articulated your concern coherently and with reference to this site's policies (see here for an starting point). Frothing about a lib'rul conspiracy is pretty much begging for people to ignore you. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent, discussion continues

I believe the specific mention of controversies constitute WP:UNDUE weight, does anyone have any comments on this or opposition to removing this based on wikipedia policies? _WikiMan^One 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I am adding comments about anti-abortion violence against Planned Parenthood to the article, these are fully substantiated at the main article linked but I will add some references soon. _WikiMan^One 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I am ignoring the IP user's comments, not about to get into a flame war over this. If a donation to a political organization someone constitutes a conflict of interest, then anyone who has donated to any church or non-profit would be prohibited from editing wikipedia articles on that topic. Clearly, that is not the case and my disclosure of my "bias" as I call it allows me to edit more freely while giving editors the ability to know where I'm coming from. To use it against me is very disingenuous. _WikiMan^One 23:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment WikiManOne is honest enough to disclose his point of view, which doesn't prevent him from editing neutrally. Most thoughtful people have a point of view on a controversial topic like this. Those who are committed to Wikipedia's five pillars can work together to achieve consensus that treats both sides of a controversy fairly, despite conflicting points of view. However, it is unproductive to come into a discussion convinced that those with a different point of view have some secret agenda and are engaged in a conspiracy to cover things up. That mind set makes it very difficult to reach consensus. Let's drop the conspiracy theories and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am approaching this from a different angle. Being in the UK, most of the article is meaningless to me - it is extremely US-centric in its style, IMO, and perhaps needs some broader writing to make it more accessible to non-US reading. That is just a thought: I am aware that it is a US organisation but it appears to be a part of a bigger grouping. I've added a heap of minor request templates in the last few minutes + made a couple of minor stylistic changes & queried the POV of the statement which says certain quoted legal cases are "notable" - they may be, but I am to be convinced. I have absolutely no idea regarding alleged conspiracy theories. However, the number of extant citations that appear to refer to items published by the organisation which is the subject of the article is, at first glance, slightly worrying to me. I have no position at all with regard to pro-life or otherwise. It may sound strange to US readers as I am aware that this is a big and contentious issue there, but I'm not there and really would tend to treat each case on its merits (well, I think that I would if ever I were in that position). So, I am neutral to the umpteenth degree. Sitush (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to note that I was not even aware of the article at the Huffington Post's existence until you brought it up here. _WikiMan^One 00:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

All this stuff about the Huffington Post. I keep hearing of this thing but have never read it. Is it reliable as a source or is it akin to Fox News? Again, writing as a non-US citizen. If there is doubt about its reliability then that is "game over" as far as WP is concerned, unless the points referenced to it are worded very carefully. Sitush (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is progressive, or politically liberal in ideology, but they keep their reporting and commentary separate, so they're generally (at least for wikipedia) considered ok for sources, I believe.. correct me if I'm wrong. I believe the IP is referring to some of the comments on there. _WikiMan^One 01:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant reply that does not address topic being discussed

OK, that makes it better than Fox News, which here in the UK seems to be treated as a comedy programme by most people who have any interest at all.Sitush (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Here in the U.S., FOX News has more viewers than all other news networks combined, if I recall. The U.K. is not the center of the world, though neither is the U.S. FOX has its faults, but has no less a reputation for conservative bias than MSNBC has for liberal bias. This fault is not relegated to FOX alone. Partisanship has become a trait typical of networks today, but most networks employ liberal anchors like Jon Stewart, Oprah Winfrey, etc., rather than conservative ones, making FOX particularly noticeable. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, according to the 2005 Pew Research Center Report, 'Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists', page IV, journalists are far more liberal than the general public: Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists According to the report, 34% of the national press and 23% of the local press are liberal compared to just 20% of the general public. Only 7% of the national press and 12% of the local press are conservative, compared to 33% of the general public. This is concerning, not just because far more of the press is liberal than the general public, and far less conservative than the general public, but the discrepancy is especially great when at the national rather than local level. This suggests a bias in the system itself at the national media level that prevents conservative journalists from rising to the top, instead selecting only liberals for top ranks in the media reporting realm. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent, discussion continues

I am in full agreement with 67.176.248.164. This flagrant suppression of information needs to stop, and all the material in the "Criticism and Controversy" section needs to be reverted NOW. The fact that some of it pertains to current events make it just that much more relevant and contribute to the value of the article. These incidents are fully verifiable and reliably sourced, and if it embarrasses PP so be it! Wikipedia editors are not duty-bound to protect this organization from its own scandals, as WikiManOne seems to be.JGabbard (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your tone of language immediately suggests to me that you hold an opinion on the purpose etc of PP and wish to see that opinion portrayed - "scandal" etc is not the sort of word to use; try "controversy". I have now read the Huffington Post article and, while I re-state that I am an outsider and perhaps not in full possession of the background, my feeling is that if the deleted section is to be restored then it would have to be in a revised, more neutral tone & with due consideration to both sides of the controversy. Coverage of current events is valid but only if it is objective. Sitush (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

JGabbard, from a cursory examination of your talk page, it is clear that you hold views which would put you in a position of being against many of Planned Parenthood's goals. This is fine and I applaud you for making this public, I also hold positions that are generally favorable to Planned Parenthood, this in mind, I ask that we collaborate on this page and create a neutral description of the controversy should consensus arise that it does not constitute undue weight. This article has the capacity to be highly charged, we need to work here and collaborate on improving the article towards a neutral point of view rather than accuse each other of acting in bad faith. (sighs, I came to this article researching for a school project, not to get involved in revising it...lol..:/) _WikiMan^One 01:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WM1, while I am certainly in agreement with you about PP being a lightning rod and about the way things need to be done, that simply means that it requires more patience, restraint and time than I can muster. So as a fellow student I know you will excuse me to abandon the article permanently and return to my calculus. :-/ I leave you with 67.176.248.164.JGabbard (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if the accusations had their own page they would just warrant a link to that independent page here? - Haymaker (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly a option, I wonder whether such an article would pass WP:NOTABILITY, I think it probably could if written correctly. Either way, even if they are on an independent page, each controversy would need to be independently evaluated for WP:UNDUE just as they would need to be here. Also, mention of violence does not constitute WP:UNDUE, incidents of violence against abortion clinics are considered notable enough to merit their own article, it seems that multiple instances of violent attacks on Planned Parenthood, mentioned by multiple news sources would merit at least one sentence in the article. On the same token, the multiple "stings" on planned parenthood by anti-abortion activists would merit a general sentence or two written from a WP:NPOV which is what I have attempted to do. If you feel that it somehow is not WP:NPOV then please, lets discuss it here until we can reach WP:CONSENSUS. Unilateral edits to the main article won't do anything but start an WP:EDIT WAR which we do not want.

• Also, this is a pet peeve of mine, can we please keep the discussion organized by using proper indentation, the {{outdent}} when necessary, and not post rambling long posts that make for hard reading? We can discuss one thing at a time rather than trying to address everything in one post. _WikiMan^One 19:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ferengi, or Salegi, or wikimanone, or whatever you're called now, you had no business reverting most of the controversies section to begin with. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to clean up a biased article, go work on Crisis pregnancy center. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, I totally concur! WikiManOne has clearly violated Wiki policy on several levels and needs to stand down, or be made to do so.--JGabbard (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent, discussion continues

I refer you, Kentipo, to WP:CIVIL, WP:UNDUE and note that you have had past wars of this type, including a 3RR. Look, if something is as controversial as this then it is always better to seek consensus before publishing in the article because otherwise someone may really overstep the mark and land WP in trouble. I am aware that much of what is going back and forth is verifiable but the tone is extremely POV and it is a worrying trend. It needs more civil discussion, less name-calling and moe WP:AGF on all sides. Sitush (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading the history wrong, WM1 started this war by removing entire chunks of a section he didn't like. He's been reverted more than once. His edit was Bold, it has been (and should stay) Reverted, while we Discuss it. (And it was 1RR, not 3RR, that earned me my first barnstar). --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I did not start an edit war, I removed content that did not follow WP:UNDUE WEIGHT until consensus could be reached, it is clear consensus is against readding the content I removed. _WikiMan^One 20:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I would like to clean up the Crisis pregnancy center article as well, it is extremely WP:POV in lending CPCs any credibility at all. I agree with Sitush, we need to build consensus before unilaterally adding content that is extremely POV which I removed. The "stings" may merit mention, but if so they need to be properly written to avoid POV, so lets use WP:CIVIL and discuss how to improve this article reasonably and assuming WP:GOOD FAITH in the discussion above. _WikiMan^One 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue with mentioning the stings, perhaps in a sentence or two for ALL of them (and not several paragraphs for the various stunts they have pulled) to illustrate that there have been some flash in the pan fusses that did not uncover any actual crimes (at lease based on reliable sources). We just don't need to have all of this detail, especially since the sources (meaning the fringe groups) are selective in what they share to support their agendas. Mattnad (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As you can see Kantatipo, as of right now, consensus does not exist to re-add the material you put in. Here we see three editors clearly against adding it in the form you included. Now, let's work towards consensus on how to include mention of the stings, shall we? _WikiMan^One 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To the IP user, as you can see, a number of users have commented up here, I believe at this point, verifiably summarizing the stings into a sentence or two would be the most appropriate path to take, obviously (which I think you'll have no problem doing) this is up for discussion, if you don't mind though, lets keep this easy on the eyes and not so spread out, ie. keep discussion in an organized fashion, here. :) _WikiMan^One 06:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is my updated proposal which can be added to, edited, etc. _WikiMan^One 17:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

---

New Proposal for "controversy" section

A number of anti-abortion organizations have carried out "sting" operations against Planned Parenthood in attempts to substantiate claims that Planned Parenthood did not follow applicable local laws. A 2005 federal inspection by the anti-abortion Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest." These "stings" have been criticised as "James O'Keefe-style 'sting' in which deceptively edited Internet videos would prove that some organization dedicated to providing services to the poor or otherwise non-privileged was in fact engaged in high crimes and conspiracy against freedom." Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates.

---

Perhaps a sentence could be added along the following lines? "Multiple stings have been reported, including one in 2011 that lead to the firing of a Clinic Manager in New Jersey under accusations of aiding child trafficking." Would that be able to achieve consensus? _WikiMan^One 20:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would accurately capture why she was fired. She was fired because she showed poor judgment and did not follow Planned Parenthood's rules. But there was not actual child trafficking so to say "lead to the firing of a Clinic Manager in New Jersey under accusations of aiding child trafficking" could cause a reader to infer she actually aided child trafficking. Likewise, the Pro-life tricksters were not actually trafficking children (although several Planned Parenthood clinics reported them to the FBI).Mattnad (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What about, "Live Action Films, led by founder Lila Rose, has allegedly documented a number of Planned Parenthood violations related to state reporting laws on statutory rape and sex trafficking, in [years with sources]. Planned Parenthood has defended itself by saying '[defenses]'." I think this should achieve consensus by relating the events concisely while still stating the PP defense for the allegations. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Might work, but Live Action Films is not the only person doing this. Take a look below at my recent attempt to be descriptive of what has happened over the years. My thought is that the inline citations can be linked to reliable source that go into the gory details of PPs misteps, and related defenses.Mattnad (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent, discussion continues

Do you have a suggestion on how to incorporate it then? I'm trying to satisfy those editors who want to include a specific mention of the stings although I am still not convinced that stunts pulled by small (fringe) activist groups constitute due weight... Suggestions? _WikiMan^One 21:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, my suggestion may not fly with people who like detailed lists, but my thoughts are to have a paragraph, with inline citations, that say something like:

A few Pro-life organizations have carried out "sting" operations against Planned Parenthood in attempts to substantiate claims that Planned Parenthood did not follow applicable local laws. The groups typically call or visit a Planned Parenthood clinic with varying acts: sometimes posing as victims of statutory rape, minors who would need parental notification for abortion, racists seeking to earmark donations for abortions for black women, or pimps who want abortions for child prostitutes. The dialogs are recorded and edited to show a clinic receptionist being sympathetic to a potentially criminal act. They then report on how the clinics are somehow breaking the law. However, none of these stings have led to criminal conviction. Furthermore, a 2005 federal inspection by the anti-abortion Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest." Mattnad (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm liking your idea, perhaps we could add in the end the two sentences from my controversy section? Somehow merge the two into a working controversy section, mentioning pro-choice criticism (it's only fair to mention both sides) of the "stings" while of course mentioning anti-abortion violence directed at Planned Parenthood, obviously denoting its controversial character. _WikiMan^One 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How's something like this? Could this possibly achieve consensus? _WikiMan^One 21:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems a good start but a bit vague for my tastes. The biggest difference between the older page version's controversy section and this is that the older version mentioned fines levied on Planned Parenthood and employees fired - this one mentions no such official investigations, punishments, or firings; and thus leaving out many of the most controversial details. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Updated proposal with input from Mattnad

A number of anti-abortion organizations have carried out "sting" operations against Planned Parenthood in attempts to substantiate claims that Planned Parenthood did not follow applicable local laws. The groups typically call or visit a Planned Parenthood clinic with varying acts: sometimes posing as victims of statutory rape, minors who would need parental notification for abortion, racists seeking to earmark donations for abortions for black women, or pimps who want abortions for child prostitutes. The dialogs are recorded and edited to show a clinic receptionist being sympathetic to a potentially criminal act. They then report on how the clinics are somehow breaking the law. However, none of these stings have led to criminal conviction. Futhermore, a 2005 federal inspection by the anti-abortion Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest." These "stings" have been criticised as "James O'Keefe-style 'sting' in which deceptively edited Internet videos would prove that some organization dedicated to providing services to the poor or otherwise non-privileged was in fact engaged in high crimes and conspiracy against freedom." Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates.

---

This incorporates your very well put description of the events, while still mentioning pro-choice criticism of the stings, also I believe mention of the anti-choice violence is certainly appropriate in the article, although long term it may merit its own section... _WikiMan^One 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from above to for ease of reading _WikiMan^One

And yet, each one of these stings has been a major controversy in its own right, taking up news headlines across the U.S., in some cases, the world. As such, it should be covered in proportion to its prominence and relation to Planned Parenthood. They are relevant as the primary controversies, and to say the controversies section should have ridiculously short size restrictions not meted out on other page sections is unfair. To allow them to be grouped for all Live Action incidents would make it shorter, per my proposed rewrite below. To summarize what have now been a number of major incidents with 1 or 2 sentences and limit the controversies section to practically nothing, when this is not set as a requirement for other sections, is just not right. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Copying pertinent comment from below in reply to similar message _WikiMan^One

We may disagree on the level of prominence/notoriety. Sacking a single employee here and there, no criminal charges, and basically the same outcome (nothing really) suggests we concisely summarize their tactics and the outcomes. From what I can tell, the only people paying attention to, and discussing, these controversies are Pro-Life groups who feel Planned Parenthood should be stop providing abortion services. If more had come of this, like what happened to Acorn, then we would be remiss if we didn't expand it.Mattnad (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent, discussion continues

I agree with Mattnad here that we should simply summarize the whole thing... I don't mean to say a sentence or two as a "restriction" more as a general idea of how large I think the article should be. I think Mattnad's proposed mention combined with my edit is a step in the right direction, and clearly gives mention (than I would personally prefer) to the controversies as it is. _WikiMan^One 22:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving here (Pet peeve, please add comments at end of conversation rather than continuing indentations where {{outdent}} has already been used...)_WikiMan^One

It seems a good start but a bit vague for my tastes. The biggest difference between the older page version's controversy section and this is that the older version mentioned fines levied on Planned Parenthood and employees fired - this one mentions no such official investigations, punishments, or firings; and thus leaving out many of the most controversial details. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that notable? Before you say its had coverage, has it achieved multiple independent and neutral coverage in reliable sources? If yes, does it constitute due weight? How can we work it in without giving it too much weight? I want to hear solutions. _WikiMan^One 22:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from above to keep messages in order_WikiMan^One
I have some problems with this statement, though. First, the pro-life movement, like the pro-choice movement, would fit the definition of a significant group, and according to WP:DUE guidelines, "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."
Secondly, when it comes to prominence/notoriety, the current controversy is being widely reported by the AP, Reuters, and the Washington Post - as have previous controversies. Therefore, simply going by Due Weight guidelines, they should be mentioned in proportion to that coverage. If anything, I think my proposed rewrite erred on the side of mentioning less about the controversies than Due Weight guidelines would require, rather than more.
These have been major controversies, and a sentence or 2 of mention for each, or at least a few sentences for the Live Action ones which have been particularly prominent, per my proposed rewrite, is certainly not asking too much in light of the Due Weight guidelines. The size, given the scope of these controversies, would be alright even with the older section, given how prominent these controversies were in terms of news coverage. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Pro-life" should be the term we use. In my proposed draft, I picked that as well since "Anti-abortion", like "Pro-Abortion" are not how each group presents itself and is POV. Also, was only tackling the material related to the stings. I also think that some of the fines/sanctions can be mentioned. Regarding the most recent coverage - it does not seem to be any more meaningful than past events. So we can mention it, but again we don't want to go down that path of laying one stunt on another so the section becomes unwieldy. And of course, Wikipedia is not the news, after all.Mattnad (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so with the change to pro-life, have we achieved consensus as to what should be included in the article? Or do we need to keep this going? _WikiMan^One 02:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the above version to the article as no one disagreed. If you have a problem with it, lets discuss it and I'm sure we can come to a good conclusion. Also, WP:BITR is relevant here if anyone wasn't aware..._WikiMan^One 06:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, someone please add citations to the added paragraph. I will do it in the morning if its not done. _WikiMan^One 06:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Racism

I can't believe there's no section on racism since their founder was an avowed racist eugenicist. I'll try write it up, and will use sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the rationale to say that it does not constitute WP:UNDUE in relation to the current organization. If this was the case perhaps it should be added in the article on its predecessor organization. _WikiMan^One 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before at length. Sanger's POV on eugenics reflects on her. Not the current organization.

So as a parallel example, if some editors of the United States article were to take a similar approach, we would have a large "criticism and controversy" section in the United States Article that comments on how the US was founded on racism and slavery because its Founding fathers owned slaves and enshrined that in Constitution's Three Fifths Compromise. We could also add that more than a few of founding fathers felt is was OK to own someone, whip them occasionally, rape the the women, and have children out of wedlock with them. So then we could say that the US was founded by white men who favored rape and illegitimate children. To support that, we can include quotes from fringe groups who claim the US was founded on all sorts of terrible things, equate the US with Nazis, or whoever else we don't like, and suggest that these past issues reflect on its current citizens, including NY Yankees fans.

Or we could recognize that it's a ridiculous editorial choice for both the United States, and Planned Parenthood articles to do that. 19:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that it reflects on her not the business as a whole, but pro-lifers use it that way. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And our goal is to write a serious, encyclopedic article rather than echo the views of the pro-life lobby. So why should we harp on it, again? MastCell ^Talk 00:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but doesn't it at least warrant a link to the Sanger section? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There is one already, right at the top of the history section.Mattnad (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It does reflect more on Sanger than Planned Parenthood I suppose. I'd especially agree with it on Sanger's page, but am not sure it's prominent enough in relation to Planned Parenthood as a controversy. It does come up from time to time, but I don't see giving it more than a sentence or two of mention in the controversies section, certainly not much more than that. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Primary Concern

My primary objection is that an entire section on controversy would be removed at a time when it's newsworthy and relevant to another ongoing controversy surrounding said institution, by a user with a clear incentive according to their own profile to protect said institution. They have an incentive for bias, to protect Planned Parenthood. That does not mean they are not being objective, but should be recognized as a possibility.

Why you would remove the entire section on controversies under the guise of reaching consensus first, when this is news relevant at the time, makes no sense unless trying to cover up embarrassing past events that would prove harmful to Planned Parenthood's reputation. I would think that given the newsworthiness of recent events, one would act in caution in removing such crucial, news-relevant historical information until consensus has been reached, rather than before.

In good faith I will assume, for now, that WikiManOne was merely coincidentally acting as they did to remove a section I specifically cited at the EXACT SAME TIME on a recent article, so that a whole news community was seeing it. I find it unbelievably... odd... that the timing would be anything other than purposeful, but will avoid the subject for now.

However, the controversy section needs to remain until it's shown there is good reason for removing it. Otherwise it appears suspicious that it would be removed so readily without discussion first. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the section, and there appears nothing inaccurate I can see in the claims made. Here are some additional sources as well for the 2008/2009 incidents:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/28/us-usa-abortion-student-idUSTRE54R37I20090528

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463404,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509736,00.html

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2009/NRL04/PP.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510797,00.html

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/2009_1_News.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhfW_SE3c4c

http://www.jillstanek.com/industry-watch/breaking-news-a-3.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/feb/09020301

http://www.lifenews.com/2008/12/16/state-3713/

Here are some for the recent 2010 scandal:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_planned_parenthood_investigation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_on_re_us/us_planned_parenthood_video_5

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41373207

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/2010/2/25/planned-parenthoods-response-to-undercover-sting-videos.html

If anything, I think the section should be expanded to cover the most recent controversy. I see nothing wrong with the current section as it is written. If there is anything debatable about the wording or sources, why don't those trying to have it removed recommend a suitable change in wording or find additional, preferable sources as alternatives? --67.176.248.164 (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore

The proposed rewrite by WikiManOne was obviously unacceptable even as a temporary replacement in that it removes all mention of controversy, while deceivingly mentioning the violence against Planned Parenthood, without mentioning the greater number of instances of violence perpetrated BY Planned Parenthood or the pro-choice community:

http://abortionviolence.com/

Both the 2008-2009 and 2010 controversies surrounding Planned Parenthood have most definitely been newsworthy, relevant, controversial, etc. They're being reported on by the AP and Reuters per my sources above. There is no explanation for a rewrite that removes all mention of not just these but the other past incidents of controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood.

While members here are free to mock the concept of a liberal 'conspiracy' - and I never once said anything about a conspiracy, I just said this has been happening - which it has - I will point out that seeking to eliminate a perfectly reasonable section written fairly about newsworthy controversies has no justification for being deleted and mention of all controversies removed, with no mention of the most recent one, unless trying to protect Planned Parenthood. You can't tell me the proposed rewrite makes any sense unless that is WikiManOne's agenda, because the rewrite itself is in all ways nonsensical.

If there's a serious proposal for a rewrite that mentions the prominent newsworthy controversies that have been surrounding Planned Parenthood, then lets hear it, but I think anyone who compares the previous section to the one proposed by WikiManOne can see the newest one is neither fair nor objective. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In the stings are mentioned, but they don't need to be as large as they are. If you look at the article with the expanded controversies section as you would have it, it's nearly half the article. These fringe groups do their stunts, and then it's over. WP:Undue readily applies here. WikiManOne's recommendation is far more objective than have long paragraphs describing efforts to entrap RECEPTIONISTS at planned parenthood. That's really what's going on here with the Stings. If an Pro-Life President like Bush couldn't find problems aftern an investigation, that's a lot more objective than what you'd like to have in there.Mattnad (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with you. It did seem a bit excessive in length to me, and I'm sure could be made more concise and be better summarized. Even with a 2010 section, I think it could be made considerably shorter than in its current state. It's debatable just what Bush was - he campaigned on being anti-war prior to his 2000 election, too. Regardless, the stings were newsworthy and prominent, and thus relevant for inclusion here. After all, isn't that the standard for Wikipedia inclusion? Nobody's saying to portray the stings as good or bad, just mention them in relation to newsworthiness, as well as the claims by both sides - right? However, I do think the section can be shortened, and will even provide a summarized version as a sample - I'd like to see it more concise, with less verbage and more sources. Will get started on the rewrite, and you can let me know what you think. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the section has now gone off the "everything but the kitchen sink" deep-end with the usual issues of Undue Weight. And someone brings up the Nazis, you know it's gotten ridiculous.Mattnad (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we please keep the discussion in one place? Like up ^ there? Again, insinuations that I am acting in bad faith are certainly not helping, and I would certainly appreciate it if the IP user user would be so kind as to create an account... _WikiMan^One 19:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite

The following is my attempt to make the section more concise, per Mattnad's concerns. Hopefully this is a starting point for trimming the section in a way both sides will view as acceptable, portraying legitimate news relevance in relation to its coverage.

The sources may need more work, I focused primarily on the wording for now and left sources in their original form, just to show what the wording should look like - sourcing can be merged with select sources I mentioned above or other sources, whatever everyone agrees on (note - I do NOT expect all those sources I mentioned above to be included or even most - they were simply a quick bunch of suggestions, and I think the AP and Reuters ones might be the most likely for inclusion - they're all debatable, and am just providing a starting point to work off of).

This is just a quick start - I kept some original wording, trimmed, and just cut some sources from the Lila Rose page and tried to keep sources that were already used in the section. Like I said, I was generally ignoring the sourcing for now, and just providing a template if you will, of what I'd like to see this look like. Maybe it can be trimmed more - I kind of skimped on the last part, and left it as is pretty much, but you can see how I really cut down on size by just merging all the Live Action Films stuff into one section. The sources would of course need to be merged and changed, and are not in their final form - like I said, I'll leave that for later. Let me know what you think. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

==Controversy and criticism==

Pro-life groups have accused Planned Parenthood of failing to report potential cases of statutory rape, or following parental notification laws in some states. Although a 2005 federal inspection by the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest", some pro-life activists have carried our their own investigations to attempt to substantiate their claims:

• 2002: Pro-life group Life Dynamics issues a report detailing 800 phone calls made, with operatives making recorded calls to Planned Parenthood, posing as underage teen girls seeking abortions, to entrap Planned Parenthood employees into violating laws which require reporting of pedophilia and statutory rape. The report claims 90% of the clinics failed to report in line with state guidelines.
• 2007-2011: Pro-life organization, Live Action Films, a UCLA pro-life student organization founded by activist Lila Rose, repeatedly makes headlines for investigative videos and recordings of interviews with Planned Parenthood employees, seeking to entrap said employees into variously supporting statutory rape (2007, 2009) , abortion as racism (2008), and prostitution (2011).

Planned Parenthood has been criticised for withholding court-subpoenaed medical records of patients. Planned Parenthood defended its refusal on the grounds of medical privacy.

• In a case in Indiana, Planned Parenthood was not required to turn over the records.
• In Kansas, redacted copies of the records were turned over pursuant to stringent court-ordered protections.
• In 2004 a Kansas-based Planned Parenthood clinic was investigated by Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, of violating late-term abortion and statutory rape notification laws. After a three year investigation no criminal charges were filed.
• In October 2005, Planned Parenthood Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota was fined $50,000 for violation of a Minnesota state parental consent law.

This really doesn't need to be a lengthy section. Like I said, I really don't care about portraying Planned Parenthood as good or bad, but just neutral. I tried to keep wording neutral, and if you think any change in tone is necessary, by all means, let me know. I don't care to see a lengthy section here, in depth, what have you. I just want the controversy mentioned in relation to its news coverage, so people know it exists, per Wikipedia standards - that's all. Hopefully this is a good starting point to trim with.

I think the last part needs work, like I said, I skimped and just made slight modifications to what was there. It should probably use a year date at the beginning for each bullet to stay consistent, and then start the bullet by saying the location as well. I think the format as a template should work to make this all more concise though. Basically I just trimmed extraneous details, summarized more, merged sources from the Lila Rose page (maybe a source or 2 like the AP/Reuters ones would be good too for the 2011 incident), and moved all the Live Action stuff into a single paragraph. Anyway, lets see if we can go off this - I think the size should be more manageable now. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I tried to keep my own writing out of it as much as possible. I wrote 2 bullet points basically, and otherwise just used what was there. Sources shown were already in use, too. Basically it's what was there, just trimmed and more concise, and I even used the word entrap in deference to those who would defend Planned Parenthood by saying it was political activism. As long as the controversies are reported on objectively (just the facts), hopefully both sides can be happy at the end of the day. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It took me a lot more work, but I created another version with updated sourcing as well. Be aware though, this differs from the one I previously posted. I went over the sourcing in depth, and removed a number I didn't think were as prominently sourced (I replaced with Reuters/AP) or would show just one side when unnecessary.

Also, the Kansas cases appeared related, so I merged them into one bullet. I included more web sources, including the court document url as well for the case. All in all, I made a number of changes from the previously posted proposed edit to this one. I tried to include more internal links as well. Anyway, just consider this another possibility like the one I posted above. Am just throwing out ideas here for a possible section revision, hoping to hear some feedback to help build a consensus with. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

==Controversy and criticism==

Pro-life groups have accused Planned Parenthood of failing to report potential cases of statutory rape, or following parental notification laws in some states. Although a 2005 federal inspection by the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest", some pro-life activists have carried our their own investigations to attempt to substantiate their claims:

• 2002: Pro-life group Life Dynamics issues a report detailing 800 phone calls made, with operatives making recorded calls to Planned Parenthood, posing as underage teen girls seeking abortions, to entrap Planned Parenthood employees into violating laws which require reporting of pedophilia and statutory rape. The report claims 90% of the clinics failed to report in line with state guidelines.
• 2007-2011: Pro-life organization, Live Action Films, a UCLA pro-life student organization founded by activist Lila Rose, repeatedly makes headlines for investigative videos and recordings of interviews with Planned Parenthood employees, seeking to entrap said employees into variously supporting statutory rape (2007, 2009), abortion as racism (2008), and prostitution (2011).

Planned Parenthood has been criticised for withholding court-subpoenaed medical records of patients. Planned Parenthood defended its refusal on the grounds of medical privacy.

• 2004-2007: After a Kansas-based Planned Parenthood clinic was investigated by Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline for violating late-term abortion and statutory rape notification laws redacted copies of the records were turned over pursuant to stringent court-ordered protections. After a three year investigation no criminal charges were filed by Kline's successor, Phil Morrison..
• 2005: Planned Parenthood Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota was fined $50,000 for violation of a Minnesota state parental consent law.
• 2006: In a case in Indiana, Planned Parenthood was not required to turn over the records of minors as related to suspected child sexual abuse.

Though I'd hoped to wait another day or 2 for feedback on the proposed changes, I suppose I should just 'edit boldly' since others insist that the section be changed as well, by making their own changes. The currently proposed edit is obviously meant to remove all mention of controversies and has been statedly unacceptable by both myself and another user now. If there is going to be a change, I will assert my proposition the one which actually mentions controversies, rather than Planned Parenthood apologism for what's supposedly a controversies section. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My view is that this is still to long and detailed. But if there were one area we should limit in particular, its the attempts by some pro-life groups to make Planned Parenthood look bad. These are not "investigations" but stunts. They do not mention or share recordings when a planned parenthood receoptionist throws them out or calls the police. Where there is corroboration by officials (as in the Bush investigation or a fine by a judge when Planned Parenthood does not turn over medical records), then it's more NPOV, but Wikipedia should not be a Soapbox for manufactured and fake "investigations".Mattnad (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: To be more specific, the first section I think captures it, with the paragraph. Adding the bullets gives more weight than I'd think is relevant or correct given the actual stories. Let's be clear, no charges were ever filed. When you read the details in the one or two news articles that did more than just repeat the press releases, no laws were broken - receptionists are just there to take appointments and are not able to assess or even report possible crimes. And many of them did raise a red flag to supervisors, but that's not mentioned by these groups because it doesn't suit their agendas. It's this kind of detail that's needed for balance, IF we wanted to turn this article into a mouthpiece for fringe organizations. Mattnad (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I consider all the information vital, as these were major controversies. The first section fails to provide any specifics about the case details, and if provided by itself would be a clear violation of WP:Weight rules, in not providing coverage comparable to media prevalence. Furthermore, the 1st section is specifically apologetic to Planned Parenthood, and I left it in only as a node to the other side. By itself, it is actively detrimental to a fair discussion of controversies, or revealing anything useful about the controversies Planned Parenthood has undergone. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mattnad and would add that the bullet points leave things wide open for editors in future to add the (inevitable) further stunts - the thing will become a list and the chance of undue weight being given to it within the article will thereby increase.Give a couple of examples and leave it at that. If someone wants to add a later example then they can delete one of the older ones. Sitush (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a new proposal in a above discussion, I agree with the points the previous two users have made. I would like some comments on it so we can slowly work on improving it. _WikiMan^One 17:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet each case has achieved media prominence as a major controversy in its own right. If it's the same group behind a number of them, the entire thing can easily be summarized per my example above, in just using one bullet point to describe the events of several years. This has achieved major media notoriety, and as such is deserving of the space required for such a section. It would be comparably small to everything else mentioned on the page. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We may disagree on the level of prominence/notoriety. Sacking a single employee here and there, no criminal charges, and basically the same outcome (nothing really) suggests we concisely summarize their tactics and the outcomes. From what I can tell, the only people paying attention to, and discussing, these controversies are Pro-Life groups who feel Planned Parenthood should be stop providing abortion services. If more had come of this, like what happened to Acorn, then we would be remiss if we didn't expand it.Mattnad (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from above as reply to same comment, that was moved by WikiManOne--67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have some problems with this statement, though. First, the pro-life movement, like the pro-choice movement, would fit the definition of a significant group, and according to WP:DUE guidelines, "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."

Secondly, when it comes to prominence/notoriety, the current controversy is being widely reported by the AP, Reuters, and the Washington Post - as have previous controversies. Therefore, simply going by Due Weight guidelines, they should be mentioned in proportion to that coverage. If anything, I think my proposed rewrite erred on the side of mentioning less about the controversies than Due Weight guidelines would require, rather than more.

These have been major controversies, and a sentence or 2 of mention for each, or at least a few sentences for the Live Action ones which have been particularly prominent, per my proposed rewrite, is certainly not asking too much in light of the Due Weight guidelines. The size, given the scope of these controversies, would be alright even with the older section, given how prominent these controversies were in terms of news coverage. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous

The section has all mention of controversies removed by an edit to prevent mention of them in a clearly POV manner, and attempts to prevent mention of controversies to buy Planned Parenthood time until the current news relevance has passed. Those denying any form of bias here are clearly dishonest. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The new section clearly spends as much time bashing the pro-life movement with the Bush mention, and citing an erroneous claim about pro-life violence without mentioning the pro-choice violence (even though this is supposedly controversies surrounding Planned Parenthood, not the pro-life movement - meaning the mention is out of place and useless), as it does anything else. It has no bearing on anything controversial to Planned Parenthood, removing all useful information related to Planned Parenthood controversies, and is meant to make the page nothing more than an advertisement for Planned Parenthood. No one in their sane mind would consider this a suitable replacement for the prior controversies section. I would hope whatever editor made the protection will have their Wikipedia membership revoked to avoid what is otherwise bias at the administrative level. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again with not assuming good faith, there is a discussion occurring above on improving the controversy section, feel free to WP:CIVILly participate and help collaborate to improve coverage of this topic on wikipedia. Are we to assume you want to bash Planned Parenthood? _WikiMan^One 03:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone as far as good faith allows. The edit in question is without a doubt vandalism, and has been reported on the noticeboards now as such. I have stated my intentions as merely wanting controversy reported objectively, which you and I both know your edit does not do. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You are attempting to remove all mention of controversy about an institution you yourself admit you're a political donor to. You are abusing administrative privileges to block the page after making an edit that not only removes all mention of past controversies, but states lies to protect the organization in apologetic fashion, and as I said, making the page effectively an advertisement for Planned Parenthood. The bias is too blatant and obvious for you to possibly expect me or anyone else to be blind to, and I'm maintaining the most civil tone I can in expressing this, on the off chance anyone else has even the slightest doubts as to what is going on. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what the administrators do with the notice then. Until then, can we collaborate on expanding the mention of the "stings" to allow for an even more NPOV discussion? _WikiMan^One 03:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There is zero NPOV in your edit as compared to the one it replaced. It was intended to remove all mention of controversies from the page in light of the recent controversy and potential public scrutiny. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I get as annoyed by Conservapedia's bias that occurs on the opposite pole as I do the bias happening here. Bias is bias, regardless of side, and wrong no matter whose politics are causing the discriminatory abuse of administrative privilege. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on Anon editors concern above that "The new section clearly spends as much time bashing the pro-life movement with the Bush mention.." Including the finding of an official Bush government investigation is not bashing anyone. It just discredits claims by some fringe groups that Planned Parenthood condones or commits certain crimes. GWB was a pro-life president who wasn't shy about restricting access to abortion (see Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act). I'm sure if they had found something wrong, they would have acted on it. It's pretty compelling that a pro-life president did not find the same wrong-doing that these groups did. If anything, it speaks to the integrity of both Planned Parenthood and some of it's Pro-life opponents. But again, it's not "bashing."Mattnad (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this mention of such a Bush investigation would be a new mention. It's only mentioned briefly in the Salon article given as its source, which I'm not convinced is reliable. I'm having trouble finding this investigation referenced anywhere else on the web. Are there any other sources that mention this finding? If we're going to be making this a key part of the new section, it would be nice to have it prominently sourced, which right now, it isn't. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I say this because the Bush investigation was not mentioned in the section prior to mid January, looking at the page's history, when it was an added by an IP user. The Salon article touches on the investigation only briefly in one paragraph, and I'd like to see it mentioned elsewhere as having found nothing to verify this is the case. Right now I'm having trouble figuring out the name of the investigation or verifying it occurred at all. If there are other sources to support this I'd appreciate seeing them posted. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Potentially gamed freeze

{{editrequest}} Coming here from the ANI, my take on the edit war is that WikiManOne removed the entire controversial section favored by the IP in this edit, implying above that it should remain blank while under discussion; but then later added a paragraph favored by himself and warred to retain it, which is the version frozen to. This has potential for gaming: if an editor knows that an admin will freeze the last version, tag-team-reverts alternates to that version within minutes (as happened twice), and combines this with an initial not-well-honored offer to leave the section blank during the discussion, it has the potential for a pretty reliable freeze to the preferred POV version (my quick review suggests both nonblank versions had POV problems, but the blank version's only problem was failure to state the controversy). Accordingly, I respectfully request that the blank version, from the above diff, replace the currently frozen version (or that the POV paragraph with its header simply be removed for the duration of the lock), because the current version is much more POV and was accepted by WikiManOne as the original position of his goalposts. Also, there may be BLP problems with O'Keeffe et al., which may require the deletion regardless of the gaming ruling. No disrespect to NuclearWarfare who was in accord with lock policy, but this does seem to me like a gamed situation. JJB 06:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it blank until consensus is reached, but when I blanked it for discussion it was immediately readded which explains why I hastily wrote a bare bones version which did not satisfactorily cover the issues but avoided undue weight to the controversy, I am in favor of the above request. _WikiMan^One 06:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I just don't understand why the section, which had been on the page over a year, was removed to be replaced with a section that is entirely uncritical and uncontroversial in regards to Planned Parenthood. I'm not dead-set on my proposed revisions being accepted, but I do think much of the controversies mentioned previously were newsworthy and relevant. To remove them smells of bias. If they can be summarized better while still mentioned, I'm all for that, whether I or another does the summarizing, but took particular exception to the edit originally made by WikiManOne since it not only removed mention of all the controversies previously mentioned, as well as noticeably lacking reference to the recent 2011 scandal, but also was actively defensive of Planned Parenthood in tone and content for the one section on the page that should supposedly be critical and objective concerning the organization. A freeze after removing content on controversies that's been included on the page for over a year without prior discussion; having a page block put on afterward? That's not right. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)--67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne is on a crusade, and I'm sure that problem will fix itself soon enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears there is now consensus in favor of blanking and discussing on talk without warring, which is a sufficient condition (per the locking admin) for unlocking early. Please unlock or blank the section. JJB 08:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not unlock the article, blanking is the appropriate way to go. Also, can I ask that those who are so against the current version would be so kind as show a good faith effort in collaborating to improve it? _WikiMan^One 08:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there has been a lack of willingness to improve the section (I for one have helped that end) but there is a clear consensus against deleting the section. - Haymaker (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, I already showed days ago my willingness to rewrite the section to help shorten and improve it - I do not mind seeing it changed, but removing or 'blanking' it clearly achieves the original intent of removing mention of controversies from a page on Planned Parenthood. I would say there is a growing weight of consensus against the material deletion and blanking by this point. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Blanking which achieves your original goal of removing a section without consensus, a section that existed on the page for over a year. I suppose it's just coincidental that the timing coincides with this being a major issue in the news? -.^ Odd that you'd be fighting so hard to remove a section on controversies, whether through edit warring or requests to blank it, even as such controversy is being addressed in the news. All the civility does not mask the dishonesty you are clearly using in trying to remove mention of controversies from a page related to an institution undergoing controversy in the news, to stem public knowledge of it. I am very much against blanking. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 Section removed as requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne, Those in the consensus have bent over backwards to help sanitize this stinking pile of @#!%. Five more bottles of perfume will not help. It's now time to restore the remnants of this material back to the article and the unsuspecting (not!) general public.JGabbard (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To Summarize

1. The previous Controversies section had much of the same content until the past week that it had:

• 1 year ago
• 2 years ago
• 3 years ago
• 4 years ago

2. A recent scandal made headlines for Planned Parenthood videos surfacing claiming to show proper reporting by the institution, similar to past scandals.

• Washington Post
• ABC News
• Reuters
• Associated Press

3. WikiManOne on February 2nd deletes the controversies section entirely, without prior discussion here on the board, replacing it with a version void of controversy mention, and defending Planned Parenthood. Half an hour later, I revert it as vandalism. An IP address of 98.154.76.21 then removes the section again. PhGustaf restores the section. WikiManOne, despite the discussion seen above here on the Talk Page attempting to find consensus, again removes the whole section on controversies a 2nd time.

• 08:03, WikiManOne 1st section removal
• 08:30, I restore section 1st time
• 21:18, 98.154.76.21 section removal
• 21:37, PhGustaf 1st section restore
• 23:29 WikiManOne 2nd section removal

4. On February 3rd, PhGustaf restores the section a 2nd time. WikiManOne then removes the section a 3rd time. Haymaker returns the controversy section. Sitush removes it. I restore it. A member named NYankees51 then makes some edits with new sections not discussed. WikiManOne again removes the entire controversies section a 4th time. Kenatipo restores the controversy section, asking in his notes for discussion. Sitush removes the section again. Kenatipo restores it. WikiManOne removes the section a 5th time.

• 03:07, PhGustaf 2nd section restore
• 03:13, WikiManOne 3rd section removal
• 09:22, Haymaker restore
• 09:35, Sitush 1st section removal
• 10:22, I restore 2nd time
• 15:12, NYankees51 edit
• 19:23 WikiManOne 4th section removal
• 19:35, Kenatipo 1st restore
• 19:38, Sitush 2nd section removal
• 20:08, Kenatipo 2nd restore
• 20:11, WikiManOne 5th section removal

5. Admin NuclearWarfare on February 3rd protects WikiManOne's removal of the section, even though it was just him and Sitush trying to remove it with myself, Kenatipo, Haymaker, PhGustaf, and Jgabbard all in favor of having the section restored.

• 21:04, NuclearWarfare page protection

On February 4th, Admin MSCJ then blanks the whole controversies section because WikiManOne requests it.

• 16:23, MSCJ blanking

========================

All of this can be seen from the Planned Parenthood page history. Let me know if I've missed anything. I was looking over it all, and just now realizing how much the 'consensus' for section removal has consisted solely of WikiManOne, Sitush, and a 98 something IP address, with at least 5 people, myself included, all opposed and reverting the removal.

Because of the activism of 2 users, Sitush and WikiManOne, a whole section has been removed that existed much in its current state for the past three years, despite being outnumbered at least 5 to 3 when it comes to consensus. Within 2 days it's been removed due to their edit warring and admin intervention. So much for Wikipedia fairness, huh? --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The above is an accurate synopsis of the activities of the past few days. So much for assumption of good faith, because there is NONE here. It is clear that bias and censorship are prevailing!--JGabbard (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Protected, ironic the critics (which by a simple head count as seen reviewd by 67.176.248.164) shows that a few can call concensus when its obvious its not. Add another to the leave the criticism in with me 63.163.213.249 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Also how is it WikiManOne avoids the whole three R thing about multiple reverts without warning?63.163.213.249 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think he had to be warned for it or something. From what I've seen, just saying the right things in front of the admins will get him off the hook though for what was obvious edit-warring. If there were a 5RR rule he'd have violated it. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed above the discussion may be producing a consensus on what the new section should involve, so hopefully we can get this worked out. I'm just annoyed that they can claim consensus off 2 users who are clearly outnumbered and edit warring to protect removal of a section that's been around for years, and keep the section from being on the page for days while a major public event is going on, to prevent the public from seeing any mention of related material on Wikipedia. The combination of abuse by 2 editors and at best, horrible mistakes by admins in freezing the page afterward and blanking the material, has resulted in yet another debacle on Wikipedia. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that your complaints aren't being taken as seriously as you'd like, I would suggest you formulate them in a more calm and focused manner, with less bombast. That usually helps, and it's under your control. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which was why I just calmly posted a 5 point summary detailing everything that's occurred. And I am trying to make headway with the discussion on a proposed rewrite. But the removal of the whole controversies section contrary to what myself and others have been saying is not at all in line with Wikipedia guidelines, so it's difficult to remain calm in light of such glaring violations. I am doing my best at doing so. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly feel and identify with your frustration, 67.176.248.164. This is nothing but obstructionism. I applaud your efforts. Fox and WND need to be made aware of this situation, as it could further encourage defunding of PP.--JGabbard (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This made me laugh... I know passions are running high, but to even think that Fox News reporting on some editors disagreeing over one section in an article that few people read.... would lead to defunding Planned Parenthood. We're not that important, with all due respect.Mattnad (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, true. And the point of this discussion isn't to bash Planned Parenthood or include criticism of it, per se, on the page. I've tried to keep my personal views out of this discussion as much as possible. What I feel about the organization is irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes at least. The main thing is the Controversy/Criticism section fairly and objectively present the major controversies and criticisms that have arisen in proportion to their prominence in the news. That's all. I just want the WP:DUE guidelines followed. This newest controversy, like others before it, have been major issues in the news, and ought to be mentioned. I am fine with seeing Planned Parenthood's defenses mentioned as well - but this ought to be mentioned so people are aware of it. The events of the past few days have been to the effect of covering up information on these controversies that's been on the page for 3+ years. To remove it should have a very good explanation, not edit warring to keep it in place with admin page blocking as enforcement. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiMan1, Please, you need to withdraw from this discussion posthaste. I accuse you of obstructionism, not acting in good faith, bias, and censorship. Just allow others to handle this discussion because we can all see through your bias and do not accept your actions here.JGabbard (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now reported this a 2nd time as an ANI on the admin noticeboard, due to WikiManOne collapsing 3 of my replies:

• ANI Recent Case
• ANI Previous Case

These were his recent attempts to collapse my replies in talking about how to write a new section. The first was silly, since I was replying to someone else's off-topic comment (Sifuth) that WikiManOne didn't collapse, but I ignored it, and just added Sifuth's comment to the collapsed section. The most recent ones made no sense and were just meant to annoy me, which is why I'm bringing this back to the noticeboards. Enough is enough.

• 3rd collapsed comment
• 2nd collapsed comment
• 1st collapsed comment and here

If I can't even comment in the discussion on a rewrite to achieve consensus without having WikiManOne collapse all my comments, it's time to reopen the ANI again. I'm tired of this. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)--67.176.248.164 (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother responding to your accusations of bad faith anymore, so enjoy this as your last response from me: I collapsed the Fox News one because it was irrelevant to improving the article, notice I also collapsed the comment you were replying to. The others, I collapsed because I moved them to be in line with the other messages for greater readability. I'm sorry this was so annoying to you, but none of your messages were deleted or hidden, they are all listed at the end of the conversation... Now lets work on improving the article shall we? _WikiMan^One 02:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

At 21:49 you collapsed one of my comments.

• 1st comment collapse

At 21:52 it was me who collapsed the comment I was replying to, not you. Your original collapse left Sifuth's alone, collapsing only my reply:

• My add of Sifuth's comment to your collapse
• Diff
• Revision history

From what I saw, all of the messages were hidden in collapsed sections, or I wouldn't have objected so strongly. A simple view of the page as it looked at 23:04 after your collapsing edits shows you collapsed my comments in 3 separate places.

• Collapsed page view

--67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude, in case you didn't notice, the second one wasn't just collapsed, I moved a copy of it to the end of the conversation where it would be in order with everyone else's comments, if you look now its in their twice. _WikiMan^One 06:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

On the third one I did get frustrated and collapsed it without moving a copy of it to the end, that was my mistake and probably wasn't the best idea, but it certainly wasn't a breach of any policy. I was going to add the copy to the end if you didn't see my message asking you to, but instead you went and made a frivolous report over it, that's fine, whatever. _WikiMan^One 06:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, from my end, all I saw was a lot of comment moving and repeated instances of my comments being collapsed, including several that I saw no explanation for. To me it looked like a behind-the-scenes way of trying to aggravate me while talking nice, and to prevent me from participating in a discussion on a rewrite, by moving my replies to MastCell and others so they would never see I'd replied. I did jump to conclusions, and will apologize for the report filing in this case. It just looked really bad at the time, given the events preceding that. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, all the comment moving and duplicating and collapsing was making it tough for me to follow the rewrite conversation altogether. If I have to now reply to the same comment in multiple places, find where it's now been moved to, remember what new changes have been made in comment order, uncollapse my replies, etc., it starts getting complicated. To me all the duplicating/moving/collapsing came off as obstructionism, that would continue - with you just denying it like you denied the edit warring after the fact - if I didn't file a report before it got out of hand. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to make a better effort of assuming good faith. I jumped to the conclusion I did because of:

A) Your original edit, which removed content on controversies, much of which had existed with few changes since 2008.

B) The edit warring you took part in, removing said content 5 separate times, and then afterwards denying in the ANI discussion that you'd done so.

C) Your request for admins to blank the section rather than restoring the original content that had been in place for 3 years.

All of this combined left me with increasing skepticism as to your intentions and, as I said, I jumped to a conclusion I'll apologize for readily. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

im confused

i came here looking for info about preventing stds for health class because i know planned parenthood does that but now im reading stuff about nazis. why is this here?? its crazy. ive got a report due and your not helping me wikipedia. AnimeCraze (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The word 'Nazi' is not mentioned anywhere on the page. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, yes, I agree we should add more information about PP's work combating STDs and providing contraception, etc. I will probably work on that once the controversy section is compliant with applicable policies. The IP is correct, there is (was) no mention of the word "nazi" in the article, but there was mention of eugenics which is commonly perceived as nazi. It has been taken out as it was added by (yet another) IP user against consensus that includes its author. _WikiMan^One 06:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is a high traffic page, it has received roughly 2000 visits per day since the controversy hit in the news. We need to be extra careful to make sure its compliant. _WikiMan^One 06:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Meaning no deleting a section on controversies that's existed for 3 years - right? Otherwise, that definitely raises concerns about bias. Compliance should include valid mention of controversies, particularly at a time of high traffic. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Section

I've returned the section to what appears a longtime stable version existing much in its present form for several years, the Dec. 21st version by Uncle Milty, until consensus is reached on a new section.

My concerns with proposed new sections to be dealt with are as follows (still being updated):

1. Bush administration mention. This was not mentioned until the last few weeks in the section, and the only source is this Salon article. The article mentions it just in passing, in one paragraph, in one sentence, at the bottom of the article. Even apart from the question of whether Salon is a neutral organization (just look at the politics of its longtime editor-in-chief Joan Walsh), there's the question of whether this fact should be considered well sourced based on its 1-sentence mention in the article. For it to feature prominently in a new section, I would like it better sourced than this, with an article that mentions it as a major fact, rather than an aside.

2. Disciplinary measures. Recent proposed sections have differed from long-time stable versions in that they fail to include any mention of Planned Parenthood firing or suspending employees as a result, receiving state fines, or facing other state disciplinary measures. These are the crux of what make the events in question controversial and noteworthy, whether measures occurred as a result. To omit mention of them as new sections have been doing is to bias the section and prevent public knowledge, as seen from the page, of how the cases carried out. My concern is that only information positive to Planned Parenthood is being displayed in the recently proposed versions concerning outcomes, without mentioning anything negative such as firings or state disciplinary measures.

3. Remove the Anti-Abortion Violence Mention. This was not mentioned at all until these recent section proposals and has no place in the section. If this is to be mentioned, it should certainly belong elsewhere in the article, not here, where it has no place. This is about controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood, not the pro-life movement, right? In fact, more appropriate would be the mention of acts of violence credited TO Planned Parenthood or the broader pro-choice movement, per here (see here for a pro-choice rebuttal of the claims). Now, note that I am NOT saying pro-choice violence should be mentioned, or that it meets standards of notoriety, merely that it WOULD be relevant in the section, whereas mentions of anti-abortion violence are clearly out of place here.

4. Case Specifics. While I understand the desire to shorten the section, the previous proposal would have made it less than half the size of any of the 3 sections above it. To mention a line or 2 of detail about specific court decisions would be appropriate. However, I did notice just now the information previously in this section was moved to the 'Stand on political and legal issues' section, alleviating this concern somewhat. However, the 'Legal Troubles' subsection there appears out of place, and would probably be better off back where it was, as it seemingly relates more to controversies than Planned Parenthood stances.

5.(NEW) Sourcing. Right now, all the sources, apart from the Legal Troubles subsection (the only part of the section carried over from the old) appear inappropriate. 4 of the 6 apply to the last sentence on anti-abortion violence that doesn't even belong in the section. A 5th is virtually useless as a source, a Salon article that only mentions in 1 sentence at the bottom of the article the claim it is sourcing. The 6th is so POV favorable to Planned Parenthood in its dismissal of the incidents, and is effectively a 3 paragraph opinion piece bashing the incidents, with no reporting value, and is certainly not neutral. None of these are valid sources in any way, shape, or form. I mentioned AP and Reuters articles as sources previously. There are a number of sources that could and should be provided, per these examples.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

I'd like to see a new section put together as soon as possible, but these are the concerns I have about the section proposals of Mattnad and WikiManOne, and that differ from the long-time stable version I recently returned the page to. I'd like to see a Consensus approve a section that finds a middle ground between the older and newer versions without removing key facets of the older long-time stable version. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, Sitush, Mattnad and myself have all spoken against readding the content to the article. There are only two editors with accounts who have spoken in favor of readding the material in its entirety, while another editor suggested that it be blanked. Lets go with the four editors who don't want it readded and either blank it or add the new version until consensus is fully achieved. I have moved it back to the version currently under discussion, feel free to move mention of controversy entirely if you see fit, however, readding the previous one with dubious weight given to issues and the majority of involved editors against its inclusion is unproductive. I'm going to bed, lets deal with this tomorrow. I will reply in the above, appropriate thread where the new version is being discussed. _WikiMan^One 08:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet I am one of 6 editors who reverted or verbally opposed a removal of the former section, the others being PhGustaf, Kenatipo, JGabbard, HayMaker, and 63.163.213.249. I didn't hear opposition from MastCell and Mattnad specifically to the former version, only attempts to compromise in creating a new section, so I'm not sure yet where they stand on that. As such, I will be reverting the section to that of the longtime stable version until a consensus can be reached. There is if anything a majority of involved editors against removing controversies that were mentioned for years in their current state. I would agree with you there may be excessive weight given to certain issues, but I still think they should be mentioned with at least a line or 2 each, not eliminated altogether. I would like to see a consensus achieved that can accomplish this, rather than seeking to wholesale remove them, changing the section completely in omitting mention of them in a way that it hasn't seen since at least 2008. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply at length to your suggestions tomorrow, I just wanted to say, I agree with #4, if you don't mind, I'm going to go ahead and move it to controversies? I hope you won't revert the article back to the old version while I sleep, that wouldn't show good faith and it, furthermore, would constitute undue weight, WP:BITR also applies here. _WikiMan^One 08:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I will be reverting. I don't see why there is such sudden opposition to allowing a section that was up in its present state for a year unchanged, to be up a day or 2 until consensus is reached. That makes no sense unless trying to replace it while the issue is newsworthy to sway public opinion. I considered it a lack of good faith to make the edit in the first place to change the section per my 4 points above in all ways from its long-time previous state, and then edit-war to protect it when the consensus is in support of the older rather than newer version. I am all for compromise here, but do not believe that replacing a long-time stable version with a newer that is entirely different and very debatable here, lacking consensus, is the right move to make. Until that compromise is reached, the section should remain in its previous form given the newsworthiness of the controversies in question. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus is, based on four registered editors, as well as another who criticized your edits, that the old version is untenable. It should not be re-added unless consensus on this page clearly supports it, and even then it would still a violation of applicable policy, albeit one that I would be powerless to do anything about. I don't think going back to an old version that is clearly controversial with more editors involved in crafting a newer version is the way to go. With that, I'm off to bed. :) _WikiMan^One 08:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking this for your own good as well as everyone's, would you mind creating an account? I really can hardly keep track of the string of numbers and didn't know there were two IPs involved. In case you didn't know, the fact that an editor engages in an edit war without discussing it on the talk page does not help either side and is irrelevant. The only opinions that are relevant are those posted on the talk page, and out of these, consensus exists for the new version and not the archaic version that does not have issues with WP:NPOV, WP:DUEWEIGHT, and WP:BITR met. As such it should not be reverted unless consensus on the talk page is established to support re-adding it. _WikiMan^One 08:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw you moved the Legal Troubles section back to the Controversies section per my point 4. While I still have serious concerns about 2 of the other 4 points, I will leave the section in its current form for another day to try and achieve consensus. The return of the Legal Troubles section somewhat alleviates my concerns about points 2 and 4, and while I am still unsure on 1 and 3, the section appears similar at least somewhat now to its previous state. I'm hoping a compromise can be reached soon that will address them, but will not try to change the section for the time being, in good faith. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping over the next few days to see a source found for the Bush investigation mention, and some sources provided for the early part of the page mentioning sting operations. It seems ridiculous almost all the sources provided are for a mention of anti-abortion violence that doesn't even belong in the section, and the only other sources a pair of Salon articles - one of which doesn't even serve well as a source for the claim it's supposedly supporting (Bush investigation) since only 1 sentence at the bottom of the article refers to it. Right now, the section is effectively devoid of useful sources, apart from the Legal Cases subsection which was part of the old section, a major concern of mine, with at least 5 of the 6 sources requiring deletion - I have yet to check the other one. I provided some AP and Reuters sources earlier in my Proposed Edit section I'd be happy to include, but will wait until tomorrow to include them per my promise. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And there was consensus on the revision history and talk page to removing it in the first place. There were at least 4 users, including myself, who reverted the change originally, and 2 more who've spoken against it here on the talk discussion, for at least 6. I'd be fully justified in reverting the section to a previous stable state, but I've said I will wait a day and intend to do so. I will continue discussion tomorrow in making sourcing changes and removing the anti-abortion violence sentence, the least controversial changes, then move according to consensus with later changes. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)