Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Big changes without consensus or discussion

I am troubled to see that as soon as page protection expired, someone went ahead and substantially re-wrote the article without any discussion and without first gaining consensus, and included a bunch of content which several other users had previously raised strong objections to. I'm not going to revert for now but encourage everyone to post their thoughts on this revision. In my view, whole sections of the new revision are not NPOV and need to be removed. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned, this edit is very troubling as no discussion was carried out despite a near 2x increase in article size. There was a considerable amount of Npov content added that was not reviewed at all.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a disingenuous argument, CFCF. You did not make a single edit to the draft of this article that existed for the last week while it was under protection. You had full notice that it was there, as there is a whole section on this talkpage dedicated to it, and it was referenced several times elsewhere. You made no effort to work on the draft, and yet object to what was in it. I really don't want to get into an edit war, but it is not fair to put in zero effort for a week, and then object when changes are made. You had ample opportunity to make edits along way and for whatever reason chose not to. Now you simply wants to delete material you don't like, in violation of the WP:Editing Policy and WP:Preserve. That is not a constructive attitude. I am reverting, and encourage you, and anyone else, to make edits to the content. Please do not simply wholesale delete it, however. Let's work on this together. --BrianCUA (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Article protected for another two weeks. And restored last version before protection ended. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. Brian - I appreciate the work that you put into it, but the sandbox version seems to have major problems to me. It still makes gratuitous use of sensationalistic quotes from the video, it still does way too much direct quoting of Daleiden, and it still implies that things which are actually very questionable (eg, "born alive infants") are true. I suggest that we stick to the usual/standard method of discussion and editing a page during protection this time around, which is to actually discuss it here, and to make protected edit requests if and when we can agree on a revision. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it really tried and true, Fyddle? In the Financial Aspects section that was proposed, not a single other editor made a comment, edit, or contribution of any kind. Much of the Court orders section was poking holes with no effort at moving the ball forward. Then I proposed working on the article as a whole in sandbox mode, and no one objected. I went forward working on a draft, and no one objected. Now, suddenly, there is an objection. I am all for having you and everyone else work on the draft. Together we can really improve it. But where were you all in the last week? --BrianCUA (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, no one objected but no one participated either. The normal way to reach article consensus is by incrementally editing the article directly without discussion. The normal flow is WP:BRD but making a 34,000+ character edit without input is not consensus editing, and is above and beyond bold. Having Doc James lock this article is intimidating because he is one of the ten members of the Wikimedia Foundation. Two of the other 10 are Jimbo Wales (the alleged founder of Wikipedia) and Guy Kawasaki (a former rockstar employee of Apple and Garage.com). Doc James has written books on the importance of and on the editing of Wikipedia and has introduced Wikipedia to the classroom. Your extreme editing and its reversion are the reason this page is once again blocked. Checkingfax (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

My actions here have nothing to do with my outside work User:Checkingfax. I have protected this page as would any admin that sees problems reoccur so quickly after protection has been lifted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, I appreciate much of your work. You do quality work and are quite thorough. I also AGF that your intentions were good with the draft, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a controversial article. I have never seen a draft of a controversial article work when it has not had the active participation of most of the existing editors who are watching the page. No one is obligated to watchlist a draft. It may as well be in personal userspace. It has no weight.

In the future, please make smaller edits, and if there is any possibility of controversy, either develop it into a consensus version on the talk page first, or immediately do so after someone reverts your bold edit, IOW follow BRD. It disappoints me that you tried to restore your huge version after it had been reverted. You need to keep in mind that the spirit of BRD always applies, even if it isn't directly invoked. Now the article is protected again. I hope you, and everyone, learns a lesson from this.

This article will always be controversial, so editing must be extremely collaborative, and development should occur here on the talk page.

BTW, I didn't even know that draft page existed. I now see that it was mentioned ONCE above, and that only one other editor commented, and consequently that editor was the only other editor to do anything (two non-edits) there. You were the sole creator of all that content. That's not a good sign. There was no active collaboration happening with other editors. Bringing that content here was like dropping a surprise bomb on them. They will obviously reject something like that. That meant you were the only one with a vested interest in protecting that content from deletion. If multiple other editors had been involved, you would be able to rest because many other editors would protect it from vandalism and deletion. That's the advantage when nearly everyone at the negotiating table have created a consensus version. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bull, and I appreciate the work you have done here as well. I'm not sure what more I could have done to advertise the draft, however. You even thanked me for one of my edits suggesting that we work on it, yet claim you didn't know about it. Additionally, as I pointed out above, not a single edit or thought was offered on the proposed text relating to the Financial Aspects, and no one proposed any other text as something we could work on. No one has gone to work on the draft since the article was re-protected. I can't force people to work on it. What more should I have done? --BrianCUA (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, since I tend to read editing/contribution histories and diffs before reading actual finished content (plenty of exceptions though), I may not have realized you were referring to a draft somewhere else and just assumed you were going to start such work on the talk page. I don't recall knowing about that section.

Sometimes I check a lot of Wikipedia information rather quickly. That's because I have a huge watchlist, which shows the last edits for the last three days. Currently it says: "You have 6,228 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I've been up over 10,000 at times, which is over 20,000 pages being watched, many of them controversial. Today that list contains just over 600 items. That leaves room for missing lots of things, simply because I don't check every item.

I think that we can just go forward and learn that using drafts in other locations than the talk page is rarely a good idea. I've seen a few instances where it did work, but they were uncontroversial situations where many editors did the work together. The collaboration aspect was high, and that's good insurance of later acceptance. I do feel sorry for you that you got the reaction you did. I'm sure that was a shock. I've been there many times, and it's very disappointing. One does a lot of hard work and then it gets rejected. I think you should not see it as each part of that whole edit being rejected. It could all be excellent and still get rejected when presented as a whole. Editors tend, and rightly so, to be suspicious of such large edits, because we do know that POV pushers tend to hide controversial changes within such huge additions.

In principle, but likely not in practice, you might have achieved an acceptance of all of it if it had been done in piecemeal fashion. Try that in the future, either on the talk page or by direct editing, but being careful to always follow BRD, even when it's not invoked. Otherwise....keep up the good work! We may not always see eye to eye, but that doesn't keep me from recognizing that you're an excellent editor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad someone as good as you is keeping an eye on so many controversial articles. As I've said several times, I tend to stay away from them, but this topic really caught my attention. I don't know what the other editors' reasons for not participating in the draft process is, but I don't think it is my fault that another editor's watchlist is so long that they missed the announcement, or any of the subsequent mentions. I'll say it again, just for good measure: You can edit Draft:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy while the article is under protection, so a consensus version will be ready when the protection lifts.

Additionally, I did make lots of small edits. Lots and lots of them. I even complained here when my many small edits were deleted in one fell swoop, which little explanation and no specificity, which led to the page protection. I then made lots of small edits on the draft. I tried to use edit summaries the whole way in both places. It didn't matter. Both times a single editor came in and undid all my small edits in one huge deletion.

Why is it OK for one editor to make a massive deletion, but not another to make a large addition when all the small adds can be seen along the way? Why is no one calling him out for deleting large amounts of material in a single edit, instead of making lots of little deletions? (Again, I point to WP:Preserve.) Having a week's worth of work wiped out in a single edit is frustrating, but the double standard is worse.

Moving forward, I still believe the draft is the better option, since the news is flowing fast enough, and the article is long enough, that doing it piecemeal doesn't seem feasible. What if material from "Court Orders" is thought to be better suited for "Financial Aspects," but we are not working on the latter section at the time? I am going to continue to work on the draft, and I encourage everyone else to join me. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If you make 20-30 small edits over a period of 6 hours without any input you've made a very large alteration to the article. This is a controversial article and it is very unlikely that such behavior will be productive–please use the talk page and make edit requests in the same way others are.

The draft has the exact same issues with major edits over a short period; others simply can't keep up. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS–we don't need to be on top of things the day they are out–and most of us have other commitments and time-zones making it impossible to take part of discussion when you see fit. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The draft was created over the course of a week. In that time, every edit adding more than 500kb was adding references. Read, small edits over a long time frame. That should not be too difficult for you to keep up. And, remember, time zones work both ways. I may edit while you are sleeping, but that means you will also be editing while I am asleep. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, you're not listening well enough. (Most of the following is in reference to potentially controversial content.) If you want to work on the draft page, go for it, but then place small portions (a sentence or very short paragraph) to their own section here, not directly to the article (unless they are uncontroversial). Then let all who watchlist this page decide whether they like it and work on it. When a consensus is reached, then add that short portion to the article. This isn't a crazy way to do it, since you will probably have worked out major bugs and found some good references before presenting it to others. I often do this on my own talk page (without saving it). If the preparatory work is done carefully, there is a very good chance it will be accepted as is, or at least with minimal tweaking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Bull. I am just not getting it. Could you please explain to me what the objection to working on the draft is? I have already explained why I think working in small sections here would be difficult: "the news is flowing fast enough, and the article is long enough, that doing it piecemeal doesn't seem feasible. What if material from "Court Orders" is thought to be better suited for "Financial Aspects," but we are not working on the latter section at the time?" Why do you, or anyone else, think the draft is a bad idea? --BrianCUA (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, Bull, what is your objection? --BrianCUA (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, I've already explained enough, so here's a summary: You're welcome to keep working on your draft, but don't attempt to transfer any of it that could be even slightly controversial (to others, not to you) directly to the article without running it by this talk page first. Consensus is achieved here, not somewhere else. That way we can avoid another lock down caused by your bold editing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, are you grepping the incremental article updates in to the draft as the updates are incorporated in to the article? Are the draft and article synced in near realtime? Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I speak for a number of editors when I reacted to the fact that the first thing to happened to the draft was a reintroduction of all the disputed content. Few would think it fruitful to get into an edit-war over a draft–so I suppose they chose to ignore it. Drafts do not work well on controversial topics, stay at talk and make a minor, well-thought through additions so that they can be discussed. Your draft is unlikely to be successful this time either.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, per my last comment above, I totally agree. Consensus and collaboration occur here, not elsewhere. We don't need more lock downs. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note: I have created a legitimate sockpuppet account to edit this article from here on out. Same Brian, different account.

Cheking: I'm not sure what you mean by "grepping," but yes, I am incorporating the changes suggested here on talk into the draft. See, for example, this edit.

CFCF - By the time protection is lifted, the article is going to be a month out of date. I know that this is not news, but it will be far from comprehensive, either. Additionally, making "minor" additions does not address the concern I've raised several times on this talk page, that a sentence that may be objectionable in one section may be totally appropriate in another, but working one sentence at a time it will never find it's way there. We can collaboratively move it in the draft, however. Finally, I have made many small edits. You have only made large reversions. The advice to make "minor, well-thought through additions" would be better recieved coming from someone else. --BoruBrian (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for addition to "Other Outcomes" section

Early in the morning September 4, 2015, the Pullman Planned Parenthood clinic in Washington State outlet was attacked by means of arson. The incident is being investigated by the Federal terrorism task force.

HandsomeMrToad (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Reuters "Fire at Washington state Planned Parenthood ruled arson". Reuters. 5 Sep 2015.

-- Callinus (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The article puts the arson in the context of the protests, but doesn't directly link them. If they catch the person who did this, and it comes out that the arsonist was motivated by the videos, then I would support inclusion. --BoruBrian (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, all we have to do is state that it was in relation–and there are plenty more sources that make the connection. We present it in the way the sources do, as "likely to be related". -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you could find a reliable source where an official says they "likely to be related" then I would support inclusion. Everything I've read on the topic says the motive is unknown. --BoruBrian (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

All three of the linked articles at the top do this. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the three sources HandsomeMrToad cited? I don't see any officials in there saying that the fire was related to the videos. --BoruBrian (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Legal problems for CMP

Legal Problems Are Piling Up For The Activists Behind Abortion Videos

BullRangifer (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There is some good stuff in there, if true, but I can't seem to find a RS (I don't consider BuzzFeed a RS on anything except cat videos and "17 ways to know X") for some of the information in there. A Google News search for ""center for medical progress" "conspiracy to defraud,"" for example, didn't come up with much. --BoruBrian (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

These all mention it:

• http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/08/27/colorados-anti-choice-attorney-general-wont-investigate-planned-parenthood/
• http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/07/27/group-behind-planned-parenthood-attack-videos-sees-scrutiny-california-attorney-general/
• http://schakowsky.house.gov/press-releases/schakowsky-lofgren-nadler-and-clarke-send-letter-to-attorneys-general-asking-for-investigation-into-center-for-medical-progress/
• http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article28666714.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/videos-deceptively-edited-planned-parenthood-tells-congress/2015/08/27/5633612c-4cdd-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html
• http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVk3HDyuhhkPMnFMCvK5fVC8%3d

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, CFCF. Above you agreed with the statement by Fyddlestix that "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." You oppose using one of the oldest newspapers in the country, but are OK with using Reproductive Health Reality Check? We can't highlight a quotation from CMP, but can from PP? I get that sources can be WP:BIASED, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. --BoruBrian (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are referring to. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You agreed with this comment. --BoruBrian (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you mean, and neither have you specified which newspaper you are talking about.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:28, 11 September 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)

This footage is not full or unedited. They released 30 minutes of the Texas video a month later after being called out by Planned Parenthood.

174.116.71.90 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Including draft additions

Since we're nearing the end of the page-protection I think we need to discuss whether we want to introduce the additions made in the personal draft of User:BrianCUA (public-sock User:BoruBrian) at Draft:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy.
Note: The draft is solely the work of the creator, with no content edits by others users. The same user continued to expand it after repeatedly being told that doing so was unlikely to bear fruit. The additions were previously not included because they were considered WP:NPOV, and as far as I see there is no indication anything has changed.
@BullRangifer:, @HandsomeMrToad:, @Checkingfax:, @Fyddlestix:, @BrianCUA:

Clarification This RfC also refers to partial additions.

• Oppose per nomination rational. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I was actually going to comment on this later. It is true, no one else has worked on the draft. However, neither has anyone else offered any suggestions here on the talk page (aside from a few small changes, which I have incorporated into the draft) for proposed text moving forward. After the experience last time, I did not intend to replace the entire article with the entire draft. My intent was and is to work on it a section at a time. When the protection lifts, the article will have been protected for a month. Much has happened in the last month, including the release of several new videos, large protests around the country, a fire bombing, a crazy proposal to shut down the government gaining steam, Congressional and state investigations, etc. What I was going to propose later today, but will instead do here, is to replace the current section on CMP's videos (as far down as the first subsection, financial aspects) with the draft version of the same section. We can work on that, and when a consensus emerges then move on to the next next section, and then the next, and so on. Also, since I am trying to separate the accounts, I would ask that you only refer to me as BoruBrian in discussions here. --BoruBrian (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - absolutely not. The editor who made that draft has a clear bias against Planned Parenthood. Any proposed changes that come from that draft need to first be discussed on this talk page. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - BoruBrian, First off the ping to me never came up in my message queue. 2nd I think it's dangerous to blank and overstrike a whole article. Let's work on it here, or you can roll it out with microedits. I really appreciate all your hard work and integrity. Checkingfax (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I share the concerns expressed above. Propose any potentially controversial edits here first, and wait for a consensus. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - per reasons stated above. 2601:740:8103:81E0:B83B:5FAC:B943:974A (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apologies for the improperly signed opinion above, I wasn't signed in before. Opposed, major changes to the article should first be discussed on the talk page. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 14:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Using any part of Brian's draft without a thorough discussion and clear consensus. I just went through their draft "financial" section below and it appears to me to be very misleading and POV. This needs to be scrutinized and discussed before any of it can be included in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I must concur with the previous users, this draft is not ready to be implemented wholesale but rather should be discussed and perhaps parts could be used to improve the article. Aparslet (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit

As I announced I was going to do four days ago, I replaced the first section of this article with the text below. It has been reverted twice, with no attempts to improve the prose in any way. It was simply deleted. While I have stated numerous times why I don't think going section by section through this article is the best way to proceed, I don't know what the alternative is. So, here is what I propose. How would you improve it?

The Center for Medical Progress videos consisted of portions of secretly recorded, hours-long conversations between actors hired by the Center for Medical Progress and high-ranking Planned Parenthood officials, including Deborah Nucatola, Melissa Farrell, Savita Ginde, and Mary Gatter, as well as tissue procurement companies StemExpress and Novogenix Laboratories. The actors, including Daleiden, posed as representatives of a non-existent company called Biomax Procurement Services, presenting themselves as potential buyers of fetal tissues and organs.

The Center for Medical Progress claims that it has "hundreds if not thousands of hours of recordings," which is enough for 12 videos. The videos were made over a period of 30 months, and have been released at a pace of about one a week. The purpose of the periodic release has been to increase exposure, including media coverage, and to give them staying power beyond the “contemporary 24-hour news cycle.” Daleiden has also said for a "topic this complex and multilayered" that the public would not able able to absorb it in a single “multiterabyte data dump.”

In addition to the videos which are edited down to show the most salient points, the Center for Medical Progress also simultaneously released footage of the hours long conversations they had with Planned Parenthood and StemExpress executives. Planned Parenthood claims that the "full footage" versions of the first four videos are not complete, but the Center for Medical Progress says the gaps are "bathroom breaks and waiting periods."

The videos have drawn attention to what the New York Times has said is a little known practice that fall in an ethically gray zone, "the buying, selling and research use of fetal tissue acquired from abortion clinics."

Thank you. --BoruBrian (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi BoruBrian, in order to have a productive discussion you should post a link to the section as it currently stands in the article so editors can compare your changes. Also, please explain your rationale for the proposed changes. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The changes I am proposing can be seen in this dif. This section sets up an overview of the videos, with the specific ethical issues they raise in the subsections below. --BoruBrian (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the diff you provided and the changes you propose are not an improvement in my opinion. We can wait to get more feedback. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? That's not particularly helpful feedback. --BoruBrian (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RfCs have to be dated or signed to be effective

There is an RfC above but it is not (ether/or) dated or signed. Here's what WP has to say about empowering an RfC:

“ Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template. Do not begin the statement with a wikilink, as this may cause formatting errors. Sign the statement with ~~~~ (name and date) or ~~~~~ (just the date). Failing to provide a date will cause a bot to remove your discussion from the pages that notify interested editors of RFCs. ”

AFAIK you can't go back later and sign it. Checkingfax (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense, signed by nominator. Also we don't close on technicalities – see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. CFCF 💌 📧 13:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed new financial section

I would like to propose the following as a replacement for the Financial aspects section. Given that the page has been under protection for a month, there is a lot of new material. As always, I would appreciate any constructive edits or comments. --BoruBrian (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Financial aspects

The Center for Medical Progress presents the videos as evidence of Planned Parenthood engaging in the illegal sale of fetal tissue and organs. Planned Parenthood 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." The fourth video shows Savita Ginde, vice president and medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, worrying that what she and the undercover activists are doing will be perceived as "selling fetal parts across states."

Federal law prohibits making a profit from the organs and tissue, but is silent on how much can be charged for processing and shipping. In the abortion facilities where they work together, staff from Advanced BioScience Resources, an outside middleman, are usually right outside the door and take possession of the fetus immediately after it is aborted. According to Daleiden, who rejected the notion that Planned Parenthood is looking to recoup their costs, “literally the only thing the clinic is doing is carrying the fetus from the operation to the [non-Planned Parenthood] tech." Daleiden told Congress that because ABR “handles all dissection, packaging, and shipping of fetal organs and tissues, ...it is unclear for what [Planned Parenthood] could be receiving ‘reimbursement.’”

Much of the second video showed Mary Gatter, the Planned Parenthood medical director in Southern California, spoking with actors posing as potential buyers of intact fetal specimens about how much money the buyers should pay. She said she was 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 adds that "we're not in this for the money."

VanDerhei said that independent abortion facilities "generate a fair amount of income" from selling fetal tissue and organs to procurement companies, and that it was "really helpful" for the facilities that had small "margins." She added that abortion providers as an industry are trying to determine how to "manage remuneration" for the fetal organs they provide. Another official is quoted as saying that Biomax "wants to give our organization money for the tissue. I think that that’s a valid exchange and that that’s OK."

Robert P. George, a conservative law professor at Princeton University, believes that Planned Parenthood overcharges for the shipping and processing of the fetail tissues and organs as an "end run" around the law, so as to be "selling while pretending not to sell.” 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," saying that "$30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee." 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."

Financial incentives

A flier from the company states that abortion facilities who partner with StemExpress, as Planned Parenthood did, "will also be contributing to the fiscal growth of your own clinic." Cate Dyer, CEO of StemExpress, told the buyers that she gained business for her company by explaining that their rival did not pay for the fetal organs and tissue, but that StemExpress would. Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director, and now a pro-life activist, appeared in a video saying the sale of fetal tissue and organs made her branch about $120,000 a month.

Dyer also spoke about her company's relationship with Planned Parenthood, which she says is the largest single provider of fetal tissue for research. “Planned Parenthood has volume, because they’re a volume institution,” Dyer says. Farrell also told the buyers that "everyone realizes... [that] my department [research] contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization."

Holly O'Donnell, a 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. She stated an "incentive to try and get the hard stuff ‘cause you’re going to get more money." O'Donnell added that her employer received a percentage of the fees Planned Parenthood collected from the organs and tissues.

In a statement accompanying the eighth video, the Center for Medical Progress called StemExpress the "weakest link" and that they "readily admit the profit motive." The video showed clips from StemExpress' website that boasted of its ability to help abortion facilities become financially profitable by giving tissue from aborted fetuses.

Daleiden has also alleged that "Planned Parenthood illegally uses partial-birth abortions 'to harvest higher quality fetal organs for sale.'" Farrell said in one video 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." In a statement, Planned Parenthood strongly denied the charges saying, "Planned Parenthood follows all laws -- period." They have also said the video in which Farrell appears "doesn’t show Planned Parenthood staff engaged in any wrongdoing or agreeing to violate any legal or medical standards."

Prices

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. Gatter and the buyers, however, discuss price points for the tissues and organs from the aborted fetuses without any discussion of the actual costs involved in procurement. According to Richards, her organization receives about $50 per specimen.

The ninth video shows that Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABS), a tissue procurement company that works with Planned Parenthood, was willing to pay $550 for an intact fetus. In 2013, a price sheet from ABS said it would pay up to $300 for a specimen from a second trimester fetus, and $515 for a first trimester fetus. The eighth video also showed that Planned Parenthood received up to $75 from StemExpress per body part from the aborted fetuses. Tissue brokering middlemen often mark up the price, sometimes by 10 times.

References

References

I see multiple problems here

Just looking at the "Financial Aspects" section:

• Everything in the second paragraph of the "financial aspects" section should be struck - it places undue weight on Daleiden/CMP's opinions, and on the coverage of a openly partisan source. The assumption that because BioScience reps receive the tissue immediately, there is little cost to PP is dubious; either it's Daleiden/CMP's opinion (in which case including it is probably undue weight) or it's OR. The cited article doesn't make that connection.
• In the third paragraph, in that same section, if we're going to include Gatter's statements about "price" and "lowball" figures, then we should also include her clear statement (from the very same source), that “we’re not in this for the money,” and the source (the Washington Post's) comment that she "repeatedly says profit is not the motive. 'The money is not important,' she says at one point." We could also include Art Caplan's statement that if CMP wants to show that Planned Parenthood "sell baby parts," he's "not sure you get this from this tape.” Again, from the same source. In general, the information presented in that paragraph is cherry-picked to reflect negatively on PP, this needs to be fixed before being included in the article.
• The fourth paragraph should be completely removed - VanDerhei's comment is about other abortion providers (who aren't PP), and general comments about this area of law/service. The last quote is taken out of context to suggest a profit motive where there's no evidence that one exists, it's been misleadingly used here.
• The fifth paragraph of that section looks ok, but we should not Robert George's reputation for pro-life and conservative activism there, it's important context.

In general, it seems like quotes/examples have been cherry picked here, I oppose including this in the article as written, but with the changes outlined above I might support it. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

These are some valid concerns, Fyddlestix, and I tried updating the text to reflect them. With regard to the second paragraph, it has sources from The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Washington Times. Remember that while we have to be NPOV, sources can be WP:BIASED. Indeed, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Additionally, every claim Daleiden makes is clearly attributable to him, and it is not in WP's voice. Per WP:YESPOV, we are supposed to describe the disputes. CMP is making this claim, and it isn't undue to include it.

I included the additional quotation from Gatter, and added that George is a conservative. The VanDerhei quotation is clearly applicable as it is setting a context for their discussion. With regard to the last quotation, how do you know no profit motive exists? We don't need proof one way or the other to include it. Again, we are here to describe the controversy, not engage in it.

Finally, I'm a little surprised by your wanting to include Caplan, since you earlier said that you thought his inclusion here was excessive. Given the number of other videos that have come out since then, I'm not sure that quote is appropriate anymore, but I'm not opposed to an outside voice in a RS defending PP. Good thoughts, though, and thanks for them. --BoruBrian (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Then, in the "Financial Incentives" section:

• The lead sentence doesn't necessarily/exclusively apply to PP. It should be removed.
• Ditto the second sentence. Where is the evidence that she's referring to Planned Parenthood? Where is the evidence that them paying means that PP profits? That is what is being implied, but I see no evidence to support that.
• Last sentence of first paragraph: Abby Johnson is a pro-life activist and must be identified as such in-text any time she is quoted. Anything she says/implies need to be clearly attributed and her bias noted. This was in the text before, I can't imagine why anyone would think it was a good idea to take it out unless they were deliberately trying to support an anti-PP POV.
• Third paragraph: Holly O'Donnell's comments are pretty dodgy in my opinion - she only worked for SE for a short time and multiple RS have cast doubt on her comments. Personally I question whether she should be quoted at all, but if she is, then the sources/information that cast doubt on the reality/reliability of her assertions also need to be mentioned & cited clearly.
• Fourth paragraph: Undue weight for CMP's un-verified assertions, should be scrapped. This article is not CMP's soapbox, there's no need to directly quote them this much.
• Fourth paragraph, second sentence: again, no evidence that PP is what is being referred to, or that this implies profit/sale of parts on PP's part. Not relevant, should be removed.
• Fifth paragraph, first sentence: again, directly quoting Daleiden's allegation (which we have no evidence is true) - this is undue weight. At the very least, this should be coupled with the many denials of this that PP has made, and with the multiple RS that have cast doubt on the claim, and on Daleiden's reliability. Farrell's comments need to be similarly contextualized - a lot of RS have cast doubt on the allegation that her comments imply alteration of procedures/sale of parts. That should be noted.

Finally, I don't really seem the point of the "prices" section at all - it seems to be using SYNTH (discussion of what is often charged/payed by various parties for fetal parts) in order to imply that PP makes a profit, when - again - we have no actual evidence that that's true.

Overall, this draft seems to have been written to support a POV using cherry-picked quotes, selective use of sources, and misleading lack of context. It also places undue weight on CMP/Daleiden's statements and opinions. For all of these reasons I oppose using any of this unless it is substantially altered to comply with NPOV. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(Interjected) Again, good thoughts, Fyddlestix. Thank you. I have made some edits to the text to try to address your concerns. Again, I will say though that we are here to describe the controversy. We do not, and cannot, prove anything one way or the other. Much of what you objecting to is including claims that PP did something wrong. We provide the information, and let readers come to their own conclusions. If we don't include something because it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then we aren't doing our job. Likewise, if CMP makes a claim, and PP has evidence to refute it, and we don't include that, we aren't doing our job either. I have tried to make some changes to address your concerns. Do you want to add the information casting doubt on O'Donnell, or putting Farrell's comments into context? I just reread the source for Farrell's quotation and didn't see anything that cast doubt on the implication that her comments imply alteration of procedures/sale of parts, aside from a statement from PP. As a gesture of good faith, I've added that as well. --BoruBrian (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose inclusion of these sections into the article at all. The text is incredibly POV and, having read through the relevant sources, what is written above has been very cherry-picked from the sources to support the authors obvious POV. This is mislea eveding to readers and I'm notn convinced of its importance to the article itself. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 15:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree. A more helpful approach would be to edit what is already in the article. If there are new events, new sources, and new wordings, discuss them here and we can tweak the existing content, and do it in much smaller samples. The consequences and implications of total content replacement is simply too hard to analyze. The analyses above are still quite good and are generally legitimate objections. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add a comment about AGF. Brian is a careful and good editor, and I don't think that he has deliberately tried to slant things against PP. This is natural and the reason why we edit collaboratively. The best content is created through collaboration between editors who hold opposing POV. We balance each other and end up with more NPOV content. We can't do it alone. We all have unconscious biases which influence how we see things and edit. It's normal, and even the most experienced editors do it. This is also why creating a draft by oneself and trying to then substitute it in toto generally doesn't work. This needs to be done in much smaller portions on the talk page with other editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, BullRangifer. I'll point out that everything in this proposed text was added in small sections. People simply chose not to edit the draft as we went along. I can't help that. However, that isn't a good reason not to move forward. Fyddlestix had some very good, very specific concerns. Those can be addressed. More general "I don't like this" type comments don't help move the ball forward at all. --BoruBrian (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

September 17 lead restructuring

I have rebuilt the lead to avoid WP:BIAS and ensure no POV. The first paragraph simply states the facts, and uses formal names for all involved parties. It states what happened, and invovled parties. The second includes both parties' responses, and are sourced. The third paragraph plainly describes the political situations. By using 'edited' in the first sentence, it affects to dismiss the videos as misleading, that is a POV. This is an ongoing issue, why I used 'Starting in July 2015...' The phrase "Human Capital Project" is the official name which CMP uses for their investigative project, and should be included. As these are videos, the image shows a header and video titlecard for the viewer, to understand the nature of the videos.   Spartan7W §   02:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This was challenged and removed, it should not have been restored without consensus. Personally I oppose the removal of "edited" since the vast majority of RS describe the videos as such. I've also read the coverage of this in major newspapers quite religiously, and not once do I ever remember seeing a discussion of the "human capital project." I would argue that both this and the logo you've selected place undue weight on CMP's narrative/framing of the videos, in a way that is contrary to how most RS handle the controversy. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the new lead is a lot crisper. Checkingfax (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have restored consensus version of lead. This doesn't seem to be getting mainstream coverage. I did a google news search of "Human Capital Project" and only found hits on pro-life sites. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this name is certainly not for the lede, possible it can go somewhere in the body, but it is otherwise WP:UNDUE. CFCF 💌 📧 07:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This lead does has WP:BIAS. The lead should describe what the purpose of CMP's investigation was, but it doesn't do that. To me, it seems like a defense of PP.   Spartan7W §   14:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to suggest an addition here on the talk page. CFCF 💌 📧 14:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The idea of removing bias and POV from any part of an article, including the lead, must be approached with extreme caution. Such attempts are often based on a misunderstanding of NPOV, which does not refer to keeping content free of bias and POV, but refers to editorial neutrality; if some content introduces unsourced editorial bias, POV, and editorializing, then by all means fix it. If the bias and POV are from RS, then do not remove it. That would be editorial censorship and a violation of NPOV.

We are supposed to preserve the spirit, bias, and POV of our sources, and if the mainstream sources have a certain bias, then the whole article should lean in that direction because most of the best sources lean in that direction. We don't allow a false balance here. All opinions are not of equal value. Truth does have a bias (and research shows it's generally a liberal one.[1][2] ) -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that liberal commentators can be used to substantiate 'liberal bias' of facts.   Spartan7W §   15:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That last part is my own interjection, so don't let that get us off topic, as noted by Fyddlestix below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's not get too off topic here - the operative question is, how do the most reliable sources, in aggregate, cover this? Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Most sources do say they are edited videos, but this point is in some terms irrelevant, because I cannot think of an investigative video or documentary which does not edit its large amount of raw footage. To include the fact that they have been edited, and some foreign illustrative content has been added is necessary, but not in the first sentence. To say CMP has no merit whatsoever is POV, it is WP:BIAS, and it does lead the reader to think the entire CMP investigation is worthless, which is neither accurate nor the province of Wikipedia.

If you don't like using the "Human Capital Project", which is not used by media sources, I don't really care, but aside from that inclusion, I cannot think what was wrong with the lead restructuring I did.   Spartan7W §   15:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, videos are normally edited, but the political motivation for the editing clearly resulted in very biased, and even deceptive, content, IOW a misleading final product, designed to portray PP in a false light. That is why there has been so much mention and focus on the fact they were edited. This was very "creative" editing, and numerous sources use strong terms to describe it, and an audit has shown the criticisms are accurate.

Therefore we cannot ignore mention of the editing. It must be mentioned as more than normal editing. CMP had a reason for doing it, and it wasn't just to shorten the videos. Even the videos and transcripts which CMP described as full and complete were doctored. That's serious subterfuge on their part. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The extent, nature and purpose of editing attributed to CMP and described by RS seems to vary depending on the POV of the source. The debate over "highly edited" and reportedly "unedited" longer videos, which CMP also released, should go in the body, not the lead, because the amount of detail needed to discuss this neutrally would require too much detail for the lead, but the lead should clearly state "edited". Edited is clearly expressed by sources covering this controversy. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of U.S. House of Representatives vote to defund PP from lead (??)

The U.S House of Representatives vote to freeze Planned Parenthood funding, pending investigation of these allegations, seems the most significant outcome related to this controversy to date. It seems strange to remove this from lead, even if the vote did occur today. A Congressional vote to freeze funding isn't the sort of thing that takes time to realize if it's significant or not.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Since it has no chance of going anywhere, it's not significant. It was a pointless vote that has no impact on anything. Neosiber (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The deleted text indicated it was not expected to pass in the Senate and Obama's predicted veto in the event that it did. Still, it's clearly notable that the House of Representatives voted to defund Planned Parenthood in response to this controversy. Add to this the discussion of government shutdown over this funding impasse, and I cannot understand arguments suggesting this isn't significant. [3]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Add: although I can live with the current lead, that simply refers to efforts to defund without mentioning any specific votes. The past version which deleted House of Representatives vote to defund, while leaving in text in reference to an earlier vote which failed to pass seemed misleading.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat makes a good point. Successful or not, it's clearly significant enough for mention in the body, but maybe not in the lead. Therefore it should be restored to the body. Ping me if you need help. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a "strong" attack

Carly's attack on PP during the Republican debate was not "strong"; it was vigorous, but weak and sounded hysterical. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What do the sources say about it? Elizium23 (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to go with their editorializing. Just the facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

Checkingfax, these recent changes seem to make the lead less factusl [4]. There was a Senate bill to defund back in August that did not pass and House bill in September to freeze funds for year that did. The word "congressional" in such context typically applies to both Senate and House so "congressional bills" (plural) was accurate. It seems the prior wording should be restored. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing what made Fiorina's statement "mostly false" as opposed to simply false

CFCF, this edit summary seems inaccurate; this information isn't currently located elsewhere in article [5]. Also, it does not seem encyclopedic to describe Fiorina's statements as misleading and rated as "mostly false" without giving any mention to what makes them mostly false instead of completely false. The sources in the article (as well as all the reliable sources I've read discussing this) state that Fiorina was referencing O'Donnell's allegations regarding the brain and heart. It's tricky to word this neutrally, but this clearly seems to belong in the section in some format.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It feels like bloat to go into that much detail on her statement, and I think the rest of the article goes into enough detail concerning her statements. That said I have no strong feelings either way, but maybe it could be stripped down a bit, and then reinserted?
   CFCF 💌 📧 21:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'd like to point to WP:NOTNEWS – we should not try to include everything. If we do that the article will just bloat and become unreadable, it's already at 50,000b – and adding more will make it worse, not better. We should probably think about stripping and shortening things before we add content. CFCF 💌 📧 21:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems like WP:NPOV issue. From a NPOV standpoint, it seems problematic to dedicate a section to what was misleading/false about Fiorrina's statement, but then selectively delete or omit the shade of truth in what she said. Even sources highly critical of Fiorina highlight that shade of truth with respect to what O'Donnell alleged on those tapes.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with BoboMeowCat's concerns. We are not paper and that content is necessary. I personally abhor the subterfuge used against PP by CMP, but we mustn't make Fiorina look worse than she is. She was fooled by CMP's deceptive editing, and because it reinforced her own POV, she bought it, hook, line, and sinker, and apparently embellished on what she actually did see. She did see something in the videos, even though many sources jumped to the conclusion that she totally made it up. No, she didn't. She's still in trouble for her statements, and rightly so, because a presidential candidate should be a better fact checker (and should talk to us next time, because we do know what RS say ). By leaving out that content, we are now being accused of dishonesty. It's a serious sin of omission, and that's really bad. I have coworkers who know I edit here, and some are scolding me for this missing content. They say it's not fair to Fiorina, and they're right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted to faithfully restore and tweak the content so it tells the whole story. I have sought to preserve all the existing content, while fletting in content which was previously deleted. I hope that it's a satisfactory improvement. (It wasn't easy to get it right!) -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Even when Fiorina has been asked about her statements later on, she has not retracted them, so saying she was "fooled" by the editing might be giving her too much benefit of the doubt.Mattnad (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, by failing to admit she went too far, she has only complicated the situation. CMP isn't entirely to blame; she shares some of it. She needs to do better fact checking before making such strong statements. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Correcting basic text errors.

In the first video there is discussion concerning fetal hearts, lungs and livers and efforts to retrieve these organs intact during abortion procedures. She also gave a range of cost estimates for procuring fetal organs.

The subject in the first sentence that "she" referred to (...Nucatola discussed fetal hearts...) was removed 44 days and 200+ edits ago. In that period the page was viewed 20,000 times. Ssscienccce (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Good catch! Since this is the first, and only, mention of her by name in the article, an explanation of her position should also be included. In fact, other names should also be restored. They were deleted some time ago with a BS excuse. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Ssscienccce -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your answer. I didn't imply that the name should be restored, rather that editors have a responsibility to fix elementary grammar mistakes instead of leaving them online and visible to every reader for more than 40 days, and they should do so regardless of content disputes. The purpose of wikipedia is presenting the users with quality articles. Not being able to agree on content is no excuse to neglect the form.

For what it's worth, I think the draft reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry. It uses quotations to present opinions or characterizations without attributing them. Wikipedia can't say inherently subjective statements like "galvanized the anti-abortion movement", "have Planned Parenthood in "full damage control mode", "The videos "have shocked the nation". It has excessive use of quotations, editorializing, and inappropriate tone for an article. But the draft has more factual content and better structure than the online version.

The online version is biased, the "financial aspects" and "reception" sections in particular are one-sided POV. Very few facts are reported, it's all opinion.

The draft is bad in style and tone, but it contains the facts, the online version is useless for readers who want to know what the controversy was/is all about.

Btw, this talk page has a WikiProject Medicine template on top, that doesn't mean WP:MEDRS applies to the article. The controversy centers around allegations of unlawful conduct by part of the medical community; reliable judicial sources/opinions are much more relevant than medical RS. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. I agree the article needs a lot of work, and have tried to clean it up in the past. No time for it just now though - if you see issues, your time is much better spent fixing them than complaining about them on talk. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Full Videos ?

Claims are made in this article that CMP has released the full videos. An NPR report today contradicted that, claiming that the "full videos" released are themselves edited. While NPR isn't anywhere near a Conservative news organization, it is generally reputable and their claim that CMP has not released unedited videos should be addressed. So, my question is: what 3rd party has confirmed that ANY of the released videos are unedited? And if that has actually happened, which videos are they? I might also point out that either the "full" videos are edited, which strongly suggests CMP are liars, or they are not and CMP has actually provided their raw footage. What are the facts? I'd also like to understand what the $30-$100 charge represents, and wtf is a "block" of tissue?? As far as "highly" edited, I'd think "heavily" is more appropriate, but only if it can be shown that Group X claims the video Y is highly edited. (Video Y should have its run time mentioned when referring to it, imho) Since there is no standard definition for what constitutes "highly" or "heavily" editing, we need to rely on quoting opinions of either one side or the other, or preferably independent (neutral) 3rd parties. You do this by writing that "video Y was described by X as heavily edited." rather than "video Y was heavily edited."173.189.74.76 (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The NPR article should be included. CMP has been quoted admitting they edited even the "full length" videos. As for the $30-$100 charge, that's a nominal handling and shipping charge depending on the sample size. That's been covered by several sources, but it involves packaging (including cooling packs) and express courier shipping. For those who doubt this, try to ship a 5 pound package for early delivery and you'll see how much it costs.Mattnad (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that raw footage has only been released of SOME of the videos. None of the raw footage of any of the interviews with Holly O'Donnell have been released. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

These are all valid concerns. Some of this is addressed above, but nothing has been done with the sources there (for example Fusion GPS):

• #Protected edit request on August 28, 2015 (Lede)

Fusion GPS has made a professional audit of the videos and transcripts, and secondary RS have mentioned this. Such content would improve the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)