Talk:Planned Parenthood

Using anti-abortion activism websites as sources?

I recently saw some material on PP funding sourced to the following:

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/14/obama-forces-new-hampshire-to-fund-planned-parenthood/

It's not currently in the article, but I found the fact that it appeared in the first place a bit troubling. It's my understanding that an activist website such as this would only be a reliable source about itself, or perhaps about the side of the issue it advocates -- but not a reliable source for topics in general and especially not a reliable source for organizations it "targets" or that adhere to the opposing side of the issue which it is dedicated to attacking.

Disagreement on this? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree; I think that in general we should be striving to avoid partisan sites as sources as much as possible. If a criticism of PP is truly notable, we should be able to find reference to it in reliable sources without having to dredge through partisan websites. If we're trying to write a hypothetical Good Article or featured article here, then we should commit to better-quality sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Before noticing this talk page section, I commented it out and then later removed it. Even if the description in the lifenews article were 100% correct (I have my doubts), I still wouldn't think that this one instance would be entirely relevant in an overview article such as this one. NW (Talk) 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. Does a site with agenda by extension make it an unreliable source? I think my test has been to ask is it reporting by a news organization or propoganda by a site dedicated to advancing a position. In the case of lifenews, we may have a situation where honest reporting is hard to ascertain, and unless coroborated by another non-partisan source, should be handled with caution.Mattnad (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

When I commented it out originally, I noted that the New Hampshire Union Leader or the Boston Globe would have covered this if it indeed happened in the manner that lifenews is reporting it. We are much better off using such sources. NW (Talk) 01:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The more sources the merrier but as long as we're going to use pro-choice sources we might as well use pro-life ones. - Haymaker (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No? That reflects a serious misunderstanding of what neutrality means. We should only use "pro-choice" sources when (a) they have been published in the professional/mainstream literature or (b) when they meet the criteria outlined in WP:SPS. That criteria can also be used for "pro-life" sources or for essentially any other source on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 14:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I generally adhere to the rule that we can use ideological sources for matters of fact as long as there's no reason to believe it's false. That rule may be wrong, but it's the one I think makes sense. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Remember the three types of false information: lies, damned lies, and statistics. At the very least, don't use any of those from a partisan website. It's best practice to get a non-ideological source before writing about a controversial matter. If you can't get something that has been published by an truly nonpartisan independent group or published in a professional venue, then it's better to not write about it at all. NW (Talk) 18:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I found some decent sources that discuss the "states try to cut funding" issue, and added them to the article. Let me know if anyone thinks more are needed, or if any other improvements are needed (it is in the Funding section). --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed one of them (the Texas NPR piece) because I didn't see it in the article, and swapped one of the sources (a conservative news site?) with a local New Hampshire newspaper. In any case, these are all "secondary" sources, but a nice overview source such as a "Planned Parenthood's funding" journal article would be preferred if it exists. NW (Talk) 23:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. As for a good "overview" source, it appears that a lot of the state-funding stuff has occurred only within the past 6 months, so it is breaking news and I have not yet found a good secondary overview. But I'll keep looking. --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

JGabbard: You inserted the "old" paragraph again. Please look up 2 paragraphs in that Funding section: there is already a section on state efforts to defund, and NW and I have improved that today, and added good refs. Please work on that paragraph, and engage in this Talk page, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Will examine the section more closely, merge material, and try to follow this page too, sorry.JGabbard (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

JGabbard: you inserted the following (for the fourth time): "Concerted efforts to defund Planned Parenthood at federal, state and local levels have gained both traction and momentum during 2010 and 2011, such that they have been placed on the defensive nationwide." The source you used was: [1]. The words "momentum" and "traction" do not appear anywhere in that source, nor does the source address "nationwide" actions: it focuses on Texas. Please try to be more precise when you add material: read the sources carefully and capture what they say. I've left your source in the article, but re-worded the prose to reflect what the source says: I used the text: "Andrew Kaspar of Statesman.com wrote that Planned Parenthood is on the "defensive" in Texas, but that it is pushing back against the attack. " Please refer to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which is suggests that identifying the source may be appropriate if the statement appears to express a viewpoint ("is on the defensive"), so that the statement is not presented in the encyclopedia's voice. --Noleander (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Noleander: While the sentence is primarily based on the reference I provided, it is also based on ALL of the subsequent references in the paragraph as well, which collectively corroborate the terms "momentum," "traction" and "nationwide" as well. It was not my intent to directly quote or plagiarize Mr. Kaspar's article but merely to give an introduction to the content of the paragraph.JGabbard (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

But I see no sources in the entire paragraph that say ".... have gained both traction and momentum during 2010 and 2011...". That appears to be your personal conclusion. Can you provide sources that state that traction and momentum are increasing? --Noleander (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

JGabbard: Also: can you give sources to justify the cause-and-effect? Your wording states that the "efforts to defund" caused PPFA to be "placed on the defensive". The WP:SYNTHESIS policy prohibits editors from establishing cause-and-effect like that. If we dont have good sources that posit the cause-and-effect relationship, it has to be removed. And even if there are sources, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV requires that the sources be identified in-line in the prose, not just in a footnote. --Noleander (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

JGabbard's insistence on the paragraph full of synthesis is not sustainable. We cannot host an editor's POV assertion that a notional movement to defund PP is gaining traction in the face of federal dismissal and reversal of such efforts. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Bink: Federal bailouts of PP are irrelevant! If each defunding effort was fully successful, 9 states in less than 2 years will still have PP totally defunded in all 50 states by the end of the decade, according to the present trendline. POV or NPOV, that is rather considerable "traction" and "momentum"! I do have sources for each of those terms and will be including them when I restore the sentence to its rightful place.JGabbard (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Noelander: Yes I can, and here they are:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/wisconsin-defunds-planned-parenthood/

http://nbc12.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/as-the-house-de-funds-planned-parenthood-obama-defends-group/

--JGabbard (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

JG: the second source is a blog and cannot be used. The issue of using blogs has been pointed out repeatedly to you, and you continue to ignore guidance given to you by other editors. Continuing to ignore the WP policies despite repeated instructions is not a good thing. The first source does use the word "traction" but not the word "momentum" ... but that first source is a biased source: the National Catholic Register. It could be used in the article to discuss whether the defunding push has "traction" or not, but WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would have to be applied. In addition, the WP:Undue policy prohibits giving excessive space to opinions/thoughts that are represented in only a minority of sources: so "traction" would probably need several sources to get into the article. Please review the WP policies that have been provided to you (several times) and try to adhere to them in future edits. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

JG: Extrapolating future figures from what you gauge as current trends is not what Wikipedia is about. Have you read WP:CRYSTAL? You said, "If each defunding effort was fully successful..." but this is dreaming, not encyclopedia writing. We cannot anticipate that every state of the USA will legislate defunding of PPFA, and we cannot dismiss the federal government stepping in to fund PPFA directly. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Bink: I'm not trying to predict the future. My only point is to justify the use of the word "momentum" in addition to the word "traction," which I have clearly achieved and which has already been used by several other writers. The actions of the 9+ states simply reflect PP's P.R. disaster and the groundswell of public opinion against them.--JGabbard (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You aren't providing reliable, unbiased sources. You have not "clearly achieved" anything, as the disagreement of several experienced editors has evidenced. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 18:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "momentum" is used by writers from several sources, all of whom may be considered "biased," but they all used it independently to describe the same trend, so it doesn't make my use of the word incorrect. There are plenty of biased sources used on this article that favor PP, and they should be evaluated by the same rule! And incidentally, the federal government was created by the states merely to be a tool of the states and was never intended to become an entity that would override them or circumvent their actions.--JGabbard (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about the Fed gov't, please avoid using this talk page as a forum; but it's worth noting that the comment is a ridiculous oversimplification, and that even if this were a view well-grounded in history, it's one that has been soundly rejected. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. So you're basically trying to suggest to the reader that Planned Parenthood has suffered a "P.R. disaster" and that there's a "groundswell of public opinion against them". You can't come out and say that in the article, because no reliable sources say it, but you're trying to imply it (in your own words).

There are two problems. First of all, you're arranging material to try to lead the reader to a conclusion not contained in the cited sources, which violates Wikipedia policy. More importantly, the point you're trying to make doesn't seem to be, well, true. It's not at all clear that there's a "groundswell of public opinion" against PP. In fact, independent, reliable sources often seem to view the defunding campaigns in the context of Republican politicians pandering to an increasingly extreme base, often in service of their own national ambitions (e.g. ABC News, Christian Science Monitor: "If the Indiana bill becomes law, it would make the state one of the most restrictive in America in terms of where and how abortions are provided. That distinction would help solidify the conservative credentials of Governor Daniels, who is said to be close to announcing a possible White House run."]

In fact, majority public opinion seems to disapprove of cutting PP's funding (e.g. NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, U.S. News & World Report: "However, most of the state initiatives that have garnered attention recently received only lukewarm support in the poll. For example, only one-third of respondents felt that eliminating public funding for Planned Parenthood was a good idea, while 55 percent felt the funding should be kept in place." See also Gallup poll). Some of these sources might actually be useful for the article, come to think of it. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicely played, MC. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I regret that the act of producing independent, reliable sources on the talk page is considered exceptional, but thank you. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

FC: Just because our nation has drifted from Jeffersonian principles does not mean that they are not well grounded in history. Besides, I didn't bring up the feds in the first place, Bink did.

MC: "Seems to" -- (??) Seems to me you are doing your share of surmising as well. Losing funding in 20% of states would be "disastrous" by most any standard, and can be nothing but indicative of a significant public backlash against PP, politics aside. Your own statistics of only 55% support would suggest that defunding states could correspondingly double to 45%, which would also imply "momentum" by anyone's standard as well. You have just proven my point, thank you! Unless and until it can be confirmed that the political tide has turned in PP's favor, "adverse momentum" is a quite appropriate way to summarize what is currently taking place, and rightly belongs in the "funding" section of the article.--JGabbard (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am describing what reliable sources say, and presenting those sources so you and others can verify them for yourselves. These are not "my" statistics - they are statistics from independent, reliable sources. But to address the central problem: your belief about a significant public backlash is not supported - and in fact is flatly refuted - by independent, reliable sources. In those circumstances, simply restating your beliefs more emphatically is not a productive way forward. MastCell ^Talk 23:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

JG, you're aware there were founding fathers other than Jefferson, correct? I'm also puzzled by your mention of the nation "drifting", when there really has been no time since ratification when the fed gov't couldn't override state authority. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We should avoid getting off topic onto broader discussions of philosophy not directly relevant to the task at hand. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

FC: Yes, Madison was another.

Falcon: Agreed.

MC: Yes, and I simply used your 'unbiased' source (actually a rather rare bird among the news media, with bias being reflected on both sides not just by what is said but also by what is NOT said) to help prove my point. PP and its defenders can pretend it isn't happening, but defunding by so many states in so short a time would never be occurring without hundreds of lawmakers having heard outrage from their respective constituencies!--JGabbard (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The faith you have in how America's political system works astounds me. NW (Talk) 02:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

JGabbard's activism, NPOV and edit warring

The defunding discussion/dispute here began on September 16 with this edit by JGabbard. JGabbard used the Steven Ertelt article on LifeNews.com to say that efforts to defund PPFA "reached a new high during 2011." An estimate of how "high" the defunding effort reached in 2011 is not part of Ertelt's article, so this bit was pure original research. JGabbard wrote that there was a concerted effort to defund PPFA in a number of states not discussed in detail in the article, and made this the focus of his paragraph. The major focus of the Ertelt article is on the federal decision to overturn a piece of New Hampshire legislation. It is not about a concerted effort to defund PPFA, one that is reaching a "new high". Because of this fact, JGabbard violated WP:NOR by "advanc[ing] a position not advanced by the sources." The triumphant tone of JGabbard's paragraph is activist, a violation of WP:NPOV where it says, "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.". JG has continued this tone on the talk page, making it difficult to assume he is here to build a neutral encyclopedia.

Subsequent back-and-forth edits:

• Sept. 18: JGabbard changed his "reached a new high" to "gained both traction and momentum"
• Sept. 18: Binksternet completely rewrote the paragraph to better represent the facts presented in the source.
• Sept. 19: NuclearWarfare deleted the paragraph as recentism.
• Sept. 20: JGabbard restored the paragraph with added references. The problems with non-neutral tone remain, with a new problem of WP:SYNTHESIS.
• Sept. 20: Noleander immediately reverted because of poor quality sources.
• Sept. 20: Noleander rebuilt the paragraph about various defunding efforts, using better sources and neutral fact-based style.
• Sept. 20: NuclearWarfare tweaked the section.
• Sept. 20: JGabbard restored his non-neutral activist wording, using completely different references. (This edit was a clear violation of 1RR.)
• Sept. 20: Noleander immediately reverted JGabbard, then quickly self-reverted to avoid 1RR penalties.
• Sept. 21: JGabbard removed his activist wording and relocated the facts and refs to augment another paragraph.
• Sept. 21: NuclearWarfare reduced the material to remove undue emphasis on individual states.
• Sept. 24: JGabbard returned his earlier POV wording to the beginning of a paragraph about defunding, this time citing an unreliable blog source.
• Sept. 25: Noleander reverted, but tacked the unreliable blog source on at the end of the paragraph and named the source, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
• Sept. 25: JGabbard completely reverted Noleander, another clear violation of 1RR.
• Sept. 25: Binksternet completely reverted JGabbard.
• Sept. 25: NuclearWarfare removed the unreliable source and text per recentism.

I don't know how JGabbard dodged two 1RR bullets, but his contributions here have been unilaterally disruptive. He has edit warred alone against three editors and has found little to no support on the talk page, where even more editors have argued against him. His disruption must stop. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. JGabbard has three different userboxes expressing his opposition to abortion, which makes it hard for me to assume that he is editing with a neutral point of view. He isn't the first editor with similar statements of support to attempt to insert POV edits into this article recently either. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 14:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't count on his userboxes to be accurate. He hosts several which are in conflict with each other. At any rate, an editor can be strongly pro-life or strongly pro-choice and still help to build a neutrally worded article about the topic. Rather than examining his many userboxes, focus on JGabbard's non-neutral actions here. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Had his edits not had neutrality problems, I would not lend any credence to the userboxes. I wouldn't have mentioned it if we were working towards a consensus and he was showing understanding of our objections, but as it is now, it just lends weight to my current opinion of the situation. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 14:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the issues raised above about JGabbard, but this Talk page is intended to be used for discussion of ways to improve the content of the article. It would be best if this discussion were moved to another forum, such as WP:ANI, which is better suited for this kind of issue. --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti Abortion violence section

I think it should be expanded. Its only a few sentences. There have been a few notable attacks. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a separate article devoted to that. A few sentences is all it needs to be here but you should probably put a top-hat on the section directing readers to the most extensive article. - Haymaker (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

10% of Clients Receive Abortions is Statistically Sloppy

The claim of 10% of clients receiving abortions is statistically inaccurate and shouldn't be stated as such. The actual source it comes from states: "Now, you can't really divide that because that's not how they keep their statistics. But indeed, that - those are the actual statistics. Three million patients, 300,000 abortions." However, the source is unclear as to if either the patients OR the count of abortions are unique. That is specifically why the source states that it can't be divided. Yet, here we are with a divided number in the article- referring to a source that says you can't divide it. The truth is, I could concoct situations using these numbers where 100% of clients receive abortions and where well under 1% of clients receive abortions (e.g. same set of 300k people receive abortions every year, while new clients cycle in and out of their clinics and never return). I'm removing this, as it was clearly added by someone with a poor reading of the source and worse understanding of statistics. Benjamid (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

More bizarre, as I read through the recent edit by Rosclese, here is what's built into the article text and some of the footnote reference information in the wiki-markup edit view (bolding mine):

"Only 50 of its 178 affiliates perform abortions"; and PP affiliates performed "104,000 of the 1.6 million abortions in the United States." Contraception accounts for 35% of PPFA's total services and abortions account for 3%; PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions each year, among 3 million people served.

So which is it? 104,000 or 300,000?Mattnad (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The 300,000 source is more recent; the 104,000 is nearly 25 years old. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Komen

Do you think it would be appropriate to discuss Stearns's investigation and the Komen controversy, or is that better left in the article on Komen? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Komen controversy" says it all. Really mostly about that group's PR mistakes and the backlash, less about Planned Parenthood than the politicization of SGK.Mattnad (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest a top hat link to a brief mention in the main article. No need to waste valuable storage space in repeating well documented information that already exists.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Eugenics info

PanBK: It looks like you want to insert "As Ms. Sanger wrote in her autobiography, the motivation was to "stop multiplication of the unfit" which "appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment" into the article. Could you discuss here first, addressing WP:UNDUE and considering the Eugenics section already in the Margaret Sanger article? --Noleander (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Every few days some editor comes in to either this or the Margaret Sanger article and tries to expand the race or eugenics sections to make Sanger look worse. It's like clockwork. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether one agrees with eugenics or not (full disclosure: I do not), the point is moot, as eugenics was a well regarded view at the time she supported it. To try to undermine a CURRENT AND MODERN institution over the views of an early leader would be to decry all of Time magazine's works since Hitler was man of the year! What is currently in the article is quite sufficient. If one feels compelled to apply a 21st century mental filter upon an early 20th century woman, go to her article and have your excessive weight deleted. Better yet, go to a talk page for the article of considered editing and discuss potential edits.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusing Sentance

The section 'State and local court cases against Planned Parenthood' includes the sentance "In Indiana, Planned Parenthood was not required to turn over its medical records." But no explaination is given as to why this is worth mentioning, or what exactly it means. The section above is about Kansas, then it goes on to talk about Minnesota, with that one odd sentance in the middle. Does it mean Indiana is the only state where PP has never been asked to turn over medical records? Were the asked but the courts didn't uphold it and allowed them to refuse? Was this part of a wider controversy or a stand-alone request for information? It's sourced to a court case (with no link unfortunately) and I assume the editior who added it believed the case to be so well known that no explaination was required, but unfortunately for readers like myself who live outside the USA and usually only hear about these things anecdotally online it doesn't really make sense and just seems like a random, out of place, fact. If someone who does know what it's refering to could expand the section to explain it that would be great. Danikat (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)