Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy

Unification of both articles

This scandal is becoming so large and involved, that it deserves its own page like the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy page so that it can be more complete.

Both the Planned Parenthood and Center for Medical Progress (political organization) pages are becoming excessively long as well as duplicated with information.

Using the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now page as a reference, the ACORN page has a brief section about the controversy and links to the main page/controversy page. This is a good template for the current controversy. It is likely to get much more involved as there are more videos to go, which will only clutter the pages. Unifying the information will also make it easier for readers to parse instead of jumping back and forth between pages.

I did not change any of the content's context, but it is likely that both the PP and CMP pages should and will be reduced in size and return to being pages about the Organizations themselves. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am totally in favor of this article existing since it is very notable, current and will allow for details not pertinent to the much larger Planned Parenthood article to come to light. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Highly edited"

I removed the words "highly edited" from the lead. The relevant sentence in the article says "Supporters of Planned Parenthood have complained that the videos were edited, although the Center for Medical Progress has released unedited videos along with the much shorter edited versions." That indicates that calling it "highly edited" is POV. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If this article is going to stay live for any significant length of time then the whole lede (and probably much of the article) needs a major re-write. If you've looked at mainstream media sources on this, the lede is very clearly misleading and very clearly not NPOV as currently written. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The mainstream sources certainly say "edited" - it seems that the phrase "highly edited" is coming from pro-PP statements. StAnselm (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Any comparison shows that the MUCH shorter versions must be "highly edited". That's not POV, that's accuracy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that's just WP:OR. Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's quoting multiple non-PP sources which use that phrase. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't really care if we just say "edited" or "highly edited" - but since BullRangifer had re-added the "highly" last, I added some additional, mainstream media sources which used that language. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care a lot for it too but we should all have in mind that some of the editors here, posting on this Talk Page and editing the article, have already stated very Pro-Planned Parenthood views on the original Planned Parenthood lengthy Talk Page so we should all be wary of a lack of WP:IMPARTIAL tone on this article. Note: I am not attacking anyone in particular but we must always be wary of politically-motivated editors. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Edited" is sufficient and gets the message across. "Highly-edited" has no precise meaning is not encyclopedic.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with "edited" too, the "highly" just comes across as POV. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I think you kind of threw out the baby with the bathwater with this revert. Whatever your feelings about the "highly," Bobo had made a lot of good edits and corrections in that revision. Can we salvage those please? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I totally goofed there. BoBo notified me and I have fixed it. So sorry about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Speziale&diff=675002311&oldid=674982970 "Highly" is back in the article. Also, it confuses me that CMP released all the full-length unedited videos right alongside the edited ones, and that is not mentioned at all here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

?? "Highly" is what RS say! CMP didn't release both version at exactly the same time, did they? They issued the edited versions first so maximum damage could be achieved. It was only when the press got the unedited full videos later that they could start to compare them. By then politicians and others had worked themselves up into a frenzy, which was exactly CMP's intent. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources are parroting Planned Parenthood's talking points. That is their wording, and it's not neutral. Elizium23 (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary says "Per talk, WP:NPOV". I don't see a consensus here for you to make that change. Where is that consensus? It's quite the contrary! We follow the sources. Please self-revert and seek a consensus. Remember this article is under a 1RR, and your revert has no consensus.

That wording does not violate NPOV, no matter who wrote it. It's precise, accurate, and reliably sourced. Do you have a better way to describe it, without OR? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You're the ONLY one who's argued here against the neutral wording. Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You would think that at least the opening sentence would make some sense. What are "clips"? Audio clips? Clips of hair and fingernails? How about using the word "videos"? Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it. I don't think that would be a controversial change. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I said this above already, but I really don't think it's worth fighting over the "highly." The fact that they were edited is the central/salient point, that's all we need to say in the lede. If you really want to include the "highly" then put an attributed quote in the sections covering either planned parenthood's or the media's response. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Edited", while technically accurate, is very vague and gives no sense of the actual degree of editing. Journalists who have compared the videos note that the CMP versions are "heavily edited" or "highly edited". That's non-PP neutral and accurate language. Using a vague term is not being a neutral editor. It's the imposition of editorial judgment over what RS actually say, without a good reason. The term is neutral and accurate. It doesn't conjure up something that didn't happen, and it's not partisan language. None of the four sources ( [1] [2] [3] "highly edited") ([4] "heavily edited") we use are PP sources. It's the journalists describing the videos. What motivation is there for not following the sources? Why the censorship? -- BullRangifer (talk)

No, there is a good reason to override the non-neutral language used by some sources. The phrase "highly edited" is highly subjective, and lends itself to pushing the POV that the videos were not just "highly edited", but were in fact dishonestly edited. If that, in fact, is not the actual goal, then surely a less noxious modifier can be found. Eclipsoid (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In what way is an accurate description used by RS wrong to use? We follow the sources which most accurately describe the situation. "Edited" is technically accurate, but tells us nothing. Was only 2% removed? Well, "edited" can mean that. It gives no sense of the degree of editing. "Highly" and "heavily" are descriptions used by RS to convey a more accurate impression about the relative lengths of the videos.

Those words do not indicate anything about the honesty of the edits. Not at all. There are sources, even from non-PP sources, which do convey that impression, and we use them. NPOV requires that we document such reactions: Quote: "A New York Times editorial wrote that the "video campaign is a dishonest attempt to....""[5] That's an extremely significant source and opinion, and we always include such information at Wikipedia. Keep in mind that it is only editors here who are not supposed to add their own unsourced "non-neutral language" to articles.

There is no policy which requires us to censor "non-neutral language" from RS. On the contrary. (Find such a policy!) NPOV requires that we preserve such wordings and convey the actual spirit of the source. Failure to do so is a violation of NPOV and censorship. Content at Wikipedia contains plenty of properly sourced "non-neutral language", and that's how it's supposed to be. Without it we'd have blah articles with much less content, and we'd fail our goal to document "the sum total of human knowledge," much of which is opinions conveyed by "non-neutral language". -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You're still the only one arguing it should be inserted. WP:WTW is a guideline which demonstrates clearly that some words can introduce bias. If you want to put "highly-edited" in quotation marks or WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it then I would not have a problem. Just seems a little wierd to take words out of Cecile Richards' mouth and put them in the lede sentence in Wikipedia's voice. Elizium23 (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Eclipsoid, I have taken a look at your editing across many articles and notice that you carry this opinion of yours wherever you go. You don't understand NPOV. As a newbie, we've given you some slack and time to learn how things work here, but it's time to stop. You're just creating disruption. You need to learn from more experienced editors and drop this false idea that we don't have "non-neutral" content here. NPOV has nothing to do with that, so please stop fighting such content unless it's unsourced editorializing by an editor. That's what NPOV primarily refers to. Editors must remain neutral in their editing and not allow their personal POV (and we all have them, which is fine) to shine through by adding their own unsourced words. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Elizium23, we can add quote marks to the words. No problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Bullrangifer, I have also observed your editing, and I have noticed that you often bend policies to suit your whim (sometimes against the consensus of other editors). I don't find your appeal to authority very convincing.

In this case, there are plenty of sources that describe the videos as "edited", with no modifier. There is absolutely no reason to privilege those sources you prefer (the ones that say "highly edited"), other than your own personal need to add spin to this article. I agree with Elizium--that attributing the POV with quotes is OK--but only insofar as it is OK to do that in the body of the article. The lead is neutral without the word "highly" and it is still 100% accurate, because reasonable people understand that the universe of "edited videos" includes the subset of "highly edited videos", which would still be mentioned further down (where all the partisan shrieking belongs). Eclipsoid (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with user:BullRangifer that the material belongs there; albeit in quotes. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Explanation for revert

I've just blanket reverted a whole series of changes to the article made by @Briancua:. I apologize for the blanket revert, however:

• You removed content with no explanation. Here's another examaple.

• You used misleading edit summaries (you removed more content as well as breaking up the paragraphs there).
• You added some information which is not NPOV, and is sourced to some very low-quality sources (ie, the New York Post, Fox News).
• You did not use edit summaries on most of these edits. Changes need to made for good reasons, and you need to explain what those are.

I also think we need to discuss if references should be at the bottom or in-line. Personally I think they should stay in-line as I find it easier to check the verifiability of claims while editing that way. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for not better explaining myself if edit summaries. As I don't usually edit controversial articles, there is a whole host of protocols that I'm not used to using, and things like 3RR (or 1RR, which I didn't even know existed) that I don't ever worry about. I'll try to do better in the future. That said, deleting all of my work in one fell swoop is pretty frustrating. If something got deleted that shouldn't have, or was worded in such a way that it could be improved upon, I would much rather you do that than simply undo everything. I'm not saying I didn't make any mistakes, but I think, and I hope you will agree, that I made some positive contributions as well.

For example, the first sentence of the article now makes it appear that the whole thing is about a single video released on a specific day when there are now, I believe, five such videos released over a couple of weeks and possible more to come. I corrected that, and you undid it. As for the references, I understand your concern, but given that many of them are used in multiple places, isn't it easier to have a single location to find the links, rather than searching the entire article? I am going to go back and make my edits again, and try to do a better job explaining myself as I go. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I still have big problems with some of the edits you're making though. here for example, you re-insert the "haggling" quote without attributing it, when the source makes it crystal clear that it's a direct quote from CMP. This is not NPOV, is undue, and is extremely misleading. Here you once again remove text as "unsupported by the sources" when it appears to me that it the text is very well supported by the sources. I will leave it for someone else to revert you this time, but these are not acceptable changes. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. That wasn't my source, and I didn't read it closely the first time through. However, you will notice that the reporter uses "haggling" later in the article, and a quick Google news search pulls up plenty of RS who use the word as well. As for your second example, a temporary restraining order does not mean that a court has found that CMP has broken the law, and my reading of the sources do not indicate that a a definitive ruling has been issued. In either case, if you would like to work on the prose, I would welcome it. I will do the same to try to alleviate your concerns. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It says apparently haggling later in the article, as part of a description of the video. This is not a valid basis for using "haggling" in the article, especially when other, much more reliable sources make it clear that that's a wholly inaccurate description. I see your point about the second diff, but I think if you read this source carefully you'll see that it does suggest that CMP broke the law (using fake driver's licenses, breaching a NDA, etc).

I also just noticed that in this revision, you replaced an extremely reliable NYT source, which verified a claim which is extremely important to maintaining NPOV in this article (the fact that the PP rep repeatedly said they were not making a profit) with an opinion column which seems to have zero relevance to the claim being referenced. Again with a misleading edit summary - "fix refs" is not an appropriate edit summary for a revision where you replace a high-quality, critically important source with an editorial of questionable relevance. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The source you added here still does not justify use of "haggling" - it still only appears in that article in a direct quote from CMP. The quote you've used there is actually from a reader comment on the article, and does not appear in the article itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

California law has clearly been broken, since secret recordings are illegal, and the judges and courts clearly see it that way. PP might well have a good case against CMP. The future may prove interesting. Until PP actually files charges, CMP isn't found guilty, but the judges obviously think they are and have ordered them to stop. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

List-defined references

BrianCUA, you are imposing a different reference style without consensus. You're not allowed to do that. Without a consensus, you are supposed to use the existing style. What you wish to use are "list-defined references", per WP:LDR. I'm familiar with them and like them. They make things very neat and avoid duplication of references, but most editors don't understand how to use them. On one article I have written, I used them and maintain them for those who don't know how. I have included this hidden editorial note at the top of that References section:

This article uses "list-defined references", per WP:LDR.

• To ease editing, avoid confusion, and prevent duplication of sources, the references below are in alphabetical order by ref name. When possible use the author's last name, possibly with some identifying words from the title. Otherwise be creative.
• While other citation templates are not forbidden, this basic template has been used for most references, and is placed here for convenience:

• <ref name= >{{Citation |last= |first= |date= |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>

So you need to get a consensus before making such a change. Please move the refs back into the body and then start a discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize I couldn't change the style without discussing it first. However, it would now be difficult to go back and restore them all since I have made multiple intervening edits. Could we perhaps discuss it here now, and should the consensus be that it should revert back to the old way then I will accept that without any further ado? If the consensus is to keep the LDR, I think that hidden note is a great idea and would welcome you adding it. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We can wait for others to chime in but I firmly oppose using your reference style, and would like to see the article rolled back (again) to a point before your edits today. See my notes about your misleading edit summaries and use of sources above. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say this because I know how difficult it can be to redo each edit one at a time, but it's simplest to do another mass revert. You're dealing with extremely contentious matters here, so seek advice and consensus here first if there's any doubt. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, I have reconsidered what I said and have looked at the article. There are now only two references which are in the body, so it would be simpler to leave it as is and start making this article a list-defined references (LDR) article. We can see if others object strongly and reconsider, but I'd vote for keeping it LDR. Not everyone knows how this works, so we can keep this article on our watchlists and we can fix refs that are placed in the body and move them to the bottom. In fact, I'll move those two refs now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've tagged the article as POV: the primary problem is undue weight to assertions and statements made by CMP representatives and press releases, most of which more reliable sources rebut. The article currently states, for example, that one of the videos shows PP representatives "haggling over the price of fetal parts." The "haggling" there is a NPOV problem in and of itself, since reliable sources make it crystal clear that PP was not "selling" the parts and that the money discussed was to cover the costs of a donation not a "price." Even more problematically, though, the phrase comes from CMP literature/statements - but is not attributed as such in the article. It is sourced to an article where the phrase appears in a reader comment, rather than in the article itself.

The article is full of problems like this, and given some editors' insistence on re-inserting such content even after its been removed (more than once), and the problem explained, I expect NPOV to be a problem for this article in the foreseeable future. Hence the tag. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, would you please remove that tag and substitute it with specific tags at the relevant places? A general tag is just an irritating and useless badge of shame and doesn't help us improve or solve the problems. (I see that the first problem ("haggling") is solved.) Otherwise good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Everyday Ethics

User:Fyddlestix has made several edits (example) deleting text sourced to an Everyday Ethics podcast claiming that it was a self-published and thus not a reliable source. I disagree that this is self-published. The press release announcing the creation of the podcast came not from Caplan, but from the Poynter Institute. From the press release, "Craig Kopp, of NPR affiliate WUSF, hosts and edits their conversations. The show is recorded at WUSF Public Media studios." This is not just some guy in his basement (expert though he is) with a microphone and an internet connection. It is produced at an NPR studio by a professional and respected journalist. For this reason, I am restoring that information. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The number of times Caplan is quoted in the article is excessive. I know that he's a go-too guy for news organizations to talk to about bioethics, but there are other people, and even other bioethics experts whose opinions should be noted as well. Right now the gives excessive weight & attention to Caplan's statements. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing policy

In a recent series of edits, User:Fyddlestix deleted a good deal of text because she felt what was presented in the article and what the sources say differed slightly. See, for example, this edit in which a sentence was deleted because it was attributed to the wrong PP official. Fyddlestix also felt that there was a nuance in the source that was not captured in the article. I'm glad she caught the mistake and is reading the sources so closely. However, I believe that deleting the text, instead of fixing it, is the wrong approach.

The WP:Editing policy says that we should WP:Preserve "the value that others add, even if they 'did it wrong' (try to fix it rather than delete it)." In the example cited above, I think it would have been much better to change the attribution and add the nuance than to simply cut the text. I am going to go through and reinsert some of the material using the helpful thoughts Fyddlestix left in the edit summaries. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I'll keep this mind. I hope, in turn, that you will try to avoid introducing further factual inaccuracies to the article (this article hasn't even been around that long, and I've already found many inaccuracies several instances of some very misleading use of sources). Fyddlestix (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And, funnily enough, you're making misleading and factually inaccurate edits right now: here you use an article from the WSJ to support a statement that "Other states are considering cutting funding" - but the only states mentioned in that article are the three already mentioned in the preceding sentence of the article: Alabama, Louisiana, and New Hampshire. No "other" states are considering cutting funding, at least not according to the source that you cited. Your use of the source is misleading, and it does not support the content you added to the article. If you can't produce a source that actually backs up that sentence, I suggest you remove it. More generally, you need to be much more careful that the claims you're adding to the article are verifiable and properly sourced. (I feel like that's maybe the 3rd or 4th time I've had to say that, it's getting old). Fyddlestix (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The source says "Planned Parenthood said it is evaluating its options in the states that moved to defund clinics. It added it now is watching for potential defunding measures in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin." Those two states are also considering it. --BrianCUA (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that planned parenthood is "watching for potential" defunding measures does not mean that those states are actively considering defunding. Do you have a source which verifies that the legislature is actually considering legislation to defund in PA and WS? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

How about this one? --BrianCUA (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems very vague and non-specific to me - I still can't find any concrete info on what is being considered, by whom. Nevertheless, as a show of good faith I've re-inserted this content (with the added source) after CFCF's revert today (see discussion below). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your gesture of good faith. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, and my apologies if I sounded grumpy/combative in the discussion above (or on other sections of the talk page). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to thank everyone for their serious and good work. Yes, there can be differences of opinion, and misunderstandings can happen, but there is a good collaborative spirit, and that's great to see. You may wish to note the reminder about 1RR in the section below. I also left a comment there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sectioning article after videos

This article was sectioned after the videos without consensus and included references to youtube videos. I have restored it to state it was in yesterday so that any of these types of edits can be discussed in full before they are implemented. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not wish to engage in an edit war with you. However, your massive, large scale deletion of 20% of this article is unacceptable. I wasn't initially a fan of separate sections for each video, however I didn't feel strongly enough about to revert an edit that another editor obviously did feel strongly about. In addition, your massive deletion is like taking a sledgehammer to the article when a scalpel will do. Please read the section above this, and especially the WP:Editing Policy. If you want to make edits to segments of the article, that's fine. We would all welcome your contributions. However, please do not delete large sections of the article in one fell swoop. I am reverting your deletions. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This entire section was written by a single editor over a few short hours. I feel a 20% addition including some very questionable sources be subject to discussion before it is implemented. All I see in the above discussion is that you have been reverted previously and chose to ignore the rational presented there. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not reintroduce it before consulting WP:BRD and seeing this talk page for discussion. Ping Fyddlestix -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources? Which of the following do you consider questionable? CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, or Vox? Or is it the I added references with links to each of the six videos? If it is the latter, as I suggest it is, you can delete those without undoing everything else, including contributions by other editors. Additionally, what part of WP:PRESERVE don't you understand? As that policy says, "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary." Are you saying that every edit made since your preferred version is absolutely and completely unacceptable? I do not find your methods constructive. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Brian, WP:PRESERVE does not mean that other editors have an obligation to help you make the article read how you'd like it to. Our central concern here is to ensure that the article is accurate, NPOV and reliably sourced. Useful content can always be salvaged after the fact. I support the revert. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

But when 12k of text is deleted in one fell swoop, how is anyone supposed to know what is objectionable and what isn't? Why delete this edit, which simply improves the quality of several references, because you don't like some other edit? How am I supposed to know what is acceptable, and what isn't, when such a massive deletion is made? --BrianCUA (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I can help copy-paste the references and other useful fixes back in, that is easy. Bigger and controversial changes need to be discussed first. I assume you're familiar with WP:BOLD right? When you make the kinds of dramatic changes you did, you need to be prepared for the possibility that you'll get reverted, especially when editing a controversial article like this one. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I am familiar. I also am familiar with the part of WP:BRD that says "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." There was nothing specific about the reversion that was made here. ---BrianCUA (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the ref fixes that you (and others did), and several other constructive edits. I have not restored any edits which did not (in my opinion) improve the article. Happy to discuss or see further constructive changes made, but I'm pretty convinced that the article is now in a better state than it was before CFCF's revert. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that this is now in a better position than what was there after CFCF's revert, but I am still lacking specificity on what was objectionable in what you didn't restore. I made many series of small edits, just so if something needed to be fixed it could be done without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think the better process would be to revert to my version, and then edits could be made to that as needed. Or, if you could even provide a couple suggestions here on talk, I could go back in and make them. Would you object to that? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh wtf, we're adding direct links to CMP's youtube channel as "references" now? No, that's completely unacceptable. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. That's fine. I wasn't using them to support any content, simply as a tool for readers. I am not wedded to them by any means. Let's get rid of them. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we don't normally link to YouTube videos. Also the direct use of the transcript is OR. We can only refer to it when it's already been mentioned in a RS. We don't "create" content, we "document" it (or something like that ). -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Just by way of reminder to all editors, this article is subject to WP:1RR and discretionary sanctions, so edit-warring is a Very Bad Idea. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Good reminder. Thanks. It was getting a bit "hot" there. It's better to discuss if there's any doubt that an edit might be controversial. This is a collaborative project, so it's better to discuss at the table before publishing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made another large revert because there is not editorial oversight whatsover here. Briancua and HandsomeMrToad have added very questionable material, often without any sourcing. Can we please take any expansion here so that it can be reviewed properly before being implemented? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, What do you mean that there is no editorial oversight? I dare you to find a single word I added that it unsourced, or a sing source that fails WP:RS. Please, show me the edit where I added new information with no reference (or one in which the ref didn't immediately follow). Additionally, with your massive reversion you have eliminated lots of edits (some for the second time) to which I can not possibly fathom a valid reason. What, for example, is your objection to more fully filling out references so they are not just URLs, to clarifying that there are two lawsuits, not one, or that Stem Express cut ties with PP?

Furthermore, your editing shows bias and a POV, given that in addition to deleting the edits I cited above, you also deleted a large deal of material that portrays PP in a negative light, and yet somehow felt it was important to go back and restore the NEJM editorial that defends them. I'm not saying that doesn't deserve to be in here, but you clearly have a POV and it is showing. I also admittedly have a POV, but I am willing to work with anyone else to improve the article, including you, as long as it doesn't descend into an edit war. I am going to restore the material you deleted. I will remind you again, if you have a problem with anything that is in there, please [WP:PRESERVE]] what is of value, edit the material so that it complies with WP policies, and go slowly, using the edit summaries. Please do not make massive deletions again. That is not how WP:BRD is supposed to work. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Guys, we cannot have the article swinging back and forth between two different versions like this. Brian, you made a whole bunch of BOLD edits that were reverted, you need to discuss and get consensus before putting them back in, as you did here. I'm about to start a new discussion section where we can compare the two versions, and hopefully reach a consensus over how much, and which parts, of the added content should go back in. Please be patient and avoid further reverts/edit warring while we discuss. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"Deviation from usual procedure"

I have corrected some biased language in the "Deviation from usual procedure" section. Dr. Gatter's comments about the tweaking of the techniques and instrumentation used in the abortion procedures were taken out of context and require fuller explanation, as given in the WaPo source.

Also, I have changed the section title to "Variations in abortion technique". No one has accused PP of changing from one procedure to another in order to get usable specimens; only of varying the technique used within a procedure. All the proposed variations in technique--grasping one part of the fetus rather than another part in a D&E, or using a weaker source of suction rather than a stronger one in a suction abortion--fall within the limits defined by normal case-to-case variations and are not "deviations" from "normal" or "usual" procedures. Therefore, the previous section title was misleading and inappropriate. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I would rather say you've introduced biased language, please take this type of change up before you make it. This is a controversial article, and it is better for everyone if we can create changes that stick. The article shouldn't be entirely different one day to the next. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your removing the stuff about Dr. Gatter altogether, as too detailed and of questionable meaning, but the section title "Deviation from usual procedure" is highly misleading and inappropriate for the reasons I detailed above--the proposed variations are not "deviations" but are within the limits of normal case-to-case variations. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I restored some of your edits, but this article still focuses too much on the people in the videos rather than the topics. If could rewrite and properly source the following it would be fine to include it:

She calls the possible objection against doing so a "spurious little argument" and points out that the variations in technique and instrumentation have no effect on the patient--no additional pain, risk, or trauma. Nonetheless, because she is uncertain about the point, she says she will discuss it with the surgeon who does the abortions. The "buyer" offers to "compensate more" for changing procedures, and she turns him down with a stern rebuke.

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the section title "Lack of consent from donors" include the word "alleged", since the accuser has made no police report or formal accusation, and also has never worked for PP? Without the word "alleged" the article gives her undeserved credibility. I am restoring the word "alleged"; I hope no one minds! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source

Is Fox News considered a reliable source for an article on this topic? Several sentences in the "Variations in abortion technique" section (formerly the "Deviation from usual procedure" section) use a Fox News broadcast as a source. Please advise! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Does it use a video transcript? In that case it most definately should be removed. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

When I click the link, I get an actual video which starts to play on my screen, not a transcript. Not sure if this matters or why. I was asking about whether the political bias of Fox News makes it an unreliable source. These are the folks who called Dr. Tiller "Tiller the baby-killer." HandsomeMrToad (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a worthy discussion to be had, but if Fox News is not considered to be a RS, then I would also want to raise the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC, which is also used in the article, as well. I think both unabashedly have a POV (as does just about every other news source we use here, and every other person), but I think both Fox News and MSNBC can be considered RS. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We cannot turn this into a political bash against one or another source. For every claimant out there that Fox News is biased, there is ample evidence that MSNBC and others are.[6] Remember that "...85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news.""[7]186.120.130.16 (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No matter if you think it is considered authorative it can not be included, because we do not cite video transcripts regardless of source. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you cite a policy for that statement, User:CFCF? I am unfamiliar with that rule. Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that these are primary sources, and WP:RS covers that.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not, by definition, a primary source if it is quoted in a secondary source. I would agree that simply quoting from the CMP transcript would be problematic. However, we are relying on a RS to independently verify what was said on the tape, and then we can cite that. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Rival versions, lets sort this out

We've had the article yo-yo back and forth a couple of times now over a set of revisions that were primarily made by Briancua. See this diff for a run-down of the changes. Can we all take a step back and discuss how much and which parts of this content are an improvement, please? I will post my own thoughts shortly but encourage anyone and everyone to weigh in. In the meantime, it would be great to avoid further large-scale reverts and revisions until we can reach a consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, some of the central questions here are:

1. Should individual planned parenthood employees who are seen in the videos be named?
2. What level of detail should we go into when laying out the content of the videos? To what extent should we include the same quotes from PP employee's that CMP and the news media have singled out as important?
3. Should the Vox/Kliff article be given as much weight as it is given in Briancua's version?

Am I missing anything? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, my primary concern with the revisions relates to point #2: I think Briancua's version of the page goes into far too much detail on the content of the videos, especially in terms of recycling the more "juicy" quotes from them, like the staff member finding a Kidney and saying "five stars," the "it's another boy," etc. I note that a lot of that section of the article is sourced to some very low-quality sources, like the NY Post (which is a tabloid), and an opinion column in the times. I firmly believe that the article should take the same approach that high-quality, reliable news sources like the NY times have taken: they use a few quotes, but generally avoid the tabloid-style sensationalism. I think Briancua's revision is undue and not NPOV because it dwells too much and too long on these various quotations and descriptions. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not selling newspapers, and this revision is far too sensationalistic in my opinion. We should summarize the content of the videos in general terms, and only use direct quotes like that when high-quality, reliable sources (for example: the NY Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, etc) have highlighted the quotes we're using. The fact that lower-quality news sources like Fox News, or partisan opinion columnists (much less CMP themselves) highlight a quote or particular description from the videos is not a reason for us to do so. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that sums up most of what my concerns are as well, but there are two other factors.

1. Briancua is introducing material that is not neutral and using terms and languages not suitable for Wikipedia.

2. Massive introductions and reintroductions of material are being made without so much as a word of discussion or even an edit summary. So that we don't have to engage in an all-out edit war could we please bring proposed major edits to the talk page instead?

As for your comments Fyddlestix I do not think we should name anything but the highest officials as names of individual personell are irrelevant, and including them is quite possibly in violation of WP:BLP. I suggest we discuss this matter first.

Quoting is also a practice that should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, see WP:MOSQUOTE. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I share your concern about Briancua's editing style/habits (and have actually prodded them to use edit summaries once already), but lets try to keep the focus on content as much as possible here, and not get sidetracked by making it personal. I think they know and have acknowledged our concerns, if it becomes a chronic problem then there are other places where we can have a discussion about it (bringing it up on user talk is always a good way to start).

On the subject of names, I'm finding it hard to see a reason for excluding them. These people's names are all over the news, as long as we (in wikipedia's voice) aren't accusing them or implicating them in a crime or wrong-doing I'm not sure there's a valid policy-based rationale for keeping them out. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise if I'm wrong about that - what part of WP:BLP were you thinking might justify exclusion? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly in my reading there are a number of sections, maybe most prominently WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I think until the has been sufficient quality reporting on the topic we should refrain from using the names of individuals filmed without their knowledge. It is a different thing entirely to state public comments, and I support including them.

Secondly I don't understand how these names are relevant – do they contribute anything? I find they make the article harder to read and more difficult to follow. The people aren't the issue here, and having 10+ names is only confusing for everyone.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

First, User:Fyddlestix, to your three points. I believe that the names do add something, and help keep clear who is saying what. I don't have terribly strong feeling on the topic, but I do think they add value, particularly where the speakers are already public figures, like Nucatola. Secondly, this is an article about a controversy. I think it makes sense to include the controversial statements made. Thirdly, as I said in an edit summary, as far as I know Kliff is the only RS who has watched all of the unedited videos. Kliff's is a unique perspective that I think deserves inclusion. (Not for nothing, but I think some of the details included from her put PP in a mopre favorable light.) We can discuss how much, but rather than simply delete all of it I think the better approach is to single out which parts you think is too much, and which deserves to stay.

As to the quality of sources, let's look at the sources that are getting deleted in these massive deletions: the Wall Street Journal, Politico, The Independent Journal Review, the Washington Post, WUSF Public Media studios, Vox, MSNBC, KSL, Yahoo Health. I did not add all these sources, but please tell me why these are so low quality as to not deserve inclusion here.

Now to User:CFCF's points. Firstly, if you think the terminology I am using could be improved upon, then please do so. No one is arguing that point. However, as I've pointed out many times, WP:PRESERVE calls for you to keep what is of value, and to fix what needs fixing. Not to simply wholesale delete everything that isn't absolutely perfect. After all, WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Again, please read the WP:Editing Policy. As to your second point, are you kidding me? I am making a series of small edits, and I'd venture that 95%+ have edit summaries. You, on the other hand, simply come in and make massive deletions in a single edit without any kind of explanation.

Once again, I am going to restore the older version. If you have specific problems with any of it, please make specific edits, with edit summaries, so that we can work on the details. When you cut 10k of text in a single edit, it makes it damn near impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion about it. On several occasions I have pointed out edits that couldn't possibly be considered contentious, but have become the baby getting thrown out with the bathwater. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again. CFCF has [‎https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy&diff=676522786&oldid=676522258 reverted once again on a massive scale] saying that WP:PRESERVE does not apply. Could you please explain why it does not apply? --BrianCUA (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously they are being percieved as problematic or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Just because there are new news reports every day doesn't mean we should include them all. WP:NOTNEWS. Just adding everything we can find isn't the way to write an encyclopaedia, and because this is a controversial topic we need to move slowly. We have to wait for more editors to weigh in on the topic, and it is important to understand that many do not have unlimited time to divert to one topic. See WP:BRD.

Also note (as mentioned earlier) "WP:Preserve does not mean that other editors have an obligation to help you make the article read how you'd like it to"

The largest portion of the additions are extended details concerning the videos – details that are being discribed as problematic. We need to decide how in depth we should go and also why we should be making these additions. Does detailing everything – and quoting everything actually help a reader understand the controversy – or is it merely confusing? Please make some concrete suggestions at this talk page. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Also to the point of adding names for everyone – WP:NOTNEWS has a pertinent section:

3.Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Briancua: I think CFCF probably reverted you because you once again reverted away from the last version of the page that had any kind of consensus, despite specifically and repeatedly having been asked not to, and while there was an attempt to reach a consensus ongoing on the talk page. Congrats, you got the page protected! Now, can we talk about this like grown ups? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Court orders

User:CFCF, you keep citing WP:BRD. However, as has been pointed out, you should revert only if problem text "cannot be immediately fixed by refinement." Also, "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary." You are not doing any of this. If you would make incremental edits to text you found problem-some, we wouldn't be edit warring. I don't want to continue down this path. Here is a section I have repeadetly cited as edits that should not be controversial: the clarification that there are two lawsuits, not one. Pray tell, what is your objection to this section? Please provide specific objections, edits, or clarifications, instead of just declaring that it is unnaccatable.

In July, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles placed a temporary restraining order on the release of videos of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in El Dorado Hills on May 22, 2015 based on California's anti-wiretapping law. StemExpress served as a middleman between Planned Parenthood and researchers who used the tissues and organs from aborted fetuses, but has since cut ties with the abortion provider. A hearing will be held on August 19, 2015. StemExpress also asked the judge to prohibit the Center For Medical Progress from posting any documents online that mention StemExpress, but that request was denied. They also lost a request for an injunction that would have required the Center for Medical Progress to turn over videos and documentation it obtained.

In a separate court filing, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a restraining order on the release of footage taken at National Abortion Federation conferences in San Fransisco and Baltimore. This order also prohibits the group from disclosing names or addresses of National Abortion Federation members, or dates and locations of future meetings. A hearing will be held on August 27, 2015.

CMP says that they follow "all applicable laws." Daleiden has stated that in the suppressed video the "top leadership" of StemExpress "admitted that they sometimes get fully intact fetuses shipped to their laboratory from the abortion clinics that they work with and that could be prima facie evidence of born-alive infants."

I think this should be non-controversial for the most part. Let's start here, and perhaps we can begin to work together. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You're citing the reason for the reverts yourself. There is no way to "immediately fix" a massive addition like that, it takes time. I applaud the fact we are finally posting here, but without the full references I can't begin to say that if it is a valid addition or not. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I (and the other editors) did not add all the material at once. It took time. Not being willing to put in the time to make the fixes is not a valid excuse. You also deleted text without specificity. Regardless, I don't want to argue. Let's fix this. Now all the refs are restored. What say you to this section now? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It was done over a handful of hours, and other editors were barely involved. Anyway this section is the least controversial one, and apart from a few points I can not immediately say why it shouldn't be reintroduced:

1. By the time it is reintroduced the 18th will have passed – this should not have been included from the start. Wikipedia is not news.
2. There is a clarification tag
3. We should somehow try to summarize and replace the quote

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that much of this does not need to be in the article per WP:NOTNEWS. I would suggest something more simple and direct, along the lines of:

"In July 2015, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles placed a temporary restraining order on the release of videos of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in El Dorado Hills on May 22, citing California's anti-wiretapping law. StemExpress served as a middleman between Planned Parenthood and researchers who used the tissues and organs from aborted fetuses, but has since cut ties with the abortion provider. In a separate court filing, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a restraining order on the release of footage taken at National Abortion Federation conferences in San Francisco and Baltimore, and prohibiting CMP from disclosing the names or addresses of National Abortion Federation members, as well as the dates and locations of future meetings.."

The details about what was asked for, but not granted in court do not seem encyclopedia-worthy, and Daleiden's assertions about what the un-seen videos show are obviously not something we should take at face value. Note that is sourced to a statement made by him in an interview right now, not to a third-party reliable source. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Fyddlestix, for taking a crack at rewriting this section. I think information about what the judge denied are just as relevant as details about what he approved, but in the spirit of compromise I am willing to cut them. However, I'm confused by why you say that Daleiden's statement was not made to a reliable third party reliable source. Is CNN not a RS? He made the statement to one reporter, a RS, and then a completely different reporter, also a RS, used the quotation in a second article. Why should we accept what some parties to this controversy say to reporters but not others? I propose the following for right now, taking CFCF's suggestions above, and understanding that it may change after the hearing:

In July 2015, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles placed a temporary restraining order on the release of videos of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant, citing California's anti-wiretapping law. Daleiden, CMP's leader, states that in the suppressed video StemExpress' "top leadership" claim to have received intact fetuses in the past, and states this could be evidence of born alive infants. StemExpress served as a middleman between Planned Parenthood and researchers using tissues and organs from aborted fetuses, but has since cut ties with the abortion provider. In a separate court filing, a San Francisco federal judge issued a restraining order on the release of footage taken at National Abortion Federation (NAF) conferences, and prohibited CMP from disclosing names or addresses of NAF members, as well as dates and locations of future meetings. StemExpress is also seeking legal action against O'Donnell, who they claim violated a non-disclosure agreement.

Can we agree on this? --BrianCUA (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, what parts of that is a quote – and what isn't? It still uses the exact same wording...

I like Fyddlestix version better and unless there has been significant response to this particular comment there should be no reason to include it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. There was an errant quotation mark there that was confusing things. I've fixed that in the text above. Is it clearer now? Of course, depending on what the court does, it may be a moot point in the end as we may get to see exactly what was on the video. But for now, I think that's what's on the video is important enough to include a sentence on.--BrianCUA (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Obama administration finds no lawbreaking

I cannot edit the article, not being an administrator, but the following might be worthy of inclusion:

The Obama administration has released a letter to Senators Joni Ernst and Roy Blunt (both Republicans) stating that HHS has not found any violations by PP of the Federal laws regarding donation of human fetal tissue.

Admins, feel free to insert this into the article without attribution or acknowledgement! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

References

That's not quite what the ref says, it says that "there are no known violations of the country’s fetal tissue laws among government researchers or the companies that supply the tissue." They're referring to HHS and NIH researchers, and their suppliers - not to Planned Parenthood specifically. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

But planned parenthood is one such supplier, no? I realize another source would be needed, but it doesn't seem incorrect. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It certainly seems likely, but that's not what the source says. I will see if I can find more detail on this somewhere. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess having the statement that Obama said no suppliers of govt are in the wrong followed by the statement that PP supplies govt researchers is not WP:OR? Stating that Obama said PP don't would be.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 August 2015

The Current Event template should be removed since the article can't be edited for another two weeks. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Seems reasonable, and I do not see an objection here yet. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Alleged variation in abortion procedures

I would now like to propose the following for the section on "Alleged variation in abortion procedures."

The Center for Medical Progress alleges that the videos show Planned Parenthood officials offering to vary the technique used in abortion in order to acquire more intact fetal tissues and organs. Federal law prohibits using a different procedure to obtain human tissue for medical research, as well as for delivering intact fetuses. Planned Parenthood spokespeople have responded to CMP's allegations by stating that the organization follows "all laws - period," and that the accusations made in CMP's videos "are false."

A document on Planned Parenthood Mar Monte letterhead, where O'Donnell worked, asks doctors to certify that "no substantial alteration in the timing of terminating the pregnancy or the method used was made for the purpose of obtaining the tissue." StemExpress accuses O'Donnell of stealing documents and providing them to CMP.

In the first video, Nucatola said doctors would avoid "crushing" certain parts of the fetus to keep desired organs and body parts intact. In the second video, Gatter offers to speak with the doctors performing the abortions about using a "less crunchy technique" to obtain more intact organs and tissue. She also offers to ask about changing procedures to use one with less suction to better ensure that the aborted fetus comes out more intact.

Ginde, in the fourth video, discusses training abortion doctors to perform abortions so as to keep the fetal tissue and organs intact. In the fifth video Farrell suggests that "if we alter our process and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget," adding that "it will probably also require a little bit of input from the doctors."

Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University, believes that it "is a big ethical no-no" to "change how you do the abortion in order to get a better chance of preserving something that you can then make available for research." Caplan believes that Planned Parenthood does do so, but should not, and that in abortion "the primary goal is to give the safest abortion possible. Your sole concern has to be the mother and her health."

Personally, I find it helpful if any improvements to the the text are made directly, like Fiddlestyx did in the section on the court orders. That eliminates any ambiguity about what you want that could be in a comment. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

References

REPLY:

Objected to as too much unnecessary detail, and for giving unwarranted credence to innuendos which appear dramatic and disturbing but do not show or imply any actual lawbreaking or misconduct by PP. The same thing CMP does by editing the videos, in fact.

1. The "less crunchy technique" and the "avoiding crushing" from the first two videos, the "training" in the fourth video, and the "altering our process" in the Fifth video are inappropriate for mention, because they do not suggest changing from one procedure to another procedure (which would be illegal); they only suggest adjustments in technique which are within the limits defined by normal case-to-case variations when the same procedure is used, and therefore legal.

2. Isn't there a Wikipedia policy against mentioning the names of victims of crimes? User CFCF mentioned this policy in an earlier section of this TALK page. By recording conversations with Drs. Nucatola and Gatter without their knowing consent, CMP may have violated California state law and committed crimes against these two individuals, who should therefore be treated by Wikipedia as crime victims, and not mentioned by name.

3. The bonuses StemExpress pays its employees do not imply any lawbreaking by PP and are entirely irrelevant.

4. Even the quotation from Professor Caplan may not be appropriate, because, as Dr. Gatter points out, none of the proposed adjustments in technique have any effect on the patient--no additional risk, pain, nor trauma. Even with the adjustments, PP is still, in Professor Caplan's words, "giv[ing] the safest abortion possible". I would suggest removing the section on Professor Caplan altogether.

HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We do not need to show that there was any lawbreaking to include material. That is beyond our scope and our ability. This article is about the controversy. If any wrong doing is ever proved, then perhaps an article on that would be appropriate. For now, our role per WP:NPOV is to "describe disputes." These statements are at the heart of the controversy over altering procedures. Including a one sentence description of each video is far from unnecessary detail. To respond to each of your concerns individually:

1: First off, as stated above, we are not out to prove if anything is legal or illegal. We are describing the controversy. Additionally, the sources do indicate that at least some of the doctors talked about using different procedures. We can include that information if you like. Regardless, Caplan says that it is problematic ethically to "change how you do the abortion," not just change the procedure.

2:WP:AVOIDVICTIM says that we need to take extra care "dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions." These individuals are not notable simply because they were taped undercover. If someone surreptitiously took photos of them in a bathing suit out by the pool in their backyard, I would agree with you. In this case they are notable for comments they themselves made.

3: You are correct. The line about the bonuses belongs in the financial aspects section, not this one. I will remove it.

4:I don't know if you are deliberately misreading Caplan, but I'm not sure how else you could come to that conclusion. He is stating that he believes PP does change their procedure, but should not, because the sole concern is no longer for the mother.

Thank you for your thoughts. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Financial aspects

Seeing as we are making good progress on the other sections, I want to continue it by proposing the following text for the Financial aspects section.

The CMP presents the videos as evidence of Planned Parenthood engaging in the illegal sale of fetal tissue and organs. Biomax, the corporation they set up for the investigation, offered one clinic US$1,600 for liver and thymus fetal tissues. The New York Times has characterized the offer as an attempt to "trap the affiliate in the act of accepting a high payment for fetal tissue," but the affiliate declined the offer.

In the unedited version of the first video, Nucatola repeatedly states that Planned Parenthood does not make money from tissue donations, and that the $30 to $100 charge only covers procurement costs. PPFA said that they may donate fetal tissue at the request of a patient, but that such tissue is never sold. At one point, Nucatola said "nobody should be 'selling' tissue," and "that's just not the goal here."

Gatter, in the second video, worried about giving a "lowball" figure for the organs and tissue, saying that "in negotiations the person who throws out the figure first is at a loss." She later says that the price may go up after checking to see what other affiliates get, and jokes that "I want a Lamborghini." O'Donnell, the former StemExpress employee, claimed in the third video that some body parts were worth more than others. A document in the video with her shows the rate of pay technicians would receive, as well as a bonus structure for various organs and tissues.

The fourth video shows Ginde discussing the possibility of providing organs for reasons other than research: "I know putting it under the research gives us a little bit of a, a little sort of a overhang over the whole thing," Ginde says. "And in public I think it makes a lot more sense for it to be in the research vein, than I'd say, business venture." Ginde also recalled discussions she had with attorneys about how best to avoid breaking the law. She worried that "if you have someone in a really anti state that's going to be doing this for you, they're probably going to get caught."

The fifth video shows Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director and pro-life activist, saying the sale of fetal tissue and organs made her branch about $120,000 a month. Daleiden has also alleged that "Planned Parenthood illegally uses partial-birth abortions 'to harvest higher quality fetal organs for sale.'" In the same video, Farrell says that doctors can "get creative" and obtain more intact fetal organs and tissue in order to contribute to the "diversification of the revenue stream." She adds that "if we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget."

Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s biorepository told FactCheck.org that "there’s no way there’s a profit at that price." She wrote that non-profit hospitals provide adult "tissue blocks from surgical procedures" at around $100–500 per block, and noted that "$30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee." Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories said that "$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue." Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance said this was "a modest price tag for cost recovery."

What do you think? --BrianCUA (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Sandbox

It occurs to me that working on this one section at a time may not be the most efficient route. For example, in a section above it was pointed out that a sentence in a proposed section didn't belong there and that it was more appropriate for another section. For that reason, I have created Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy/sandbox so that we can work on the article as a whole. Then, once we get it into shape, we can move it into the mainspace. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea. However, mainspace pages aren't allowed to have subpages, with the exception of ancient redirects. As such, I've moved Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy/sandbox to Draft:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 19:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Another state finds no wrongdoing by PP

I suggest adding Pennsylvania to the list (in the "Investigations" section) of states which have found no wrongdoing nor lawbreaking by PP. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Good addition! I incorporated that into Investigations section of the draft, but found another source than a political blog. --BrianCUA (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Link to actual videos and transcripts

Here's a link to a page of CMP's web site where the first four videos are posted, including the raw, full, unedited versions, with transcripts. For the EXTERNAL LINKS section of the article. It's also worth noting that CMP has NOT posted raw, unedited footage of any of the interviews with Holly O'Donnell.

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/

You're welcome, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 23, 2015

The New England Journal of Medicine in the "Reception" section should be italicized. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Very misleading impression from lead

Barring the fact that an overwhelming majority of this article seems opinionated heavily in favour of Planned Parenthood's stance (and hence distinctly striking me as bias), the lead reads fairly weirdly. I noticed a big discussion above regarding the use of the phrase "highly edited"; as a reader who randomly chooses to learn about this controversy, this phrase imparts the idea that the videos were dishonest in their portrayal, which is problematic since that simply hasn't turned out to be the case (with regards to the later release of the wholly unedited videos). I know I'm flogging a dead horse, but I feel strongly enough about neutrality concerns to put this forward: what exactly is wrong with saying only "edited" in the lead? Why should the lead describe the "true extent" of editing at all? Isn't that what the article body is for? "Edited" is, in and of itself, a neutral and wholly acceptable word that conveys the accurate information without making it seem like it has undertones of morality. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I know the quote marks are a bit jarring, but using them was the condition for its inclusion. It's a notable quote found in many sources. The implication that the editing was deceptive is not found in those actual words (they are just the most accurate description), but is found in many sources, which provide evidence of much deception, and those quotes are found in the article, but not the lead.

Keep in mind that the very purpose of editing these videos was to present a certain impression that is not found when they are viewed in their unedited state. In this case, and the whole history of the perpetrators (especially the James O'Keefe / Andrew Breitbart team), much deception has been proven, followed by imprisonment and huge financial compensation to victims. These anti-abortion activists aren't just ordinary people making their own opinions known, they are actively using any and all methods, including dishonesty, to discredit those who support free choice. Their dishonesty has been proven many times, but it seems that their supporters consider that "the ends justify the means". Why can't they just argue their points without resorting to dishonesty? That would be the better course of action, because their POV is certainly worthy of discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, is the first and second paragraph written by the same person, or did somebody forget to sign? Just curious :P.

Secondly, the only sources citing a "highly misleading, dishonest editing" version of events have been vocally pro-Planned Parenthood from the very beginning. There are other sources that do make more weighted analysis of the unedited videos, and some of them are reliable/major. I don't understand why the scope of documentation in this article is so limited only to the liberal left-wing viewpoint of support? Shouldn't an encyclopedia legitimately put forward every viewpoint? To me, this article comes off as very one-sided with almost no substantial focus on opposing viewpoints. Just my two cents. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 August 2015

Change text of fifth video to reflect that the organization themselves have admitted that an image used in the video was stillborn, but initially, falsely passed off as an aborted fetus. Multiple reports say that the image was used permission, and without attribution to the woman who took a photograph of her own stillborn fetus, and contacted the media to explain that she is livid that her own photograph was used without permission.

Alexis Fretz published the image of the 19 week stillborn on 20 January 2014.

Sources:

• https://www.yahoo.com/health/undercover-anti-abortion-video-showed-images-of-127289829487.html
• http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/251651-video-by-anti-abortion-group-used-photo-of-stillborn-baby-not-aborted-fetus

Change from

The fifth video shows activists posing leading questions and devoting nearly one-third of the video to a "stomach-churning sequence of anti-abortion activists picking through a bowl of fetal tissue." The videos include graphic footage of a technician picking through the remains of an aborted fetus looking for specific organs and body parts. Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, described the actions as "an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women, with footage of medical tissue in a lab," and said the video showed no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood.

To

The fifth video shows activists posing leading questions and devoting nearly one-third of the video to a "stomach-churning sequence of anti-abortion activists picking through a bowl of fetal tissue." The videos include graphic footage of a technician picking through the remains of an aborted fetus looking for specific organs and body parts. Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, described the actions as "an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women, with footage of medical tissue in a lab," and said the video showed no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood. The video includes an image of a stillborn fetus, published in the Daily Mail in January 2014, used without the permission of the woman in the photo, and in a way that falsely suggests that the stillborn was aborted.

-- Callinus (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose this request, not because I think that this information shouldn't be in the article, but because I think it would defeat the purpose of the page protection. There is a lot of new information that has come to light since the page was protected that should be added, not just this. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is properly sourced with reliable sources and the argument that it goes against page protection is wrong. Page protection is only there so that discussion is held about changes. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Brian, I'm not sure that's a legitimate objection. Just because there is other stuff to add doesn't mean we don't allow any changes. You are welcome to make protected edit requests for those other matters. This is a proper request with good sourcing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Although I could wish for better sources. Are TheHill and Yahoo health really the best sources that we can find for this? Fyddlestix (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Unless there is doubt about the veracity of their stories, they are good enough. MSNBC also covers it. Many other sources, mostly strongly partisan, such as the strongly right-wing and anti-abortion website Infowars.com, also cover the story. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 26, 2015

The following content belongs in the "Court orders" section, near the end of the first paragraph.

The restraining order has since been lifted, allowing release of more videos.

The following content belongs at the end of the second paragraph.

StemExpress has denied Daleiden's "intact fetuses" claims:

"CMP's accusations that this conversation somehow refers to 'intact fetuses,' which were never mentioned at any point during the entirety of the illegally recorded conversation, are false. StemExpress has never requested, received or provided to a researcher an 'intact fetus.' CMP and (organization head David) Daleiden's claims to the contrary are unequivocally false."

StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer explained the discrepancy as a misuse of terms by CMP operatives:

"As anyone can see and read, the entire discussion was, in fact, about 'intact livers,'... My use of the term 'intact cases' is a medical term of art that refers solely to 'intact livers,' as there was absolutely no mention of 'intact fetuses' at any point in over two hours of illegally recorded video."

StemExpress has severed ties with Planned Parenthood as a result of the controversy. They stated that their business with Planned Parenthood was a small percentage of their activities.

After this is done, the entire content in that section should read like this

On July 31, the National Abortion Federation sued CMP and Daleiden, and a Los Angeles judge placed a temporary restraining order on the release of further videos of employees of StemExpress, one company with which Planned Parenthood does business, based on California's anti-wiretapping law. The order also prohibited the group from disclosing names or addresses of National Abortion Federation members, or dates and locations of future meetings. The restraining order has since been lifted, allowing release of more videos. A hearing will be held on August 27, 2015.

CMP says that they follow "all applicable laws." Daleiden has stated that in the suppressed video the "top leadership" of StemExpress "admitted that they sometimes get fully intact fetuses shipped to their laboratory from the abortion clinics that they work with and that could be prima facie evidence of born-alive infants." StemExpress has denied Daleiden's "intact fetuses" claims:

"CMP's accusations that this conversation somehow refers to 'intact fetuses,' which were never mentioned at any point during the entirety of the illegally recorded conversation, are false. StemExpress has never requested, received or provided to a researcher an 'intact fetus.' CMP and (organization head David) Daleiden's claims to the contrary are unequivocally false."

StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer explained the discrepancy as a misuse of terms by CMP operatives:

"As anyone can see and read, the entire discussion was, in fact, about 'intact livers,'... My use of the term 'intact cases' is a medical term of art that refers solely to 'intact livers,' as there was absolutely no mention of 'intact fetuses' at any point in over two hours of illegally recorded video."

StemExpress has severed ties with Planned Parenthood as a result of the controversy. They stated that their business with Planned Parenthood was a small percentage of their activities.

One more edit

I removed a "clarification needed" tag, since there has been no discussion about this. It seems unnecessary. It was after "all applicable laws". If anyone wishes to restore it, they should only do so in connection with a discussion on the talk page.

These refs should be placed in the refs section at the bottom of the page, alphabetically by ref name.

References

BullRangifer (talk) 23:06, August 26, 2015‎ (UTC)

• Oppose, but again not because I don't think this was useful. With the release of the 8th video, I don't think all of this is relevant anymore. Good work, though, Bull. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 26, 2015 (2)

The following content belongs in the "Court orders" section, near the beginning of the first paragraph.

To avoid self-incrimination, the defendants plan to plead the Fifth Amendment.

Before this change, the start of the first paragraph looked like this

On July 31, the National Abortion Federation sued CMP and Daleiden, and a Los Angeles judge placed...

After this is done, the start of the first paragraph should look like this

On July 31, the National Abortion Federation sued CMP and Daleiden. To avoid self-incrimination, the defendants plan to plead the Fifth Amendment. A Los Angeles judge placed...

These refs should be placed in the refs section at the bottom of the page, alphabetically by ref name.

References

BullRangifer (talk) 23:36, August 26, 2015‎ (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 28, 2015 (Lede)

The Lede opens with "In July and August 2015 the anti-abortion organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a number of "highly edited" and unedited videos." (emphasis added). According to recently reported findings, even the "fully footage videos" were edited. Quoting an investigative reporter, Glenn Simpson: "So what we found was, I think importantly, perhaps most importantly, that the full footage CMP tapes were, in fact, missing large sections." I propose that it be changed to "In July and August 2015 the anti-abortion organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a number of "highly edited" shorter, and edited longer versions that CMP inaccurately claimed were "full footage".

Mattnad (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This is an important development, and more RS are reporting it. I have added another source and improved the format of this request. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons. First, this is a claim by Planned Parenthood, not a definitive fact. Even the WSJ headline says there are "dueling assessments." Secondly, this is clearly not an "uncontroversial" request. I agree, however, that it is an important development and should be in the article. I suggest that we work on it in the draft. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that a consensus version, with refs, should be worked out before inclusion. Let's work on that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• BrianCUA, since we don't have a clear consensus, and likely won't be able to achieve it with the present version, I have deactivated the request. Now let's work on a better version, including more sources.

I have created an area below for this purpose. Rather than making it a real subsection, I have just made a headline. That way we can move up and down in this whole section to grab refs and content. It will be easier that way. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Workshop for creating a consensus version

Sources

Here are more RS, fully formatted for immediate use

• Analysis of Center for Medical Progress Videos (Use of this primary ref is justified - and necessary - because of its mention in multiple secondary RS. Note that direct use of content can be OR, so use secondary sources.)

• "A report by outside analysts commissioned by Planned Parenthood concluded the videos contained major gaps and were so altered that they couldn’t be used as legal evidence."

• Planned Parenthood: Even ‘full’ videos were altered

• Planned Parenthood says covertly filmed videos were heavily altered

• More Evidence That the Planned Parenthood Videos Were Altered

• 'Sting' Videos Of Planned Parenthood Are Totally Manipulated, Forensic Analysis Finds. "Even the supposedly unedited "full" footage is misleadingly altered, experts say."

BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Any refs used should be placed in the refs section at the bottom of the page, alphabetically by ref name.

References