Talk:David Daleiden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

non-NPOV framing of the Planned Parenthood videos.[edit]

Before introducing non-NPOV framing of the Planned Parenthood videos, check the source: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

You're in violation of 3RR. We'll take it to appropriate place, I guess, since you don't appear to be interested in anything besides pushing one particular point of view. Rockypedia (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take it anywhere you want, so long as you're ready for the boomarang. You were warned not even a week ago that articles relating to PP are subject to discretionary sanctions,You were the adverse party in a AN3 complaint barely a week ago, and now here you are in a POV-war, trying to re-insert unsourced partisan cruft into a BLP. Yeah, you just go right ahead and take this to whatever noticeboard you like. Do it. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to adjudicate the PP videos here[edit]

This edit [1] is highly problematic for at least two reasons: 1. It does not reflect the wording or the meaning of the two Time sources that are offered. 2. It attempts to advance Planned Parenthood's talking points.

Adding the Factcheck source does not resolve this, as it merely increases the politicization of what should be a neutral biographical narrative: Daleiden was involved with the release of some videos; the videos showed PP officials discussing the disposition of fetal specimens. It is NOT helpful to resolve the legalities or include anybody's political spin here, beyond merely explaining why the videos caused a stir. It certainly is not NPOV to impose Planned Parenthood's legal defense within a neutral, high-level statement of the bare events. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indictment[edit]

I added some information about the indictment of David Daleiden. The indictment includes an exhibit with a picture of a California driver's license. The photocopy is of poor quality. It appears that the name on the license is either "Robert David Sarkis" or possibly "Robert Daoud Sarkis." Famspear (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life or anti-abortion[edit]

Zigzig20s changed "anti-abortion" to "pro-life," which is what I would normally have agreed, except in this case, both of the two cited sources use "anti-abortion." Can anyone find justification in the MOS for going one way or the other? Comfr (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I noticed that both Live Action (organization) and The Center for Medical Progress also use the term "anti-abortion," making them inconsistent with this article. Comfr (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comfr: I'd suggest editing those two pages to "pro-life" as well.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference is that since this is a person, we go with self-designation as much as possible. StAnselm (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of letting a person use the label of their choice, however, I would not like to leave an innocent encyclopedia reader confused about what the label really means. I suggest adding something to the effect that "pro-life" means opposing elective abortion. I also suggest changing the "pro-life" link from Anti-abortion movements to the corresponding United States pro-life movement.
I have gone ahead and changed the link. StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repped by[edit]

Daleiden is represented by the Thomas More Society pro bono

Also, the Life Legal Defense Foundation (Napa, CA) put out a press release today saying they represent him

Jared Woodfill is reportedly his lawyer on the criminal charges in Texas

64.134.64.190 (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scheme vs Plan[edit]

Binksternet recently reverted the change of the word "scheme" to "plan" in the "Pro-life controversy" section. The word "scheme" has negative connotations according to various dictionary sources [1][2] with the Cambridge definition [3] stating as a noun "a scheme is also a secret and dishonest plan" or as a verb a scheme is "to make a plan, esp. a secret and dishonest one". In the effort to be neutral, I think that using the word "scheme" implies a negative connotation, while the word "plan" is more unbiased. In an effort to provide a neutral point of view per the Biographies of Living Persons guidelines [4], I think the word "plan" is more neutral and I propose we revert the change back to the word "plan". Further, writing the word "scheme" because of it's negative cannotations per various dictionaries could perhaps be original research since none of the three citing references uses this word. I also can find no definition which equates "purposely fraudulent" to "scheming action" which was the comment left by Binksternet, which I am assuming was his reasoning for reverting the change . Jdmoore2004 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no comment since April 28th, I am changing to the word "plan" to be in line with the Biographies of Living Persons policy that there should be a neutral point of view [5]Jdmoore2004 (talk)

References

  1. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scheme
  2. ^ http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scheme
  3. ^ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/scheme
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

ORIGINAL RESEARCH / SUBJECTIVE OPINION in the "Pro-life controversy" section[edit]

In the "Pro-life controversy" section, there was a sentence which read: "While it is true that the videos were edited in order to portray Planned Parenthood negatively, the Guardian did not note that the full unedited videos are also readily available, wherein the surrounding conversation can be viewed, and it can be seen that no statements are made which negate or alter the meanings of what was said in the edited versions of the videos." The only reference/source given for this SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of what "can be seen" was a link to a YouTube site of the videos themselves. ("Full footage of the Daleiden conversations with Planned Parenthood, The Center for Medical Progress") This INTERPRETATION is, therefore, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and I have removed it.

(The subjective interpretation given (now removed) was also WRONG (this is my personal opinion which I am NOT putting into the article, because it is only my personal interpretation, but I am putting it here in (parentheses) for anyone who may be interested). I carefully compared the two versions of the interview with Dr. Mary Gatter. The short, edited version purported to show "haggling", and CMP described it as "haggling", but the full-length raw-footage shows that Dr. Gatter immediately accepted the "buyer"'s very first offer, and changed the subject without making any attempt whatsoever to increase the compensation, even though the "buyer" attempted to trick her into trying to increase it, by referring to the first offer as a "start[ing point]" ("I'd like to start with...."). Also, the short, edited version purported to show Dr. Gatter offering to violate the law against changing from one abortion procedure to another procedure in order to get better specimens, but the full-length raw-footage shows that she went out of her way to AVOID violating, or promising to violate, that law, even in the most trivial, superficial way.)

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I am adding EXTERNAL LINKS to the videos and transcripts, and mentioning them in the "Pro-life controversy" section; interested readers can make their own subjective judgements about how faithful the edited versions are to the full-length raw footage. Enjoy. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never proven false[edit]

An editor has been trying to insert the statement "The videos themselves have never been conclusively proven false." This is unsourced, and would in fact require some definition of "false"; if one were to edit it in a misleading way, is that false? Or need there be some faked content? As something unsourced, it shouldn't be here, but even if it were suorced, we'd have to be specific about what they were saying. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced commentary contrary to facts has been reversed twice by me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now semi-protected. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing in "Anti-abortion Activities" section?[edit]

All three sources relating to the review Mr. Daleiden commissioned of his footage come from biased sources. One is Canada Free Press, which has among other things published climate change denial conspiracy theories. One is the Christian Broadcasting Network, which has a specifically Christian and right-wing agenda. One is the website of Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization which in the past has faced lawsuits for harassment of abortion clinic users. These may be helpful sources, but should they be the only sources there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:4092:4A58:1055:8A03:7188:D2B2 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pro-life/anti-abortion[edit]

An IP editor @208.76.113.4: has repeatedly tried to replace the spin term "pro-life" with the direct, specific term "anti-abortion", and it's clear that the subject is known for his opposition to abortion and his work on the anti-abortion cause. Making the changes even more problematic is that their edits have repeatedly moved this article into the category Category:American pro-life activists, a category which is meant to be kept empty (which you will see if you click on that link.) I am undoing the edit. These changes should not be reinstated until consensus has been reached via discussion to do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist source[edit]

I removed a section on a lawsuit that was sourced to the website The Federalist. It is clear in this discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard that the site is considered of low reliability, and this because of particular issue in Biography of Living Persons-related material, particularly since this content was used to make critical statements of a living person. The material should not be reinstated without a sufficiently reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Daleiden&oldid=1206866685"