Talk:Planned Parenthood

RFC: Is this WP:SYNTH?

Is the follwoing statement WP:SYNTH?

Portions of the videos show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the ethics of altering an abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving the fetal tissues.

One official says she "wouldn't object" to doing so, and another says that "most providers" will use ultrasound to avoid "crushing" the internal organs. The latter adds that "some people will actually try to change the presentation" of the fetus to the breech birth position in order to get an intact head. If, in fact, procedures are altered to better harvest the organs, instead of keeping the mother's well-being as the sole criterion in choosing the procedure, medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said that this would be a "classic violation" of a long-held, industry-wide standard for abortion providers in the United States.

References

One side maintains that Arthur "Caplan was speaking hypothetically" and thus is SYNTH. The other contends that his comments came "after reviewing the video." A fuller discussion can be found above. --BrianCUA (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not an accurate summary of the discussion. Further, this would be better aimed at Project Medicine. Abortion is a medical topic, not a religious one. Geogene (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I was going for philosophy, given that this is a discussion about ethics. My second choice would have been society. Medicine may work, but since this is about the ethics of the procedure, not the procedure itself, I didn't think it was the best fit. I could be wrong.--BrianCUA (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• This summary seems pretty dubious. First of all, with regard to changing the position of the fetus to breech, the cited source (CNN) makes clear that "it is not clear if [the PP official] is speaking in general terms or if she is describing Planned Parenthood's methods." Somehow, in BrianCUA's text, this uncertainty is replaced with an unequivocal implication that Planned Parenthood countenances this approach. That's a disappointingly dishonest use of sources. MastCell ^Talk 01:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

In the Washington Post article, Nucatola is not speaking hypothetically, but about an actual change in procedure: "“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” she says... “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.... We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part...” Is that clear enough for you? --BrianCUA (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about—although, to be fair, you're simply mirroring the ignorance and laziness evident in most journalistic coverage of this controversy. Ultrasound is routinely used during surgical abortion, although it is not mandatory for uncomplicated cases. The use of ultrasound isn't a "change in procedure"; it's an acceptable and standard component of surgical technique, and the decision to use or not use ultrasound is generally left to the discretion of the gynecologist. If journalists weren't so lazy, they'd have figured this out themselves by doing 10 seconds of research, instead of chasing quotes from Art Caplan. For instance, the standards of care from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists state that "access to ultrasound is recommended but not routinely required" for surgical abortions, and that "ultrasound is commonly used to assess the uterus during and after vacuum aspiration" ([1]).

There is no additional risk to the woman as a result of ultrasound use. If a woman indicates a wish to donate fetal tissue to research, then the use of ultrasound guidance to help fulfill that wish is entirely consistent with medical ethical principles, particularly that of autonomy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is very little interest in learning or conveying factual medical information here, and instead there's an intensely politicized ignorance at work in the rush to cynically manipulate the content of these tapes. But to return to Wikipedia-speak: no, the sources don't support the wording you've proposed. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• These key words need to be examined:

"If, in fact, procedures are altered to better harvest the organs, instead of keeping the mother's well-being as the sole criterion in choosing the procedure,.."

The "If, in fact" and the "instead of keeping" are worded to imply these are the only alternatives, when in fact there is nothing wrong with altering a procedure if the mother's well-being is not endangered. This whole speculative type of accusation against PP is not encyclopedic, and it's deceptive because it infers something not found in the evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I generally stay away from controversial topics when editing, so I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. I thought that an RFC was designed to get outside opinions. Your name appears all over this page. If we are allowed to comment here, then I will add that the source says that "Altering procedures in order to get tissue in the best condition would be a "big no-no," and that "he made it clear that any deviation from normal procedures is unacceptable." The claim in found in the source. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, anyone can comment in an RfC. We just hope that more voices will be added to the ones already known here. (BTW, I have made relatively few comments on this page, compared to many others.)

There are at least four sources above. From which one are you quoting? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Bull. Both quotations come from the CNN story. With that out of the way, do you have any other concerns? --BrianCUA (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• NO, not SYNTH. Not even close. Synthesis is something editors do. Here, the hypothetical is being offered by the person being quoted, not by Wikipedia editors. Those claiming this is SYNTH should be considered for Trouting. Eclipsoid (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Undue emphasis. The proffered text gives too much credence to mere discussion of procedural issues. The only thing that would have been important would be if PP had changed its actual procedures. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As shown to MastCell above, there is a direct quotation showing that procedures actually are changed. Furthermore, the videos are all about ethics of changing procedures. Procedural issues are thus central to the impact of the videos, not a tertiary issue that can be waved away. --BrianCUA (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not exactly SYNTH per Eclipsoid, but still clearly inadequate wording per MastCell and BullRangifer. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Looks like WP:Synth. An editor wanted to add a very similar sentence in a section below, and I took a look myself. As proposed, it's not only Synth, but purely speculative and therefor not appropriate at this time.Mattnad (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe WP:Synth, but definitely undue - per BullRangifer & per Binksternet, respectively. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding a Planned Parenthood detractors image?

This article currently features 7 images, including the logo, out of which 3 are of Planned Parenthood supporters. A moot point I believe since one of those pictures is actually shown under the "Controversy and criticism" section [2] which should, by virtue of being under a "Criticism" section, be of protesters or detractors. Perhaps a picture such as [3] or [4] could be used. A candidate for deletion would be the same picture showing "Planned Parenthood supporters in Columbus, OH" featured under the "Criticism" section [5]

Proof of notoriety is that on July 28 "An estimated 12,000 Americans in as many as 65 U.S. cities took to the streets Tuesday to demand an end to federal funding of Planned Parenthood..." [6], including noted personalities such as Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, amongst others [7]. I am sure somebody will try to argue that this is "posturing" but 65 anti-Planned Parenthood rallies is hardly posturing anymore.

Granted, I am sure a more experienced editor can easily find a WP conforming picture. A simple Google search can show us tons of options. i.e. [8] 200.42.237.185 (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Key issue: an image has to be available under a free license. Geogene (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Images can only be included if they're on Commons and have an appropriate license. [9] -- Callinus (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can an image not be used and source cited, as with text sources? Juicebox 90 (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NFCCP. JBL (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add: the substance of the suggestion (replacing one of the two "supporters at a rally" photos with a protest of some sort) seems reasonable to me. --JBL (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

flickr

Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Planned Parenthood under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa

See Commons:Flickr files about uploading. -- Callinus (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I uploaded a photo of protesters I found using a Creative Commons search since I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for on Wikimedia Commons. Apparently the license there is incompatible with WMC use. That, User:Professor JR, is why I switched it out with one on WMC. I agree it isn't as good, but it's the best we have right now. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If the new photo isn't as good as the old, isn't the old photo actually "the best we have right now"? Eclipsoid (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

At least the article now has 6 images, out of which 2 are of Planned Parenthood supporters. Luckily, with time and the effort we have seen here of several editors we might get an image that's up to WP standards which shows detractors too. Perhaps any of the following? (Note: They were all found using Google Image search with "site:commons.wikimedia.org abortion" and "site:commons.wikimedia.org planned parenthood" as queries.

[10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

Also this possible query brings a lot of options that might feature several images that are up to WP standards: [15] 200.42.237.185 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would we even need/want an image of the group's detractors? This article is about planned parenthood, not the people/groups who oppose it. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an important part of the story of PP that it is a target of political opposition; a group protesting in front of a PP clinic would be a great illustration of this. (If you look at e.g. the article Westboro Baptist Church (chosen as the first example that came to mind of another group that attracts protests) you'll see a picture of their church, a bunch of pictures of members of the group and then, down in the section counter protests, a couple of pictures of people protesting against them.) The first protestor picture (since removed as non-free?) had a nice awning with visible PP logo in the background; I think something like that is probably necessary to make a good illustration for this article (and I don't think "generic anti-choice protestors" is useful). In my opinion one such photo would be a great addition to the article; more than one is unnecessary. --JBL (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This page needed more balance, a fact which is now being noted and addressed. Juicebox 90 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with balance. (And to whom are you responding, anyhow?) --JBL (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't do tit-for-tat editing to create a false "balance". This image would simply be a relevant addition to that section. A perfectly proper thing to do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Biased view on Center for Medical Progress undercover videos

The paragraph seems defensive of Planned Parenthood. In particular, the section says Planned Parenthood employees appeared to be "discussing the ethics of altering an abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving the fetal tissues". The actual content of the videos showed Planned Parenthood employees discussing procedures already in place designed to preserve fetal tissue during an abortion. I think this part needs to be changed to something similar to " A portion of the videos appear to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing how abortion procedures are altered for the purpose of preserving fetal tissue."

Furthermore, the quote included near the end ("Well, now you’re shading into the area of you’re paying me to do something that’s not right. So that’s not what I want to talk about!") seems to give undue weight to one side of the issue. I propose removing this quote altogether, or balancing it with other quotes from the videos to give a more neutral summary of their content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.230.207 (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Answering your first paragraph/point, I don't think they were altering procedures according to what reliable sources say (rather than opinions). It's the same procedure but they take care not to damage certain tissues or organs. On your second paragraph, it's hardly undue weight. It's simply a quote that a reliable source felt was important to include as evidence that Planned Parenthood puts the needs of their patients first. It's far far less than entire sections later devoted to congressional investigations etc. (if we're talking about weight/balance).Mattnad (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've pointed out repeatedly above, sources such as CNN do say that changing the procedure, which is spoken of in actual and not hypothetical terms, to not damage the fetal organs is a "big no-no" and that "any deviation from normal procedures is unacceptable" since the doctor's "sole concern has to be the mother and her health." As to the balance issue, there is an outside expert who is defending PP. I don't think an outside voice that is critical is undue. --11:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the CNN link. It does not say "" A portion of the videos appear to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing how abortion procedures are altered for the purpose of preserving fetal tissue." It's positioned as a hypothetical in the CNN article based on a quoted opinion. The way you've written this, it's conclusive and not supported by the source.Mattnad (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Nuctola says in that source: "We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that, I'm not going to crush that part." She is speaking in the past tense about something that has already been done and perfected. How is that hypothetical? --BrianCUA (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

She's not referring necessarily to altering the procedure but doing it in a way that doesn't damage certain tissues.. The CNN quote that's discussing the hypothetical doesn't refer to her statement. Bringing them together as I think you'd like would be WP:OR via synthesis. This has been discussed in the section above. Mattnad (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't follow. They are using ultrasound to ensure that they don't crush the fetal organs. Most of the time they wouldn't use ultrasound and wouldn't care which part of the body they crushed. That is a change in procedure. Even if it isn't, it shows that there a concern for something other than the mother and her health, namely harvesting the fetal organs. What do you think of this?

Portions of the videos show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the ethics of altering an abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving the fetal tissues. One said they will use ultrasound to guide their forceps to avoid crushing the desired fetal organs. In response to this portion of the video, medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said that changing procedures would be unacceptable and that the abortion provider's "sole concern has to be the mother and her health."

Does that work for you? If not, would you like to take a crack at copyediting it to make it acceptable?--BrianCUA (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's way overweight and unneeded. My wife is a radiologist and she told me that Ultrasound is commonly used in later term abortions to ensure a safe and complete extraction of all tissue and User:Mastcell has separately made the same point elsewhere. So instead of having dueling sources that adds a lot of nothing to the article, we should act as editors here rather than POV pushers.Mattnad (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but your wife's opinion is what's undue here. Please be mindful of WP:NOTFORUM. Eclipsoid (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. This editor has two different sections going on this topic on the talk page, and as I pointed out Mast Cell provided a links that demonstrate the same. As an aside, abortion foes have created legislation the requires ultrasound before ANY procedure in some states. This issue is a red herring, undue, and encyclopedic. If the editor wants to create an article on the ethics of ultasounds in abortion matters, he's welcome to, but it doesn't belong here.Mattnad (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, the Post article went out of its way to re-state as a hypothetical: "A clinic that changed procedures...would be". Source avoided saying that they did in fact change their procedures. Caplan also avoided directly accusing them of anything in that source, though it made it clear that he thinks they're on dangerous ground. But whether it's illegal or not is something that can only be decided by a court. It's true that Wikipedia is biased against accusing people of crimes without unambiguous sources, see WP:HARM. Geogene (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Camille Paglia quote

The quote from Camille Paglia strikes me as a strange choice. She's a literature and cultural studies scholar, not an expert on medical ethics, so why are we quoting her opinion on whether Planned Parenthood breached medical ethics? Shouldn't we be quoting a medical ethicist? GabrielF (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's too much emphasis on this recent spate of video releases. I removed the quote, along with a lot of other emphasis on the recent videos. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You didn't, however, remove the quote from Jim Vaught. If one isn't undue, then neither should be the other. If we are going to get rid of one, we should get rid of both. However, I don't think a single paragraph with outside voices is really WP:UNDUE, as long as it is balanced. I would prefer a medical ethics as well, but there seems to be a group of editors who are working hard to prevent any critical voices from appearing in this article. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, but it seems like it'd be creating a false balance to equate views of president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories with those of an otherwise uninvolved cultural critic, especially when they not cited for same subject or in same section. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Jim Vaught quote is completely different from the Paglia quote. Vaught is an expert in the collection of biological tissue for research purposes. He was addressing a narrow question that was directly within his expertise (whether a particular dollar figure is reasonable for cost recovery for providing tissue). On the other hand, Paglia was making a very broad and emotional comment on a subject that she has no expertise in. The two are not comparable.GabrielF (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Indiana Clears Planned Parenthood

Interesting:

• Indiana Clears Planned Parenthood Of Wrongdoing In Investigation Sparked By Deceptively-Edited Videos

If anyone objects to a partisan source like Media Matters, they are no more partisan than The Center for Medical Progress, so using them would actually create needed balance. Whatever the case, this refers to RS which can be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am appalled that a long-time editor like you would equate using Media Matters, an organization that has a stated mission of "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"[16], on the same level as the Center for Medical Progress, the organization that this same article refers to as such that "...released videos...".

If you want to balance the usage of obviously anti-Planned Parenthood media sources, then please do so. But the originator of the news, the creator of these undercover videos is not on the same level as the obviously partisan Media Matters. I am pretty sure you understand how this could be seen as proof that you are trying to advance a political agenda here? 200.42.237.185 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

On the spectrum of reliability, Media Matters is not terrible. Yes they have a POV, but so do all of the politicians we quote in this section. The Center for Medical Progress is less reliable in that it's a single issue advocacy organization. Mattnad (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

200.42.237.185, dang, I almost wish I had planned the above as baiting, because you certainly responded as if it were, and took the bait. You reaction shows that better reading comprehension is needed here. Your assumptions of bad faith blinded you to the right interpretation.

My first point was that Media Matters is more reliable than CMP (Mattnad is correct), and we use CMP a lot. My secondary and main point ("Whatever the case") is that the MM article contains better RS we could use. So read the MM article, find those good sources, and use them. I'm not suggesting we actually use MM, but we certainly could because it's more mainstream and reliable than the bogus CMP, which possibly committed borderline fraud in its initial IRS listing as a "non-profit" and had to change its description to avoid problems. Its fringe status and deceptive nature is being exposed more and more. Talk about discredited!

A fringe organization like CMP, using fringe sources like itself, certainly isn't exempted from the use of countering sources with an opposing POV, sources which are less dubious and are above board, not secretive and created for deception.

It's rather ironic that a supporter of CMP would object to the presence of other editors who hold an opposing POV, because that argument is a boomerang, and it shows that you are the one "trying to advance a political agenda here" (quoting yourself, hence the need for you to read POT). That's not a very wikipedian attitude, because editors with all POV are welcome here. I'm not telling anyone on your side of the issue that they shouldn't edit here because of their personal POV, yet you dare to do just that.

So try to improve the atmosphere here by following these steps: stop the trolling, read WP:POT, stop attacking other editors, and stick to dealing with content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Media Matters is a partisan source, and so ideally we should avoid or limit its use. The situation in Indiana has been covered by independent, reliable sources, including local and national media, so we should use those sources instead of Media Matters. (As an aside, Indiana has been overwhelmed by one of the worst HIV crises in recent memory, so its government's focus on manufacturing trumped-up reasons to shut down one of the state's largest providers of reproductive-health services is mind-boggling. But I digress). MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What was left out is important

Here's some of what was edited out. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

non productive exchange
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tumbler BullRangifer? Seriously? I'll quote myself, from a July 26 response to you on this very same Talk Page, while referring to this perceived non-neutral POV you seem to be advocating: "...But you are indeed failing to mention that the same Center for Medical Progress released both the edited and full version [videos], the same day (July 14), and were both uploaded within minutes of each other. So there wasn't anything hidden. If you want to talk about how print, web and social media exploded and took it "too far" with just the edited version, then that is just another can of worms". 200.42.237.185 (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Bigger picture - this is most likely a flash in the pan typical of the partisan politicking around abortion. Yes a longer version has been reviewed, but selections from it have been used for political points. Unless an investigation finds that Planned Parenhood broke laws, it's not really that notable in the long run. So time will tell.Mattnad (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 200.42.237.185, what's "tumbler" supposed to mean? Is that an insult? Otherwise, if what was left out wasn't important, why did they create an edited version? They did it to make PP look bad, because the unedited version shows that those edits were very manipulative and deceptive. You know full well that the media didn't "take it too far". That was the reaction intended by CMP. They love it. But now even Republicans have acquitted PP of wrongdoing in this case, and CMP is discredited. It's a shame that CMP followed James O'Keefe's example of dishonesty. If CMP and anti-abortionists can't get their point across without resorting to deception, bombings, and murder, something's very wrong with their agenda. Maybe CMP's founder needs to follow his mentor's example and also be convicted in court. He really should spend some time behind bars. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This thread doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with editing the article, so perhaps we could all back away from the battleground approach a little bit. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. It started as a suggestion providing evidence which could be included. So far so good. Then the attacks came. I'll hat that exchange. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Tumbler is not evidence. Eclipsoid (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, well, that depends what one means. But, the link in question is neither a secondary nor a reliable source. And unlike the Media Matters section above, there's no underlying RS here. --JBL (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah ha! Now I get it. The source above (which I'd never suggest as a RS for content) is MM's Tumblr account. I hadn't noticed that since I saw they are referring to the actual videos, which are a primary RS for documenting the content of the videos. They provide two MM sources which are a bit better (July 14. July 21), but still the original is the best. Obviously we wouldn't use any of those sources, but they provide information which can help editors in searching for secondary RS to document this. Those are the RS to use. The search for RS can start in odd places! -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood acquitted by Republicans? TIME.com says otherwise

A long-time editor pointed out above that "...now even Republicans have acquitted PP of wrongdoing in this case, and CMP is discredited." but just today 3 Republican Senators posted an Op-Ed in Time Magazine and Time.com: Rand Paul, Joni Ernst and James Lankford [17]

The 10 paragraph Op-Ed has very clear indications of the Congressional path the Center for Medical Progress video's and it's allegations towards Planned Parenthood are taking. It is a current and very notable since we have 3 Republican Senators, including one who is both a respected M.D. and Presidential Candidate for the US stating that "These videos are hard for anyone to defend, and they pull back the curtain on Planned Parenthood’s callous actions that strike the moral fabric of our society." and "The Senate will soon vote on a bill to redirect federal taxpayer money from Planned Parenthood to women’s health care at places like community health centers and hospitals...Our focus remains on ensuring that taxpayer dollars are utilized to protect federal funding for health services for women, which may include diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well-child care, contraceptives, prenatal and postnatal care, immunizations, cervical and breast cancer screenings and more."

Whether some editors think this is "just posturing" and that WP:NOTNEWS this definitely retains the qualities of WP:NOTE and reflects current intent from lawmakers. This stopped being political and is currently a policy directive from high-ranking members of Congress.

Personal opinions should not matter here and these lengthy processes whereupon we have constantly protected this article and not others which are more prone to incendiary debate (like Arab-Israeli Conflict, ISIL beheading incidents or Russia–Ukraine relations) seems to show that the majority of the editors paying attention to this specific article have a stronger opinion over what this article shows. Is this a sign of the other, more internationally minded yet current-events topics needing more sensible editors to constantly protect those articles? Or might it be, and pardon the insinuation, that his article already has way too many disruptions to illustrate a point? WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA

Personal: Apologies to BullRangifer if he feels "trolled". That has never been the idea or purpose of these exchanges. I am not against Planned Parenthood at all but feel I need to play the role of devils advocate here since I am clearly seeing a silencing of the "right" akin to censoring. 190.6.159.37 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC) (I am 200.42.237.185 but on another city)

The Op-Ed may be a decent source for a sentence in the "Congressional investigations" section that the three senators authored a bill as a response to the videos, but not sure how useful it'd be beyond that. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

190.6.159.37 / 200.42.237.185, apology accepted. We just need to stop personalizing the debate, and then I'm sure we can all get along fine. I note this comment: "This stopped being political and is currently a policy directive from high-ranking members of Congress." No, it's still political. The GOP has been opposing PP for a long time. They oppose birth control and abortions, and it's been noted that this latest sting is just another event in the GOP's "War on Women". Now they may succeed in defunding PP (as they did with ACORN), even though only about 3% of PP's activities are related to abortion, and that part isn't even funded with federal funds. That would be illegal. So their defunding will only affect the largest activities, which are very useful and needed. No wonder a majority of women still defend PP, and this turns them against the GOP.

BTW, why not just create an account? Using multiple accounts isn't normally allowed, and if you have one account it won't matter where you are, you'll have more privacy, a whole lot more rights, great tools and scripts suddenly available, and more respect. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions BullRangifer. I have mostly been a lurker every site I roam, and I do try to contribute here and there (tiny edits, a source or two, small donations and whatnot) but someday I do have to get a username together. But I do disagree with you on Planned Parenthood's defunding as being part of a grander political scheme, even though it might very well fit. Here's why: Senator Rand Paul and Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson are both M.D.'s and have reached the conclusion that Planned Parenthood's funding should be brought to vote in very different ways. The first one is a respected Ophthalmologist while also being quite libertarian while the second one is one of the nation's most acclaimed Neurosurgeons but also is a deeply religious man. Also, if you like the topic on "War on Women", I'd also suggest you to read up on Ben Carson's views on it [18]...

Also, any idea why this topic is so prone to protection while the arguably more "debatable" and "hot button" topics I mentioned above are not? 190.6.159.37 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Folks, this is not a forum, it's for discussing actual or proposed changes to the article. --JBL (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

JBL, could you please then chime in on my unanswered question above? "any idea why this topic is so prone to protection while the arguably more "debatable" and "hot button" topics I mentioned above are not?" 200.42.237.185 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"The Op-Ed may be a decent source" - no, op-eds are never used when reliable secondary sources with fact checking by journalists are available. -- Callinus (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

An opinion piece authored by Republican Senators would seem to be an exceptionally good source for the opinions of those Senators. Perhaps even the best source available. (snicker) Eclipsoid (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

But only as evidence of their opinions, not as evidence of the opinion of the Senate in general. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

2002 Life Dynamics phone calls

The section on the 2002 Life Dynamics phone calls has been deleted several times, but the best explanation offered for it so far is that it is "not important." Could someone please explain to me why it is any less or more important that the other sting operations that get their own subsections? Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing came of those calls based on the sources I've seen. Not a whole lot different from other previous efforts. They could be added to the intro summary sentence as an example (whatever they were trying to show) with a footnote. But more than that is not needed, if at all. At most, it's a footnote. This was more than 10 years ago and it didn't do much. BTW, one of the sources, "Infowars" does not qualify as a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Infowars?! Isn't it blacklisted? If not it should be. It's only reliable for its own opinion. Delete it right away. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad is correct. Nothing came of the Life Dynamic phone campaign. It's more important to the Life Dynamics story than it is to Planned Parenthood's story. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Revenge editing

User:Briancua has made two edits which can only be seen as revenge edits, with no policy backing. The reasoning is spurious and doesn't even make sense (it's the opposite in one case). Such deletion of properly sourced content is normally considered vandalism:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood&diff=674415295&oldid=674414637
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood&diff=674415384&oldid=674415295

Brian, please undo those edits and discuss them before trying such tricks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you considered them revenge edits or tricks. That was not my intention. I also thought I explained myself adequately in the edit summary, but I guess I didn't. My apologies. With both edits, I was shooting for WP:Balance. With the first, an accusation is leveled against CMP by PP, but CMP's defense was deleted. Personally I think that is a detail that is better suited for CMP's article than PP's, but didn't feel strongly enough about it to make an issue of it. However, when Binksternet deleted the defense, I didn't think it was NPOV to let the accusation stand. With the second, we have a quotation from an outside voice who is defending PP. Twice, my attempts to insert a quotation that is critical of PP have been deleted. Again, it violates NPOV to have one but refuse the other. Incidentally, Vaught is speaking just as hypothetically as Caplan, yet no one objected to him. Hope this clears things up about my intentions. --BrianCUA (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Vaught is speaking about the actual amount that PP says they actually charge; there is no sense in which this is hypothetical. --JBL (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, apology accepted, and I'll AGF that you were trying to improve the article. I still don't agree with your justifications, as they are not based in policy, so I have restored both edits, but with a caveat in your favor: The first edit, according to you ("not fair to level the accusation, but delete the defense"), is missing a defense. The solution is to add that defense, not delete part of the properly sourced content. We don't delete such content, regardless of how out of balance it makes the article. That's censorship. Instead we add balancing content if it exists. If it doesn't, then that's the slant which real world RS present, and that usually represents the mainstream POV.

Fringe topics often end up with a very slanted article, simply because that slant is the closest way to represent the truth of the matter, represented by the existence of such a slant in the most RS. Alternative medicine (AM) articles are classic examples. AM promoters make unscientific claims, and the mainstream scientific evidence in RS trumps them and tramples them into the ground, so the article is clearly biased toward the mainstream view, simply because the mainstream has more accurate information, backed by research, and published in RS. AM only has anecdotes and false advertising made on fringe websites, and not published in RS. More accurate and reliable sources win out, and that's how it should be.

NPOV doesn't mean an article is without a dominant POV, or that there must be a tit-for-tat balancing act, or a false balance is present so it appears balanced. No, we document the POV which exist in RS, and fringe POV usually lose out to the stronger/dominant (and hopefully more accurate!) mainstream POV.

NPOV refers primarily to neutral editorial conduct, not neutered content. Editors are supposed to remain neutral in their editing. They must let the bricks fall where they may without trying to rearrange them into some sort of "balance" which is not present in the sum total of the RS used. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Other editors should weigh in on this since I don't see any ill intent from Briancua's additions. Many of the additions on this article seem to be pro-PP and that is definitely not WP:Balance. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Putting the "controversy" in context - to date, no laws have been broken according to ANY investigation. If that changes, then there's something there. But for now, it's partisan bloviating to the media. There's a lot of posturing going on, but that's politics. If we were being encyclopedic here, we'd have a short paragraph explaining what the videos were (secret video tapes of planned parenthood personnel describing tissue harvesting), and how politicians opposed on Planned Parenthood are using them. Since some editors feel inclined to add salacious, but irrelevant details, we head down a path of point/counterpoint.Mattnad (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism section is a shambles

Not related to the news of the moment being discussed elsewhere on this page, the section Planned_Parenthood#Abortion is in really sad shape. The second paragraph has a bunch of data on Planned Parenthood (in the first sentence) and abortion (in the second and third sentences), but no context at all. In particular, nothing in the paragraph has any indication of what the controversy or criticism is supposed to be. It would be nice if, some time after things cool down a bit, this could be written so that (1) it is actually about PP, and (2) it actually says something about the topic of the section. Possibly, it should be merged with the preceding paragraph somehow. Unless there is some specific link between the latter two sentences and PP that has been left out at the moment, they probably should go.

Also, in the third paragraph, the last two sentences have a he-said-she-said feel to them. Presumably there is some actual social science/epidemiology data out there about the relationship between contraceptive availability and abortion; it would be nice to have a statement about what experts believe. --JBL (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

JBL, everything in that section deals directly with happenings at, and accusations pertaining to, Planned Parenthood. I do not see anything irrelevant, and the sub-headings clarify what is being discussed. They are relatively small, so that the info is easily read and digested. The paragraphs within the sub-headings also seem to be proportionately separated. The Abortion section is outlining different aspects OF the abortion controversy as it relates to PP, although I concur that perhaps this relationship could be more clearly stated for each detail, for purposes of clarification. The Controversy and Criticism section seems generally well organized to me. Juicebox 90 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly you should read the comment I wrote, not just the section heading. Then you can respond to the specific issues I raised with particular sentences. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible POV fork

An attempt has been made to spin off a separate article on the current controversy. As this appears to me to be a POVFORK, I've nominated it for deletion, encourage y'all to weigh in as you see fit. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it was actually spun off the CMP article. In any case, until it gets deleted, it definitely should be linked from here via the main article tag. StAnselm (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a POV FORK, but a proper WP:SPINOUT sub-article. Policy tells us to do this in such a case, and in this case it solves a problem for two articles at the same time, since this content is too long in both articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wording not up to WP standards

In the "Undercover recordings by pro-life activists" section, we see an instance of Planned Parenthood being named just "PP" which does not fit the criteria for a proper article ("...Three Congressional committees are making inquiries into PP practices")

There's also an apparent need to condense as much information as possible regarding this notable current event so several very short sentences have been added at the end of a paragraph instead of being part of a larger paragraph. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Little style, grammar, and wording problems like this tend to add up over time, especially in an article that is controversial and edited frequently. Usually the thing to do is just WP:FIXIT. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Be bold on a constantly protected article? 200.42.237.185 (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: the "PP," though, note that the first line of the lede specifically notes that this is a common abbreviation for Planned Parenthood. I think most readers will follow. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a recent addition; I for one would support changing all instances of "PP" to "PPFA," which is the dominant abbreviation used in the article. --JBL (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of recent coverage?

Recently we have seen several changes that edit out important and notable current information, even when it has been featured heavily in all the major news outlets. Examples:

• Under the "Congressional investigations" section there is no mention of the details Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 bill that has been voted in the U.S. Senate when a majority of the Senators were for this measure. Neither it's similar bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. It also fails to mention the notable fact that several Republican Party Presidential candidates who are also members of the U.S. Senate have voiced strong opinions against Planned Parenthood, have been co-sponsored bills to defund it and have voted against it. A small sentence would go a long to way to make sure WP:BALANCE prevails (that is to say these recent efforts are not "fringe" nor "extreme" when taken in the context of current US Politics.

• Under "State Investigations" there is a clear lack of updated content. No mention of Louisiana terminating its contract with Planned Parenthood clinics as a result of their very own investigations? [19]

200.42.237.185 (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bill you mentioned didn't pass the 60 vote threshold which means it's dead. There have been many bills in the past like that one that never became laws and it would be a pretty meaningless article to list the many show bills that didn't become law. Regarding Louisiana, it's marginally interesting, particularly because the two Planned Parenthood clinics there do not perform any abortions so the medicaid funding decision reduced women's access to low cost heath services unrelated to abortion. We could have commentary on how the GOP has been targeting women's access to health services even when there's no abortion services for partisan reasons. There was no "investigation" at all. According to reliable sources, Jindal made a decision for political, rather than any legal reasons.Mattnad (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP's confused version of events aside, the Louisiana thing definitely deserves a sentence. --JBL (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Numerous sources document the actions in Louisiana, and that they don't perform abortions. The other Bill has been mentioned for some time, so I don't know what the IP is talking about. It failed. Period. No need to say more. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mattnad and JBL for posting here. I posted this very same section on this Talk Page and it was "archived" within the hour. I reposted the same and since I got responses from you two, at least acknowledging that this brings an issue or two to be considered to PPFA's article, it has been left here. Please BullRangifer note that all the posts in my very brief Talk Page were made by you. This does not seem healthy, and you are one of the main editors in all of the articles spinning off the PPFA's main article (ACORN, CMP, the new Fork, etc) which seems like policing or patrolling of all these "hotly debated" articles within your non-POV opinion. I don't mean this as an attack but other editors should review your edits to this web of articles and confirm if it follows WP:CENSOR or WP:NOTADVOCATE. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't touched the other articles and you may note that I'm mostly active on this talk page rather than editing the PPFA article. I'm trying to bring a voice of perspective here. When there's a lot of noise, but no substance, we should avoid including the noise. A reader is not interested in the daily updates unless they are meaningful. So when a commentator says X, but X is speculative opinion about what hasn't happened (ie. criminal inquiry with a finding against PPFA) then it probably doesn't belong in the article. There have been dozens of attempts to put PPFA in a bad light. The vast majority were determined to be groundless, which is why they are not expansively covered here. IF there's a finding of fact in an official investigation, then it becomes more relevant.Mattnad (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear IP editor, to the extent that you have suggestions for how to edit the article, they are welcome. To the extent that you just want to whine about other users, please find something else to do with your time. --JBL (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, I never referred to you. Please re-read my earlier post if you can. JBL, what happened to WP:TINC or WP:NPOV? I see you didn't respond to my question earlier on this Talk Page, I guess it doesn't pertain to this topic then? What to do when established editors, as well intentioned they might be, have what constitutes a systemic bias against a particular point of view and that ends hurting the tone of the article in question? What for over-policing and zealous deletions, not correction, of additions that shine a bad light on an editors favorite pet project? This is not personal, this regards the parsimonious attitude of sympathetic editors to the zealotry of a few "speedy deleters". If you still believe I am straight in the wrong here then please, by all means, lets invite an uninvolved editor to close this. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Racist donations

A clause about PP accepting money from racist donors keeps getting deleted. It read that a PP facility was called by "racists seeking to earmark donations for abortions for black women to abort black fetuses," In only one of these deletions has an explanation been given, when CFCF put in the summary: "that is not what the source says." The source quotes the PP staffer as saying that "If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure the gift as earmarked for that purpose." The source adds that "In each [call in 6 states], the staff person answering the call expressed an interest in taking the donations despite the caller’s overtly racist commentary." This is clearly what the source says, so I am restoring it. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

But BrianCUA, what you actually included ("racists seeking to earmark donations for abortions for black women to abort black fetuses,") is not the same as what you wrote above, so User:CFCF is correct "that is not what the source says." The source is more nuanced and shows the PP worker not really understanding that she was being baited and thinking that someone wanted to "help an African-American woman in need." That was a kind act which any good employee would want to encourage.

The accompanying laughter, as we all know, was likely nervous laughter as a response to "something weird about this situation." That's a normal response in such a situation, and has nothing to do with levity or callousness.

That the baiters, and the ones writing the story, made it sound much worse, was unfortunate. If the worker had really understood that they were being tricked into saying something they didn't mean, I doubt they would have been so helpful. Employees in all types of business are trained to try to appease and please customers, and never to outright disagree with them, especially when they are trying to make a donation. Their "salesmanship" may even make them fudge the truth a bit. All in all it was an unfortunate incident caused by frauds. It was not something done by PPFA, and it doesn't provide any evidence that PPFA is engaged in any type of targeted genocide.

You need to try some other wording which shows a bit more understanding, rather than only writing from one angle, the propagandist's angle. Something like "racists seeking to earmark donations to help black women" would be more neutral. The motives of the racists is not the same as the motives of PPFA. PPFA is not interested in targeting "black fetuses." -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The section I removed was written with a text-book example of a WP:LABEL infarction. Do not restore it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:CFCF, that LABEL link seems to be the wrong one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, someone changed it the 7th of August without consensus. I fixed it back. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact remains that openly racist donors were able to donate money for abortions for black women to abort black fetuses and we have a one or two editors constantly deleting this because, in all honesty, it makes Planned Parenthood look bad. It looks extremely bad, akin to censorship, when editors with established opinions per their very own talk pages or past edits just delete instead of trying to correct. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)